Main Menu

Flags in Hawaii

Hawaii Flag

Hawaii Flag

A blogger under the name Butterdezillion (BZ from here on) has written an article titled Red Flags in Hawaii about how the actions of Hawaii Department of Health officials should raise red flags about President Obama’s birth. In an earlier article BZ tells the story of their frustration with phone calls and emails to the Hawaii Department of Health trying to get copies of the DoH regulations.

There are two ways of looking at this story. Certainly from BZ’s point of view, it is the story of one lone heroic figure’s  quest for the truth against corrupt government bureaucrats. From the viewpoint of the Hawaii Department of Health, it is probably just the story of just one of a thousand nutty birthers pestering them and preventing them from doing their real jobs. BZ appears to be frustrated and offended, and perhaps for this reason engages in hyperbole when describing what happened while piling up real and imagined slights from the DoH, inflating uncooperativeness on the part of the Department of Health to criminal status.

The Red Flags article really doesn’t make much sense outside of the context of the earlier article, and so I suggest the interested reader read the earlier article first.

So let’s look through BZ’s numbered issues. The following include the statement of the complaint, but not the lengthy explanations, for which I refer readers back to the original article.

1. DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission.

This is simply false, since the rules are publicly available on a state web site, easily located and accessible to anyone. BZ interprets HRS 92F-12 (a) (1), which says:

”Disclosure required – Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:”

to mean that various officials are required to return phone calls and perhaps to email  copies of the regulations to folks. In previous statements on related inquiries, the Department of Health has said that public inspection means that someone has to show up at the Department of Health to make the requested inspection (see citation later on in this article). In any case, the entire episode is rather silly since the Department of Health makes the entire administrative rule set available on its web site. It took me about 12 seconds to find this with a search engine and a commenter on this blog referred to them, including the hyperlink last May, 2009. [I've added the link to my bookmarks page to aid others in the future.]

2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records.

The article fails to cite where the DOH said precisely this, and so it’s not possible to evaluate the claim; however, two points can be discussed. First BZ says: “… a public statement of where someone was born – such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama – is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).” I disagree here because state law does allow disclosure of “index data” and in 1961, the only kinds of births “indexed” by the state were for those born in Hawaii. So stating that someone on the Hawaii birth index was born in Hawaii is not a disclosure. BZ’s second point is that “anyone” can get a non-certified copy of a Hawaiian birth” (citing Chapter 8b, 2.5B) . What the regulation says here is: a “non-certified copy containing only such information listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” The information in section 2.2 is the “index data” and is the information released to newspapers (such as was done for Obama in 1961). The key point here is that the regulation (Chapter 8b, 2.2) specifies the manner in which one requests the disclosure of this information, and BZ did not follow the regulation. The regulation says that the information is available at “State Department of Health, Kinau Hale building or the district offices…”. There’s nothing there about disclosure by phone or responses to email demands. The index data for Obama is also posted on the Department of Health’s Obama FAQ.

3. Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries – a fact the DOH has known since the beginning.

One immediately wonders where this comes from. It starts with the assertion from BZ that “Obama’s Birth Certificate has been amended”. BZ makes the argument in another article, saying: “A denial of access is an admission that a record exists since it is impossible to deny access to something which does not exist.” This is basically word games, in this case a claim that no information is information. The argument BZ makes here is “since they refuse to disclose the amendment, it must exist, and since the COLB doesn’t indicate an amendment, it must be a forgery.”

4. The combination of certificate number and filing date on the Factcheck COLB is not possible.

This is a basic misunderstanding of how records are processed and numbered. It’s been discussed at length on this blog in Where is the Nordyke birth announcement? (Updated) and  Nordyke twins announcement found and subsequent comments.

5. Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement.

The claim of “known forgery” is bogus in the first place, so this assertion has little relevance to the discussion. Generally, a government’s primary responsibility is prosecute crimes not report them to bloggers.

6. The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.

This one is also moot, since there is no evidence of any amendment (nor does BZ explain under what rule an amended regulation becomes defective for legal purposes.)

7. Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony.

Basically the argument is: The Hawaii Department of Health refuses to disclose information about any fees that might have been paid for an amendment; therefore, there must have been an amendment. The rest is further twisted logic about what the amendment would have to have been, none of which is supported by any citation of regulation, and none of which makes sense to me.

8. The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama.

I wasn’t able to follow exactly what BZ meant about the July 11 addendum. What is the case, however, is that BZ mistakenly suggests that the Department of Health stopped issuing certified copies of hospital birth certificates to “protect Obama.” In fact, they stopped issuing such certificates years ago (in 2001 when they went “paperless”).

9. Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay.

There’s no law that constrains what Dr. Fukino may conclude. Further, a birth record that says Obama was born in Hawaii does not require a conclusion on anyone’s part to state that he was born in Hawaii. I don’t have a good way to characterize this BZ’s kind thinking: it is extreme literalism, and it refuses to understand language in ways that it is used in usual conversation and statements, ignoring context.

10. Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.

This was discussed by the DoH in response to the Donofrio/Terri K inquiries. Some of this material is lost since Donofrio’s web site went dark. However, the State asserts that there is no requirement to release this particular documentation. But the basic assertion, that a record protected by law must suddenly be unprotected because of something a  government employee might say is absurd.

11. The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years.

This again is based on the assertion that an amendment exists, and this assertion has no evidence to support it. BZ says: “documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested”, misreading what the rule actually says: “Documents, which are part of
a contested case record, shall be retained at least until the time for any appeal has expired.” There are no documents, amendment or case to begin with, but even if there were, this would not be a “contested case” according to the definition in the rule (11-1-3):

“Contested case” means a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after opportunity for a hearing.

BZ concludes an even dozen flags with:

12. Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses.

Conspiracy theorists construct motives to explain why officials don’t cooperate with their fantasies. Of course, there is nothing Fukino did to warrant any form of discipline, since all of the complaints BZ has made are fantasies.

I thank Butterdezillion for the article, as it has many useful links and has prompted me to improve the bookmarks I provide here. It’s just a shame that all that effort was misguided.

Note: Commenters on the Butterdezillion blog include names that you might recognize: MissTickly, ksdb and jtx.

Print Friendly

448 Responses to Flags in Hawaii

  1. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    It is obvious that you didn’t look at my links.

    For instance, you don’t note that I provided e-mails showing that the DOH would not even say which rules they were following during all that time -much less have them published. You look at it now and say, “The rules are there now so they were there all the time”, when I’ve shown the hassle a lot of us went through to get them there.

    The proof that you didn’t even look at my links is your calling me a “him” when my e-mails have my name on them: Nellie.

    If you can’t get even the basic facts straight – and you did the same thing with every point of mine, not just the first one – then it’s clear you’re not willing to do this issue justice.

    I will approve your pingback in the hopes that as people see what I’ve actually got there, they will see that you are being blatantly dishonest – and in their heart of hearts they will wonder why.

    Instead of waxing philosophical about the pathology of “conspiracy theorists”, some basic honesty about documented facts would be nice.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    If you think I am willing to wade through every stray hyperlink on your web site in case it explains what you’re trying to say, then you have an inflated idea of the importance of your controversy. A concept you failed to grasp in your writing is that one should plainly state the “facts” and the arguments in the article, with links to provide evidence and supporting material, not fragment the argument over many unidentified pages. It may all make sense to you, but it’s not going to make sense to anyone else until you learn to organize your thoughts.

    The links I did go to were those that seemed to support the substantive claims in the article, specifically that Obams’s birth certificate was amended or that Hawaiian officials violated the law. I could care less if you were treated nicely or whether your Obama theories were humored.

    I focused on your “argument”, not your name. Thinking that not bothering to read your name on a linked email somehow invalidates the substantial and well-argued objections to your claims just highlights the errors in thinking that underlay your whole article.

    I will correct the “he” (I thought I had already removed all the gender specific pronouns, but I must have missed a few).

  3. avatar
    Deborah February 13, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    Very good information. I originally wanted to be a birther, it seemed the easy way to fight against this atrocity of an administration, but as you pointed out, their amateur sleuthing and ignorance of the law is just harming their case. Add on top of that the really nutty conspiracy theorists that have joined them (like Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s real father), etc, and you can see this thing has turned into a big circus joke.

    There are other battles to fight. These people want to play investigator, go ahead, but don’t think that many take you seriously outside your little circle. You only do the Right more harm by acting a fool.

  4. avatar
    Deborah February 13, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    What’s funny, BZ went over to Free Republic to try to recruit people to come over here and fight you and figure out a way to respond. He couldn’t even make up a good response on his own. That site is losing all credibility with the birther stuff. They used to be great, but now, just run anyone off who doesn’t agree, calling them “obots”.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    I’ve was banned at Free Republic.

  6. avatar
    aarrgghh February 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    time to break out the guest chairs, doc. you should expect some enthusiastic visitors from freeperville today:


    “Yeeehaaaw! You know you’ve got them on the ropes when they feel like they need to address your post, and then willfully ignore your links in the hopes that no one else will follow them! LOL!”

    “Funny how Dr. Conspiracy missed all that. You must be a genius! =)”

    “Good job, flak, target etc.”

    in psychology, this reaction is known as projection.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    “On the ropes” yeah sure. The actual reason that I wrote a response to this particular page was because my contact “deep birther” asked me to “analyze” it. I figured that I was going to do the work, I might as well publish it.

    At a rough count, there are 33 hyperlinks in that article and that doesn’t count the hyperlinks in the articles linked to. It’s one thing to have 33 hyperlinks to verify what’s being said. It’s altogether different to have to go to 33 hyperlinks to find the argument.

    And besides the irrelevant detail of the gender of the blogger, what did I say that was not true??

  8. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    Unless you live in Hawaii, it’s frankly none of your beeswax, buster (or busterette).

  9. avatar
    Deborah February 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    I can tell you for a fact this birther nonsense is driving people away. There is probably a dozen vocal birthers there who attack anyone who dares question whatever conspiracy of the day they drum up. I have been in contact with a lot of Freepers, including some who signed up way back in 1998 who are sick of the whole thing. One very old time Freeper, bob.j has been working to create a new forum with some media funding to try to create a legitimate alternative that is actual an activism group based on real issues, not just an anti-freerepublic site. Something like that site used to be back in 2000 where they actually did something instead of circle jerk conspiracy theories.

  10. avatar
    reverend wright February 13, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    what is obama hiding?

  11. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Nothing. Can you say the same?

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

    I don’t know how effective it will be but Democrats have seized on the birther issue in one race, and in one fund-raising campaign I know of.

    One crank won’t make much different, cut the more visible ones, like Kerchner, Taitz and Berg, may well keep conservatives divided and progressives united.

  13. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    Well, let me see….

    The DOH did not have their Admin Rules posted until on or about Nov 5, 2009, so you were wrong about that.

    Birth index includes name, gender, and type of event. It doesn’t include place of birth. Fukino’s statement was forbidden.

    Nobody has to go to Hawaii to get a response to UIPA. This is so laughable it’s ridiculous. That’s why I was able to post dozens of UIPA responses.

    I didn’t make up the fact that a denial of access to a record is confirmation of its existence. I gave the OIP Opinion Letters which specifically state this.

    The fact that Hawaii officials have said they don’t have to report known forgery is absolutely significant to anybody who cares about the law. If you find it insignificant it says something about you.

    I gave the Administrative Rules which say that amended certificates lose their prima facie evidentiary value.

    They didn’t stop issuing long-form certificates in 2001. In fact, the revision to what they call a “Certificate of Live Birth” which excludes almost everything is dated October 2008. And you obviously didn’t follow the whole bit about rules changes requiring a public hearing and official approval. Sigh.

    HRS 338-17 says that the evidentiary value of an amended certificate is to be determined by an administrative or judicial body or person WHEN SUCH IS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE. Fukino keeps the records; Obama doesn’t present his certificate to her as evidence.

    And the presumption that the information contained on a certificate is true is what is meant by “prima facie evidence”. An amended record no longer counts as prima facie evidence. This means that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that what is on the certificate is true.

    The law clearly states that records created or maintained for the purpose of making information public MUST be disclosed. The DOH can say what it wants, but the law is the law. That is my whole point.

    It wasn’t the invoices and receipts that the DOH destroyed. They destroyed the UIPA requests, which they are required to keep for 2 years. Again, you didn’t even get the basic facts of what I was saying correct.

    Within a week of Donofrio saying he would initiate OIP disciplinary proceedings against Fukino and Okubo the OIP director was offered a job by the semi-governmental company for which Fukino is a director. Those are the facts. You refuse to address them.

    And my allegatons are true enough that the Ombudsman’s Office refused to investigate, saying that they can’t investigate crimes.

    I’m sure you rushed through your “analysis”. As a teacher I can tell you that Bloom’s taxonomy matters. You can’t do decent analysis without a proper grasp of the facts. I suggest you go back through and make sure you get the facts straight and try again.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    reverend wright: what is obama hiding?

    His ENORMOUS genitals?

  15. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    The more noise they make, the better it is for progressives. So, thanks for the entertainment.

    Don’t be too quick to crawl back under your rocks. We’re having fun.

  16. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    @butterdezillion:

    Is this Kenya birth certificate helpful?

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Butterdezillion, you might say that I “rushed” through my analysis. I spent a couple of hours writing the thing.

    However, I think that it would be more useful if you went back through your article and critically look at whether you actually said what you intended to say, or whether you expected the reader to guess. There are thousands of birther pages out there.

    The reply above seems a little more meaty, and since you bothered to show up and engage in the dialog, I’ll spend some more time.

  18. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    That would be great.

    I have spent literally thousands of hours researching this.

    The links I included are few compared to what I could have included. The story is so big that it can’t be reduced into a sound byte for consumption by the grazing herds. I think that makes it MORE significant, not less.

  19. avatar
    Mike February 13, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    Deborah, the position you’re taking is one worthy of respect – no doubt you and I disagree on more or less every issue of politics, but at least you’re sticking to the issues.

  20. avatar
    Mike February 13, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    I lol’d.

  21. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 1:43 pm #

    Instead of waxing philosophical about the pathology of “conspiracy theorists”, some basic honesty about documented facts would be nice.

    The problem is that some take ‘facts’ and then interpret them to be something that cannot be supported by the facts, or where the facts can be explained in a variety of ways.

    The facts so far are simple:

    Obama showed a legally admissible, prima facie evidence of birth which had the requisite seal and signature.

    The COLB shows Obama born on US soil in Honolulu Hawaii, not Mombasa Kenya or any other foreign location.

    The location of birth was confirmed by the Department of Health.

    Given the eligibility requirements for the Presidency, our current President has met them all.
    I have seen some of your outrageous and unsupported claims

    Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay

    On the contrary, Fukino is in the best position to certify the location of birth of President Obama. Hawaiian law does not forbid her to make such a statement and since the statement is based on President Obama’s vital records, per Rules of Evidence, she is and would be a perfectly allowable witness to certify the self authenticating document known as the COLB.

    Or

    3. Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries – a fact the DOH has known since the beginning.

    Another lie, the DOH has never confirmed that it is a forgery and in fact it has confirmed the veracity of the location of birth as found on the COLB that President Obama made available.

    The claim that they verified the COLB to be a forgery is a plain old lie.

    6. The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.

    There is no evidence of an amendment.

    Dr C has done an excellent job exposing the lack of facts surrounding your specious claims.

  22. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    Either you haven’t looked at what I wrote or your comprehension skills are sorely lacking. I cited the sources for my claims – often the Administrative Rules or Hawaii statutes. Now let’s see yours. Cite the sources you relied upon to make each of your above statements.

  23. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    A blogger with the name Butterdezillion ‘argues’

    1. DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.

    HRS 338-18 has been online since the early days of the ‘controversy’ and has been cited extensively. HRS 338-18(a)(7) reveals that a certified copy may be provided to “(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;”

    And HRS 338-18(g)(3) similarly shows that “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:”

    (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

    The claim that the DOH hid or even illegally the DOH administrative rules would require a bit more supporting evidence. At the moment, the ‘evidence’ is based on HRS 92F-12(a)(1)

    ”Disclosure required – Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

    (1) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency”

    Did Butterdezillion appear during regular business hours at the agency to ask for these rules? If she insists that rules were violated, she first has to establish that she followed the rules outlined.

    Butterdezillion claims

    I should explain here: Hawaii laws say that a department has to have their Administrative Rules publicly available (now including on their website). Though the Administrative Rules are on the Department of Health’s website now, they were not there until around Nov 5, 2009.

    This is however not what HRS 92F-12(a)(1) states. So perhaps there is some other Hawaiian Law she has in mind here?

    The relevance? According to Butterdezillion:

    Fukino was saying that they couldn’t release the birth certificate without Obama’s permission – BUT SHE KNEW THAT WAS A LIE. She knew that her own Administrative Rules would allow a government agency transacting official business on behalf of Obama to receive a certified copy of his birth certificate. If a Secretary of State asked Fukino for a certified copy she would have no legal basis to refuse.

    The problem perhaps is that the SOS’s of the various states consistently argued that State Law did not require them to verify the accuracy of the statements made by candidates and thus the existence of a rule which maybe would have allowed SOS’s to obtain a copy of the Certification of Live Birth, similar to the one Obama had already provided for public inspection should not have made any difference to the situation. As to lawsuits by private individuals, the Courts have consistently ruled against them based on a myriad of legal arguments, ranging from the basic lack of standing, all the way to observing that there is no law requiring a particular SOS to investigate the eligibility of a candidate.

    In other words, there appears to be no requirement for the rules to be made available online, as the rule cited merely informs that the rules should be made available to anyone visiting the office during regular business hours.

    Furthermore, the DOH of Hawaii was correct in pointing out that without any explicit permission from President Obama they could not make available his COLB to an 3rd party. Note that none of these requests appear to have involved a Secretary of State. In fact, various courts have argued that the SOS has no legal requirement to verify the information provided to them by candidates. Which makes sense in that the qualification of the President falls under the explicit Constitutional tasks of the Congress.

  24. avatar
    richCares February 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    “I have spent literally thousands of hours researching this.”

    For meaningles crap? wow, get a life. So many words you use yet say diddly squat, what is your point?

  25. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    I understand that you attempted to support your claims with ‘cites’ which are based on speculation not clear statements.
    Your suggestion that the DOH of Hawaii had stated that the COLB provided by President Obama for inspection was a forgery for instance is ill substantiated beyond reasonable doubt based on the speculation that there was an attempt to have the vital records amended.
    It’s this kind of unreasonable interpretation of facts that cause your ‘arguments’ so much harm and which explains why you cannot and will not address the known facts as I outlined which show that Obama’s COLB per DOH of Hawaii shows him born in Honolulu HI, just as the COLB shows and just as the birth announcements support.

  26. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    That’s interesting because if this is the result of ‘1000s’ of hours of research then it does appear to be a major waste of time and effort.

  27. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    In the end all this boils down to the claim that there must have been an amendment filed by someone in the name of President Obama, around the time he ran for President because there is no evidence of such an amendment and the DOH stated when questioned, that the requestor had no right to privileged data. This denial of existence has now become evidence of existence through a somewhat strange logic that denial of nothing cannot happen.

    I find this quite ironic as it ignores the simple fact that the COLB was made available to the public by President Obama and that the DOH has verified the only relevant fact on the COLB namely the location of birth.

  28. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    Your links refer to a speculative interpretation that denial of existence is evidence of existence.
    You assert based on no positive evidence that there must have been an amendment filed around the time of the elections.
    And you fail to accept that the COLB which was provided with a seal and signature of the DOH of Hawaii, shows President Obama born in Honolulu HI, as supported by the DOH’s public statements.

    Both the COLB as well as the verification of the data on the COLB are admissible in Court as the document itself is a self authenticating legal document which provides prima facie evidence of the data provided. Combine this with the certification by a DOH official that these data are correct and one has a pretty solid record here.

  29. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    Posted Email has various posts by bloggers who have contacted DOH and seem baffled by their no sense behavior:

    ——–

    I though this post was of interest:

    Remember that the OFFICIAL spokesman (Gibbs) for the office of the President of the United States provided the following response when asked if the Certification of Live Birth will be release said – “its on the internet”. That statement from an official of the White House staff, in fact, the official press secretary would seem to acknowledge that the document and the information in the document are fully in the public domain and that they COMPLETELY ENDORSE them. Based on this there can be no reason the state of Hawai’i should not release certified copies of the same document. ANY and ALL expectation of privacy would appear to be completely waived by Mr. Gibbs statement. It is a formal acknowledgement, acceptance and endorsement of this document as a publicly available document.

    Donofrio made a statement in regards to the actions of the DOH but the same statement applies to the White House. “You can not use the same statement as a sword and a shield.” The White House has used the “Internet COLB” as a sword. The Hawai’i DOH and Obuko have no right to shield this document.

  30. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    You obviously didn’t look at the OIP Opinion Letters I posted which show that agencies can only deny access to records which actually exist. If they want to say “no comment” regarding their existence they have to use a Glomar response: “The records, IF ANY, are exempt from disclosure.”

    Jeesh, people. The information is right there in front of you. It doesn’t speak well of you if you spout off without even reading or comprehending the documentation that I provided.

  31. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    This one was also interesting:

    In regard to Barrack Obama’s COLB posted on the internet and UIPA requests:

    I made a Hawaii UIPA request to the Hawaii DOH for the receipts that accompanied all requests issued during June 2007, for records pertaining to the child born to Stanley Dunham on August 4, 1961. I explained the child’s surname may be Dunham, Obama or Soetoro. June 6, 2007 is the date stamped on the Obama COLB posted at
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html .

    An “OFFICIAL RECEIPT” accompanies requested records from the Hawaii Department of Health and reveals WHO made the request and the DATE of the request as well as the NAME OF THE REGISTRANT and the REGISTRANT’S PARENTS. It would show if the REGISTRANT’S NAME IS DUNHAM, OBAMA OR SOETORO. Usually, birth records are only released through requests from parents or siblings so IF there was a request, Barack Obama probably made it.

    After several email exchanges, I was stunned by Janice Okubo’s last response:

    “Receipts for payments are issued to the requestor when the order for a certified copy has been filled. The department does not retain a copy of the receipt. It is printed and given to the requestor. Therefore, the department does not have a record responsive to your request.”

    I hesitate to say she is lying but aren’t’ there laws that require government agencies to retain records of all transactions issued through their department? I received family members’ Hawaii COLBs in 2008 and my own receipt from the Hawaii DOH has a date and a “Receipt Nmbr”, 2008-xxxxxx . (my number omitted for privacy) A receipt number indicates some kind of tracking system, don’t you think?

    But IF the DOH could verify that Obama’s COLB is valid don’t you think they would? And IF what Okubo says is true, THERE IS NO WAY THE HAWAII DOH CAN CONFIRM THAT THEY OFFICIALLY ISSUED Obama’s INTERNET COLB. It could be a fake as many suspect.

    Obama needs to come up with HIS “Official Receipt” to prove his COLB is authentic. Or present the document for forensic examination. If it is a fake then Barack Obama committed fraud against the citizens of the U.S.

  32. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Exactly. OIP Opinion Letters say that once an item has been disclosed to the public or PUBLISHED, there is no longer any privacy concern for that information.

    That is why neither the DOH nor Kapiolani Hospital have a leg to stand on for refusing to disclose the documents. They ALREADY HAVE Obama’s permission to disclose the information because he has supposedly already disclosed it himself.

  33. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    Wow, John. That really is one more example of Okubo lying. The records retention schedule says they have to keep receipts for 2 years. Is there a way I could contact you with some questions which would be better left out of the public sphere? Depending on when you sent your requests, they could also reveal more foul play on the part of the DOH.

  34. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

    Circumstancial evidence of Obama’s Kenyan Birth

    Below is the list of circumstancial evidence that Obama was in fact born in Kenya. While it is questionable on whether this evidence could actually be admissable in court of law, it is more than enough to convince myself and many others that there is good reason and belief that Obama was born in Kenya. Only by releasing his long-form BC certificate can Obama clear this matter up.

    The Evidence

    1. The Sarah Obama Tape: It is clear from the affidavits submitted by the Priest and the translator that Sarah Obama did state she was present when Obama was born.(in Kenya) It is true that Sarah Obama did change her story after stating she was present when Obama was born. However, in reading the affidavits and hearing the audio tape, it seems that Sarah Obama was being COACHED into changing her story that Obama was born in Hawaii. This is further corroborated by the fact that Kenyan Government officials did state they have the birth records on Obama but they are sealed. The Sarah Obama tape and accompanying affidavitts provide strong circumstancial evidence. http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/berg-v-obama-affidavit-of-reverend-kweli-shuhubia/

    2. The Kenyan Ambassador’s Statement – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14 The Kenyan Ambassador later changed his statement when he “got caught” stating he was misquoted. In listening to the tape, it doesn’t sound like the Ambassador is confused. He even points that Obama’s paternal grandmother is still alive which means he was talking about POTUS Barack Obama when they asked him about the birth place. (I doubt he would be talking about Obama Sr’s grandmother unless she was 200 years old.) Very strong circumstancial evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth.

    3. “Obama is an immigrant.” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9CyYnBA_CY I am not sure what Bill Richardson is implying but it does lead to more circumstancial evidence of a Obama Kenyan birth.

    4. Numerous media reports that Obama is “Kenya-Born” – http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103638
    http://www.usafricaonline.com/barackbama08usafrica.gif
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/10/18/historical-news-articles-and-factcheck-agree-obama-is-kenyan-born/

    5. Obama’s COLB fails to list the name of the hospital, identity of the doctor, and any witnesses to Obama’s birth.

    6. The lack of firsthand eyewitness accounts of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. No doc, nurse, or staff worker has ever come forward. Obama is only 48 years old. Even hospital works who are as old as 45 could very well still be alive today at 93. No remembers Obama nor Stanely Ann Dunham. Even the lady who gave birth the day later doesn’t remember seeing Stanely Ann Dunham or Baby Obama. There is an account of Buffulo woman remembering Obama’s birth but it is a 3rd hand report and basically hearsay. And if she did remember the conversation it still leaves the question on why none of the hospital staff can remember as well.

    7. Obama absolute refusal to make his long-form BC public record. Obama can do this by giving constent to make his vital records in Hawaii available for public inspection which would include the long-form BC.

    8. Obama spending 1.5 million dollars to prevent any court that might lead to discovery of his birth records. Obama has spent alot of his personal funds (The Berg case) as well as taxpayer funds through DOJ which is under Eric Holder and therefore Obama.

    9. The Hawaiin Laws of 1961 which allowed the possibility of foreign born babies to have their births as being registered as being born in Hawaii.

    10. The apparent evasive behavior by Hawaii State Officials. The public statements made by the Hawaii DOH have yet to remain uncorroborated and DOH has absolutely refused to provide any additional elaboration on those statments and has refused to answer even the most basic and simplest questions about Hawaii Birth certificate procedures.

    11. The Lucas Smith Obama Kenyan BC. It has neither been authenticated nor refuted. Obots have tried to refute the Kenyan BC but Lucas Smith has defended his BC.

    12. Accounts of individuals who have met Obama in past and were told by him that he was born in Kenya.

    Given all this circumstancial evidence that points to a Kenyan Birth, the Prima Facie of Obama’s COLB must fall.

    Please add more circumstancial evidence I may be missing.

  35. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    Like, for instance, if you are a Freeper, I’m on there so you could private message me. Or if you have a throw-away e-mail addy you could give me (I don’t know how to make a throw-away. Or – even better – you could post over at my blog and I can reply to you privately there.

  36. avatar
    aarrgghh February 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    while most birfers are speculation driven, fact free and research shy, a certain small class that includes folks like butterdezillion, misstickly, donofrio and “forensic experts” techdude and polarik have become research obsessed. in fact the rest of the birfers depend on their work for their arguments.

    but it would be a mistake to label what they present as “research”, in the same way birfer “demands for proof” have little to do with law or logic.

    what these birfers are caught up in is intensive confirmation bias:

    “confirmation bias (or myside bias) is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true.”

    honest investigators perform real research by looking for, presenting and weighing all relevent data before coming to a conclusion, which may or may not confirm the hypothesis that inspired the inquiry.

    what these “research-obsessed” birfers do is nothing more than hunting down, like captain ahab, any and all data that they can twist to support the conclusions that they reached before their investigations began. convinced that “research” has something to do with collecting massive amounts of data, they expect to be declared champion by virtue of time spent and sheer poundage at the end of the day when the catch is weighed. it is telling how often butterdezillion will remind everyone everywhere: “i have spent literally thousands of hours researching this.”

    well, there’s an old saw about quantity versus quality, which i’m sure needs no further investigation. one might very well spend the time “researching” the presence of green cheese on the moon but you’d only be proving a dearth of better ideas for spending one’s time.

  37. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    The post is not mine. I suggest you go to http://www.thepostemail.com/ and contact John Carlton for information. John as well as many his posters or bloggers have done intense research in Hawaii DOH and have discovered stunning and compelling information. Please also consider participating in the following:
    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=298876907218&ref=ts

    Operation Hawaii Five-OBAMa
    Host: Obama Release Your Records
    Type: Causes – Protest
    Network: Global
    Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010
    Time: 12:00pm – 8:00pm
    Location: Home or wherever there is a phone and internet from 12 pm est – 8 pm est…

    This event is due to the actions of the Hawaii Department of Health in regards to Obama’s vital recordS.

    The Hawaii DOH is openly circumventing UIPA Laws that would allow parts or even all of Obama’s vital recordS to be released, due to Hawaii public statements on his vital recordS. The pressure is mounting in Hawaii and officials are being moved around like musical chairs.

    Hawaii DOH officials, to this day, still refuse to verify any of the 3 different COLB’s posted online by Obama’s campaign.

    It’s time to CALL and EMAIL the DOH/GOVT officials in Hawaii and demand they uphold the UIPA Laws and release Obama’s vital recordS.

    On February 17th, 12pmest-8pmest, we are asking all to bombard the Hawaii Officials listed below.

    Demand they uphold the UIPA Laws and release Obama’s vital recordS.

  38. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    Oh. Was this at The Post & Email? I thought you were the one who had contacted them. Do you know which article this was in response to, or do you have a link to those comments?

    Thanks.

  39. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    You didn’t address a single fact that I’ve documented. Psychoanalysis is a lazy man’s way to not have to address facts.

  40. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    Lots of research has been done:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/?s=mark+bennet

  41. avatar
    BlackLion February 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    Is that the same John Charlton that had ran an article this week that Janice Okubo had resigned but had to amend his article because she had not resigned? Relying on him for evidence? Amazing. You guys are really pathetic…

  42. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    Fantastic! Thanks.

  43. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm #

    He asked whether Okubo had resigned. And when he got his answer he posted it, with apology.Get your facts straight.

    The fact is they made a decision to do their disclosures different than they’ve always done them – in a way so that no one person can be pinned down as having said any statement. Gives plausible deniability. Okubo can say, “I didn’t e-mail that…. it was…… the dust bunny under my desk who sent it…..”

    Why do you suppose they made their responses anonymous all of a sudden?

  44. avatar
    aarrgghh February 13, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    butterdezillion, still polishing her turd:

    “You didn’t address a single fact that I’ve documented. Psychoanalysis is a lazy man’s way to not have to address facts.”

    speculation is a lazy man’s way to not have to present an argument.

  45. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Hmm. I didn’t see it there.

  46. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    Janice Okubo is going to have her hands full this coming Wednesday. May be she should call in sick.

  47. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    In fact, several so called ‘facts’ were addressed.
    You have accepted as a fact that the DOH is hiding somehow a paid for amendment to President Obama’s vital records, which is based not on facts but on lack thereof.

    Once this foundation has been exposed as weak and non-existent, your conclusions that the DOH admitted that the COLB was a forgery has to be rejected in light of the COLB showing all the necessary certification evidence such as the signature stamp and the raised seal and the fact that the location of birth was certified as Honolulu Hawaii.

    Once these facts are accepted, your complaints that the DOH was not helpful in explaining its rules which were for all practical purposes available as HRS 338-18 and others, and that it was violating the law purposefully, is based on again a poor foundation of speculation.

  48. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    This is in reply to –nbC says:
    February 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    since it won’t allow me to resond.

    If you think the official OIP Opinion Letters I cited are “speculative interpretation” then please tell me what more authoritative source you would cite – and then cite it for me.

    The DOH itself has indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. They’ve also said they have no responsibility to report a forgery and in fact can’t say publicly whether a document is a forgery.

  49. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    Why do you suppose they made their responses anonymous all of a sudden?

    One could speculate and the most obvious one is that they are sick and tired of people asking for Obama’s birth certificate and overwhelming the office with non-sensical questions and accusations.

  50. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    The P&E announcement once again is speculative and misleading. All the AG office did is point out that responding to the questions asked would create a conflict of interest.

  51. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    You are choosing not to see what is in front of you. The OIP Opinion Letters say that unless an “if any” statement is included in a denial of access, the denial is confirmation that what is being denied exists.

    If you can’t understand that concept I think the subject is either beyond your capability or your willingness to grasp.

    It is a waste of my time to continue to respond to you. If people have legitimate questions or points to make I would be happy to address them.

  52. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    The DOH itself has indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. They’ve also said they have no responsibility to report a forgery and in fact can’t say publicly whether a document is a forgery.

    So by stating that they cannot confirm or deny the document’s veracity even though the document meets all the required aspects and all its data have been verified, you conclude that they are admitting it to be a forgery.

    Nothing the DOH has stated confirms in any way or manner that they have any reason to believe that the COLB is a forgery.

    Speculative at best, your ‘arguments’ ignore the obvious fact that the President was born in Hawaii, and that is all that matters here.

  53. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    What conflict of interest would there be in confirming that the AG approved Fukino’s statement, after Fukino’s representative said he had? What interest might the AG have that would conflict with that simple confirmation of what the DOH said was fact?

  54. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    No. By confirming that what they have on file for Obama is amended they confirm that the online COLB’s, which don’t have the required note of the amendment, are forgeries.

    Jeesh. Again, read and comprehend what I’ve written in the article.

    EVerybody keeps saying that the DOH has confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is authentic. In reality they have said that

    1) they couldn’t tell you even if it was a forgery, and

    2) BTW, what we have for him is amended, in direct contrast with what is on the online COLB’s.

    It’s actually quite straightforward. Those who say we should listen to the DOH….. well, they have spoken. Are you willing to listen?

  55. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    You are choosing not to see what is in front of you. The OIP Opinion Letters say that unless an “if any” statement is included in a denial of access, the denial is confirmation that what is being denied exists.

    The OIP merely confirms that the DOH was correct to disallow access to the birth records under HRS 338-18(b).
    They cite OIP Letter 90-23 which includes

    Conversely, if a person seeking to inspect or copy a vital record does not stand in the spousal, familial or other relation set forth in section 338-18(b), the person may inspect the record only if the Registrar is satisfied that the information is “necessary for the determination of personal or property rights.” Whether a person seeking to inspect a vital record stands in the relation to the registrant required by section 338-18(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, is left to the determination of the DOH. Similarly, whether access to vital records is necessary to the determination of personal and property rights, must also be determined by the DOH.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    My apologies for the spam filter that’s grabbing all your posts for some reason I can’t explain. I approve them as soon as I see them.

  57. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    You know what this conversation reminds me of? It reminds me of Monty Python – Holy Grail, where the landowner whose son is supposed to marry the girl with huge tracts of land is telling the guards not to let anybody come in. lol.

    They come up with every possible restatement of what the guy DIDN’T say.

    I know it’s long. I know it’s technical reading. But please read and comprehend it before you keep repeating the same mantra that I’ve documented is incorrect.

  58. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    No. By confirming that what they have on file for Obama is amended they confirm that the online COLB’s, which don’t have the required note of the amendment, are forgeries.

    Where did they make that confirmation? It seems to me that you are ‘reading between the lines’ causing you to lead to speculate about an amendment that likely does not exist.

    So far I have seen no evidence that they denied access to these mythical amendments.

    Using simple deductive reasoning, it’s apparent that President Obama amended his birth certificate.

    You do know the pitfalls of ‘simple deductive reasoning’?

  59. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    In addition, a request for “any & all material(s) used as support and as evidence of the information put forth in the President’s vital records” was denied. Again, this is an admission that such materials exist. Evidence beyond the birth certificate itself is only required if there is an amendment, if the original certificate is a late certificate, or if the certificate was originally incomplete and had to be completed by a supplementary report. (Incidentally, none of these would be the case for a hospital birth).

    This is fascinating ‘logic’ that since access to any and all materials was denied, there must have been an amendment…

    That’s hardly deductive or logic in my world. Please explain?

  60. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    Give us a break John and Nellie, the raised seal. the signature and the date on the COLB are proof it was issued by Hawaii. They don’t need to confirm it. Good grief, the idea that you would need a birth certificate and your receipt for it is silly. That’s the reason for birth certificates, so there is no need to continually contact the state in which you were born for verification of your birth. You’re grasping at straws. There’s an interesting thread over at politijab that seems to suggest the most common reason for needing to produce a copy of a birth certificate was to apply for a passport. Most respondents in the thread say that once they had a passport, they never had to show a birth certificate again, the passport sufficed. Barack Obama posted his COLB to show the world his middle name is not “Muhammed”. By the way John, Nellie – if you are citizens of the United States, do you have a current US passport? Have you ever traveled outside the United States?

  61. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Oh boy! The good old birther fall-back list of often-debunked birther rumors about Kenya! I hadn’t seen the Kenya granny one used for months! These are not circumstantial evidence, these are misrepresentations and complete fabrications. Aren’t you at all ashamed that you have to lie to try to make your case? Your list is not evidence.

  62. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    I know it’s long. I know it’s technical reading. But please read and comprehend it before you keep repeating the same mantra that I’ve documented is incorrect.

    You are the one using the Monty Python like scene in which the Black Knight, having lost all it limbs continues to taunt his opponent… Come on you coward, I can still bite your knee caps off…

    I have read your ‘claims’ which are based on an illogical reading that the denial of a request is somehow to be interpreted as evidence of the existence of something of which no evidence exists that it may even exist.
    The denial under HRS 338-18 indicates that the request for access was denied not based on the existence of amendments but based on the request to see any and all data.
    If this leads you to the conclusion that this is evidence that an amendment must exist, contrary to any of the facts, then you should do more than making this leap of logic.

  63. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    No. By confirming that what they have on file for Obama is amended they confirm that the online COLB’s, which don’t have the required note of the amendment, are forgeries.

    They never confirmed that they have amendments on file. Your leap of logic from a mythical amendment to forgery exemplifies the dangers of GIGO.

  64. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    You don’t have any facts. You have speculation. To insist that Hawaii’s denial that something exists is confirmation it exists is really quite insane. You haven’t produced something credible. You’ve written a mishmash of foolishness that has as its underpinning a massive conspiracy that would require the cooperation and silence of so many people it defies logic.

  65. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    The whole ‘argument’ is based upon the claim that there must be amendments to Obama’s COLB because of the statements made by the DOH officials such as the statement that

    I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    The use of the term records somehow was interpreted as: there must exist amendments or they would have used the term ‘record’. This is an improbable interpretation of the usage of the term ‘vital records’.

  66. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Based on the flawed assumption that an amendment was made, the poster then concludes that the COLB as posted online, must have been a forgery because it does not mention any amendment. Instead of following a far more likely conclusion that since the COLB which had the requisite seal and signature, failed to show any amendment, there is no amendment.

    Speculation based on specious interpretation of statements that were not made, has led some to conclude that there must have been an amendment.

    Fascinating leaps.

  67. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 13, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    John wrote:

    I hesitate to say she is lying but aren’t’ there laws that require government agencies to retain records of all transactions issued through their department?

    Unless you can cite such law or an administrative regulation — it doesn’t exist. Ordinary bookkeeping practices would suggest that a record involving a financial transaction would be kept for some period of time, but that record might not contain the same information on the printed receipt. That is — the DOH needs to have records of funds it has received and paid out, not necessarily the names of payees and recipients. The records that they have may look more like a bank statement: date, transaction number, monetary amount, perhaps a code for the type of transaction — but unless you had the receipt or transaction number to provide them, they might not be able to access the particular data you are looking for.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    Having wasted 4 hours your web site and in subsequent discussions at Obama Conspiracy Theories, I can state that I have found nothing on it that provides any probative information related to Barack Obama’s eligibility be president or the accuracy of the Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii posted on his web site. Whatever dispute you may have with the Hawaii Department of Health over its responsiveness to your queries is not my concern.

  69. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    The documentation regarding how we know that an amendment was confirmed was on the link when you click on the word “amended”. Here is the link for anybody who would like to click it here. http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/amendment-confirmed/

    I believe it is self-explanatory, and I don’t know any way to make this easier on you than to allow you to click on a word and see my explanation on the screen in front of you.

    I’m sorry, Doc, but I quite frankly don’t believe that you are being earnest with me and I don’t have time to waste on somebody leading me on a wild goose-chase.

    I’ve said what I said. The documentation is there for anybody who is willing to listen. If they aren’t willing to listen I can never make them willing, nor will I be able to convince them.

    If somebody else takes the time to look at what I’ve got and really comprehends it and still thinks Doc has a valid question or point or has one of their own, please comment on my blog and I will address it there. http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com

  70. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Then there is the claim that rules were violated when the DOH changed the procedures and marked the certification of live birth as certificate of live birth, following the change in procedures when the office went paperless in 2001.

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    It is clear that the director of health can approve a process to release copies of the relevant information as necessary. As such, this would unlikely qualify as a rule change and is better described as a change in procedures and processes.

    As explained in the statement

    She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

    Ouch… this was in response to the question

    What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”?

    If anyone claims that rules were broken, then it is helpful when actual evidence is presented beyond a mere assertion.

  71. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    Wow. Four hours. I’m impressed.

    This nation is so screwed.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Speaking for states that use computer software that I am familiar with, any request for a service (amendment, certified copy, etc.) is maintained in detail as to what the service was, and who requested, and what money was paid. If I had to speculate, I would say that the Hawaii DoH has a record of when Obama ordered his COLB in 2007 unless they are very aggressive at purging records (which most agencies I know of aren’t). Of course, there was no amendment.

  73. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Please explain how the internal procedures of the DOH of a minor state have anything to do with whether or not “this nation is so screwed”. You are ridiculous at best.

  74. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    And you feel you share no blame here?

  75. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    I believe it is self-explanatory, and I don’t know any way to make this easier on you than to allow you to click on a word and see my explanation on the screen in front of you.

    I have seen your ‘explanation’ and fail to see any evidence that the existence of amendments was confirmed.

    Please walk us through the logic in easy steps for all to follow.

    I am willing to learn and read but your information (sic) hardly supports your claims of the existence of any amendments.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    If I didn’t have a toothache, I might have been nicer.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    butterdezillion: I’m sorry, Doc, but I quite frankly don’t believe that you are being earnest with me and I don’t have time to waste on somebody leading me on a wild goose-chase.

    I am being earnest. I had already clicked on that “amendment confirmed” link but I failed to see the point. It uses the words “deductive reasoning” and what I found was a formal fallacy (denying the antecedent) and some silliness about “vital records” (plural). The essence of conspiracy thinking is reading into statements things that the speaker obviously didn’t mean, and turning the lack of evidence into evidence, and turning implausible scenarios into “what must have happened.”

    You are looking into the telescope through the wrong end. Open minded people start with evidence and arrive at conclusions. Conspiracy-minded people either start with conclusions and seek confirmation (the birthers) or they start with coincidences and look for causes (Kennedy assassination theorists).

    I gave you all the benefit of the doubt that I could. There just is no “there” there.

  78. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    I haven’t posted it on my blog yet, but what they now call their “Certificate of Live Birth”, revised October of 2008, does not meet the requirements for Hawaii law – since it doesn’t have at LEAST the items required on the CDC’s recommended standard birth certificate.

    The CDC currently requires 50+ items, and what the Hawaii DOH calls a standard birth certificate as of October of 2008 contains 14 items other than the birth certificate number. It lists no hospital, no witnesses, no birth details, nothing.

    On January 28th I asked the Ombudsman’s Office to investigate the legality of the document but they have not responded, except to say they have received my e-mail.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    By the way Expelliarmus, it’s your fault. You’re the one that linked to that administrative regulation site last May.

  80. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    From my understanding, The Hawaii DOH has never verified that what Obama posted online and what factcheck saw is actually what the DOH has in their files. They merely stated that what Obama released is what Hawaii issues for birth certificate requestors. Further the claim that Obama can’t get his long-form birth certificate any more is not true. While it is true that if Obama orders a BC he will get what he supposely released. However, Obama has the ability to release constent of his vital records for public inspection which would probably include the long-form birth certificate. Further Dr. Fukino statement made on July 27, 2009 can’t be deemed credible since AG office has refused to corroborate it.

  81. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    NBC’s citations of the law seem to conflict with Okubo’s statement that everything went paperless. Can anyone verify what Okubo states is correct.

  82. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    The CDC recommendations
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-ACC.pdf
    are for data to be COLLECTED for epidemiological research, not for what is to appear on the b.s. used to get a passport or SSN. Do you really think that things like:

    “Cigarette smoking before and during pregnancy”
    “Principal soutce of payment for delivery”
    “Obstetric procedures”
    “APGAR score”

    are to be used to get a passport? You are a joke and the DOH is right to ignore you.

    I have my b.c. ny wife’s and my kids right here. They all have the same information as Obama’s.

    You and your tribe are comic relief only.

    And by the way, once the Inauguration occured, the entire issue became moot anyway.

  83. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    I can verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. I was there and saw it with my own eyes. I challenge you to prove I wasn’t. Go on, I dare you.

  84. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    They don’t have to John, they confirmed he was born in Hawaii.

    And saying Dr Fukino’s statement isn’t credible because the AG’s office didn’t corroborate it is like saying the earthquake in Haiti didn’t happen because you didn’t feel the shaking. False logic that is only accepted by weak minds, which is what people like Ms Nellie depend on when writing their foolish essays.

  85. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    It also appears that Dr. Fukino had no authority to state that Obama was a Natural-Born citizen. The Hawaii DOH has no authority to make public definitive statements on citizenship. This is one possible reason why the AG has failed to corporate in the matter.

  86. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    Any coroporation from the AG could bring about criminal prosecution to Dr. Fukino in exercising authority in an area where she clearly had none.

  87. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    If this in fact true, the credibility of Fukino’s public statement made on July 27, 2009 is impeached or tainted.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 5:52 pm #

    Exactly what law is it that makes it crime for “exercising authority in an area where she clearly had none?” You and others are awfully free with that word “crime.”

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    John: The Hawaii DOH has never verified that what Obama posted online and what factcheck saw is actually what the DOH has in their files.

    That’s correct, and there would be all sorts of legal violations if they were do to so.

    John: Further Dr. Fukino statement made on July 27, 2009 can’t be deemed credible since AG office has refused to corroborate it.

    But that is nonsense. The AG has no means to corroborate the statement, but Fukino is the official who oversees the agency.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    butterdezillion: I haven’t posted it on my blog yet, but…

    Good. You have saved yourself a mistake. Vital Statistics is my area of expertise. There are two sections (at least) distinct sections of a birth registration, the “legal” portion and the “statistical portion”. The “Birth Certificate” that you have seen for Hawaiians prior to the COLB, the “Certificate of Live Birth” is just the legal portion. The other items are for medical and statistical use only and are not part of the certified copy issued to individuals. If you need more (and I have more) let me know.

  91. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    It also might be prudent to investigate by what authority and law Dr. Fukino has to issue public statements on specific individuals who records are maintained by her department.

  92. avatar
    John February 13, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    I looked at the public new releases for Hawaii DOH. Fukino’s public statements are very unusual. It appears that it is the first time she has ever given a statement like that. The July 27, 2009 statement does sound contrived especially by the fact that uses a “Natural-Born American Citizen”. First, Fukino has no authority to make that assertion and it is reasonable to suspect that Fukino may be received guidiance outside the scope of the Hawaiin government in making this public statement. Another interesting point that never has been revealed is why October 31, 2008 and July 27, 2009 where the chosen dates for release of Fukino’s 2 statements?

  93. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    Pure speculation unless you have something to back up what you’re saying. Please tell us what knowledge or expertise qualifies you to call her statements “unusual” or “contrived”. Tell us what statute or law you found that tells you Fukino didn’t have the authority to make the statements she made. Tell us what You think was “interesting” about the dates chosen. Have you written and asked? Why don’t you. You love to speculate and try to paint everyone’s actions as suspicious. This should be your clue that your following a conspiracy theory: you think everything has a secret hidden meaning, anything anyone does means something, dates are suspicious. What a way to live to be so fricking paranoid. What I think is the poor woman got sick of the email, phone calls and letters and decided to address the issue once and for all. She didn’t realize that conspiracy believers would just think it was suspicious. Get a life John.

  94. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    LOL! Yeah, good luck with that John. Just another event destined for EPIC FAIL.

  95. avatar
    Mike February 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

    Seriously? This is your best response? You’re a tool.

    Stating that someone is a natural-born citizen based on birth in a US state is not a definitive proclamation, you idiot – it is a restatement of a fact which is common knowledge.

    Jesus H. Krispy Kreme. No wonder you people are a political laughingstock.

  96. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Wow. Look what I missed so far today!

    Not to rehash what everyone else has already covered, but I too have now wasted several hours clicking through links on BZ’s site and squinting to read some of the actual scanned letters to see the exact text of what was requested and the response that was given.

    As several have rightly pointed out here, it all comes down to what NbC has just reiterated in this post.

    None of the DOH responses in any way indicated or validated that any amended records nor any filing fees regarding such exist.

    All they “deny” is BZ’s request for any information on the grounds that BZ does not have the right or authority to request such info.

    It is COMPLETELY FALSE to conclude that such a response in any way supports the existence of any amendments, etc.

    As most of BZ’s claims are based on such false speculative conclusions, they pretty much collapse like a house of cards. Simply put, there is no “there”, there.

    Many people just suck at deductive reasoning or being able to properly apply logic. BZ is obviously one of them.

  97. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

    I’ve looked at this link now several times and read your scans from Terri K’s request as well as all your claims that OIP Opinion 97-08 somehow supports your position that denial of access to records somehow means that such records exist.

    Nothing you have presented nor linked to in any way supports your faulty conclusions, which are the absolute opposite of actual deductive reasoning.

    In reading the entire OIP Opinion 97-08 that you link to, I find nothing in it whatsoever that backs up what you claim. I think you are misreading it as well, as in fact, throughout said document, all such statements seem to indicate the exact opposite.

    If anything, said OIP Opinion supports the reasoned conclusion that the DOH can simply say “NO” to a request, particularly when they are for “nonexistant” records and that they don’t have to waste their time jumping through hoops proving that non-existant records do not exist.

    Here are just several quotes to that effect from that OIP:

    “If there had been a record in existence that satisfied your request, it may have been protected from public disclosure under section 92V-13(2) of the UIPA if it was indeed attorney-client privileged information as Deputy A’t olsztyniak. asserted in his letter. However, the burden to prove that such a requested record is indeed protected from disclosure under the UIPA would he with the Corporation Counsel. Haw. Rev. Stat § 92F-15(c) (1993)”

    “The UIPA applies only to government records maintained by an agency as defined above. Accordingly, the UIPA is not applicable in this instance because, based on a reasonable search for records, there is no record that would be responsive to your request. The UIPA does not apply to oral conversations unless there is some physical record of them.”

    “The UIPA applies only to existing records. As there are no records which memorialize the authority to settle, the UIPA is not applicable and the Corporation Counsel is not required to create a summary.”

    OIP Op. Ltr. No. 97-8

  98. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    And yet you brag that you’ve wasted “thousands of hours” on this wild goose chase, of which most of that time spent is entirely your fault, since your whole chase is based on an inability to properly apply deductive reasoning and your resulting reading comprehension mistakes.

    Oh, the irony!

  99. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    It also might be prudent to investigate by what authority and law Dr. Fukino has to issue public statements on specific individuals who records are maintained by her department.

    There is no law that requires her to do so. Given the circumstances and silliness of some to continue to harass her office with requests, she attempted to finalize the issue by releasing a statement that president Obama was in fact born in Honolulu Hawaii.

  100. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    It also appears that Dr. Fukino had no authority to state that Obama was a Natural-Born citizen. The Hawaii DOH has no authority to make public definitive statements on citizenship. This is one possible reason why the AG has failed to corporate in the matter.

    There we have that silly speculation again. As far as the DOH stating that President Obama was born on US soil and thus by any standard a natural born citizen hardly requires any ‘authority’… Common sense is sufficient

  101. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    If you read the Administrative Rules, it refers to a standard birth certificate (which includes a confidential medical portion) and an abbreviated birth certificate. The rules refer to signatures and other things that are not included on what the DOH now claims is a “birth certificate”. A person must be allowed to get the confidential medical portion of their own standard birth certificate if they ask for it.

    If you look at what the Administrative Rules say and what the DOH claims is the “birth certificate”, it’s apples and oranges.

    I have my birth certificate and my husband’s right here and they have the name of the doctor, hospital, time, date, place of birth, registrar’s signatures, etc.

    Now if you’re talking about “public health statistics records” such as the medical information, hospital, doctor, etc as being separate from the actual birth certificate, then that information is available to the public as long as it doesn’t involve direct viewing and certified copies.

    So if they want to call that information part of some kind of epidemiological statistics gathering then HRS 338-18(a) doesn’t even apply to it. I’m not sure they really want to do that. But their rules say that the certificates themselves must contain all the information required on the CDC standard certificates.

    At http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/FinalBirthSpecs3-24-2005.pdf it gives as its title, “Birth Edit Specifications For the 2003 Revision of the
    U.S. Standard Certificate of Birth”. The DOH can revise how they format the information but they are required to have all the items included in the US standard birth certificate.

    If you or anybody else doesn’t like it, then change the rules – which requires public hearings announced in advance and an official approval process including approval and effective date signed by the governor. Hawaii has never done that so – like it or not – those are the rules.

    Actually, I just checked and it’s actually ALSO HRS 338-11 that includes the same requirement so it can’t even be changed through the rules. It requires an act of Hawaii’s legislature.

  102. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    I haven’t posted it on my blog yet, but what they now call their “Certificate of Live Birth”, revised October of 2008, does not meet the requirements for Hawaii law – since it doesn’t have at LEAST the items required on the CDC’s recommended standard birth certificate.

    The ignorance portrayed here is scary but helps understand that even so called thousands of hours of research can not overcome a poor foundation in fact and knowledge.

    The CDC specifies what information is to be captured about the child and parents and in addition provides for a section which attempts to collect statistical data.
    By failing to understand these facts, our friend BZ has once again exposed a level of flawed speculation not based on positive knowledge but based on lack of information and familiarity.

    A little information can be dangerous in the hands of those unable to digest it correctly.

    Furthermore it shows an unfamiliarity with the collection of birth information versus the release of vital record information as part of a state’s birth certificate.

    As stated before, the COLB is sufficient prima facie legal evidence to obtain a US passport, etc.

  103. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    On January 28th I asked the Ombudsman’s Office to investigate the legality of the document but they have not responded, except to say they have received my e-mail.

    For good reasons, this is just a silly request.

  104. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    butterdezillion: I have my birth certificate and my husband’s right here and they have the name of the doctor, hospital, time, date, place of birth, registrar’s signatures, etc

    And I have mine, my wife’s and my childrens (several different jurisdictions). None have anything other than date and place of birth, child’s name and parents’ names. No doctor or hospital. None have ever been refused for any purpose. Most likely it depends when the documents were issued.

    Anyway, last I checked, unless you live in Hawaii and have an issue with your PERSONAL b.c., it is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS. Didn’t your parents teach you to MYOB?

    Legally, the issue of Obama’s eligibility has been decided irrevocably in Jamuary 2009. You lost, sucker.

  105. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    As expected we see continued ignorance based on an inability to distinguish between two separate documents.
    One is the CDC type birth certificate which is filled out by the parents/birthing facility and one is the birth certificate which contains the relevant information to establish birth.

    Does your birth certificates contain all the CDC details? Of course not, it contains at best the top portion not the part that mentions “INFORMATION FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH PURPOSES ONLY”.

    As Dr C has tried to explain to you, there are two parts to the birth certificate, one which is copied to a long or short form birth certificate, the other part which is collected for statistical purposes only.

    HRS 338-11 states

    The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]

    As the CDC explains

    Information for Administrative Use

    The Subgroup recommended that a new section be included in the certificate titled “Information for Administrative Use.” This section contains items needed to fulfill statutory mandates other than those directly related to establishing the permanent, legal record of a person’s birth. It also contains items collected because of agreements with other programs.

  106. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    Apparently you know more than the CDC when they printed out their specifications for standard birth certificates. Somebody forgot to give them the memo that there are really 2 portions and only the legal portion should be called the “birth certificate”.

    Take it up with them.

  107. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    You do know the difference between birth certificate and Certificate of Live Birth which is a copy of the official birth certificate as filed and which shows either a long or short form record of relevant records to establish the fact of birth.

    You’re a riot.

  108. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    Of course, the present CDC guidelines have little relevance to Obama’s birth records.

  109. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    Let’s see if I can provide an explanation as to the difference between the birth certificate and the certification of life birth which is concise form of the information found on the birth certificate as filed by the parents and birthing facility.

    Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are less expensive and more readily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration.” The short form typically includes the child’s name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child’s parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances [7]. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels [9]

    The long form is the document which is filled out by the hospital and parents and a certified copy of the long form document is available at some states. Many states, especially those who have moved to collecting the data electronically provide a short form extract which is sufficient to establish the location and date/time of birth of a child. Such short forms have the same evidentiary value as long forms for the information presented on them. Thus the fact that Obama’s short form shows him born in Honolulu Hawaii is prima facie legal evidence of the location of his birth and thus establishes part of his eligibility requirements to be a natural born US citizen.

    At the moment, the DOH of Hawaii does no longer provides long form copies and only short form, computer printouts are made available.

  110. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    No one appointed you in charge of birth records for Hawaii or anywhere else.

    MYOB.

  111. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    No, we’re screwed because a person spends 4 hours reading and thinks it’s too much.

    And we’re screwed because he can’t repeat back basic-comprehension-level facts but yet has people following him like the Pied Piper.

    We are so screwed.

  112. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    No, we’re screwed because a person spends 4 hours reading and thinks it’s too much.

    And we’re screwed because he can’t repeat back basic-comprehension-level facts but yet has people following him like the Pied Piper.

    We are so screwed.

    It was not too much to debunk most of the nonsense and to show that there is just no credible evidence to suggest that there exists an amendment.

    Combine this with the various factual ‘discrepancies’ and we are indeed ‘screwed’. It’s not a pleasant feeling and certainly anyone who believes to have invested 1000 hours of time in pursuing such an issue will need some time to come to terms with this.

  113. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    They confirmed that Obama has at least 2 different birth documents on file which, taken together, claim Obama was born in Hawaii.

    When asked specifically about the Factcheck COLB Okubo told Politifact she couldn’t say what it represented. When asked by me whether she would report forgery if she knew of it she said the law forbids her to do so.

    So I don’t know where anybody is getting this stuff about Obama presenting anything that means anything legally. You guys do realize that computer images of certificates are not admissible as evidence of anything in a court of law, right?

    What the DOH has actually stated about Obama’s birth records is that it has been amended, which means that Factcheck is a forgery. That’s basic comprehension stuff, folks. It doesn’t take a lot of deductive reasoning.

  114. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    She doesn’t. That’s what HRS 338-18(a) is all about. She is not able to disclose information from a birth certificate except as authorized by the rules or by statute. The rules only provide for the release of DOCUMENTS – except for index data.

    She herself has said all along that she is not authorized to disclose information from the birth certificate. So what changed on July 27, 2009, Fukino? Her own words from the previous year condemn her.

  115. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    She doesn’t. That’s what HRS 338-18(a) is all about. She is not able to disclose information from a birth certificate except as authorized by the rules or by statute. The rules only provide for the release of DOCUMENTS – except for index data.

    She herself has said all along that she is not authorized to disclose information from the birth certificate. So what changed on July 27, 2009, Fukino? Her own words from the previous year condemn her.

    She confirmed that the index data shows that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, that’s all she can say and discloses no information beyond what the index data provides.

  116. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    They confirmed that Obama has at least 2 different birth documents on file which, taken together, claim Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Nope, the term vital records is a generic term.

    So I don’t know where anybody is getting this stuff about Obama presenting anything that means anything legally. You guys do realize that computer images of certificates are not admissible as evidence of anything in a court of law, right?

    But Obama presented his actual COLB which was photographed and scanned. The document presented which has the requisite seal and signature shows President Obama born on US soil, just as the DOH of Hawaii confirms.

    The suggestion that the COLB is a fraud is ill founded on facts or reason. Of course noone is arguing that the scans or photographs are sufficient evidence. What we argue is that President Obama made available the original COLB for inspection and that there were a few who cared enough to actually go and see it.

    The COLB indicates that which we already known from other sources such as the name, the birth date, the name of the father and the mother, the location of birth.
    Only the time of birth cannot be verified.

  117. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    July 27, 2009

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    Born in Hawaii… That’s all that the index data show. Name and birth

    Birth Index
    Obama II, Barack Hussein
    Male

    Combine this with the data found in the birth announcements and we know the names of the father, mother and date of birth.

  118. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    October 31, 2008

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Original birth certificate.

    Your leap from vital records to multiple birth records is just speculative at best and contradicted by the facts that the COLB which President Obama presented for inspection shows no evidence of an amendment.

  119. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    BZ says: “No, we’re screwed because a person spends 4 hours reading and thinks it’s too much.”

    While it is completely fair for you to lament that you wish someone spent more than 4 hours of their time looking at your links or your conclusions, is is also just as fair for someone else to have spent 4 hours at your site and feel that they’ve wasted more time on there than was useful.

    BZ says: “And we’re screwed because he can’t repeat back basic-comprehension-level facts but yet has people following him like the Pied Piper.”

    Now that statement is nothing but purely ironic projection, at best!

    First of all, in reading Dr. Conspiracy’s analysis and back & forth so far, anywhere that you’ve actually pointed out something that did merit a correction or update, he has done so. However, it should be noted that so far, such corrections have mainly been mere clarifications and I don’t see anything in his overall conclusions that are in dispute.

    Second, it is you who have demonstrated a severe basic comprehension deficit. Practically your entire “thesis” over there is driven by your misguided conclusions about claiming that response denials for non-evidence somehow translate into evidence.

    You keep making statements that their responses or their documents or records state or conclude something other than what they do.

    I’ve wasted my time now reading link after link and conclusion after conclusion of what you’ve provided and so far, they fail to hold up to supporting your claims.

    Therefore all I can conclude is that you are the one who sadly has problems with basic logic-driven reading comprehension skills.

    Finally, the most laughable point of ironic projection is your Pied Piper follower claim. For one thing, it is fairly evident by the constant near-carbon copy talking points of birthers that they mostly just regurgitate over and over again whatever they hear from their birther leaders.

    However, when looking over the replies dismantling your talking points over here, it is quite evident that most folks are doing their own review of your web material, providing their own links and their own conclusions.

    You may not like the fact that many separate individuals are independently debunking the bejebus out of you at every turn here, but too bad. This site may be a common place for many of us to comment on these issues, but there are a lot of separate voices on here.

    If it appears that we come to similar conclusions it is simply because facts, logic and reality all point to those same conclusions.

  120. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    Another disturbing inconsistency is BZ’s reference to 338-18 and index data

    Referring to an earlier OIP letter

    “(d) Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public.”

    Versus what 338-18 states today:

    d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

    Using some ‘logic’ BZ argues that since the data about the file number was available before the UIP was passed such data should still be made available. However, what she forgets is that HRS 338-18 determines what data may be released.
    As prohibited by statute… And since the file number is no longer part of HRS 338, it cannot be claimed that presently HRS 338 allows for the release of the file number.

    The mere fact that such data may have once been accessible does not mean that the data must still be allowed to be released. In fact, the Sunshine law dictates the opposite. Where prohibited by statute, data cannot be released. Since the Director of the DOH has not provided for the release of index data beyond the minimal requirements as stated in HRS 338-18, no additional data can be released.

  121. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 9:37 pm #

    I gave a couple OIP Opinion Letters which both said that a records denial which doesn’t have the “if any” statement is a confirmation that the record exists. I pointed out the procedures which the OIP requires departments to follow in this regard which confirms the same thing. I posted 2 e-mails from OIP Staff Attorney, Linden Joesting, saying that if the department doesn’t have the records they have to say so.

    I don’t get what is the problem here. What more are you exactly wanting? The only people who have authority to say what the denial of records means have all consistently said the same thing over the course of many years as well as in this particular instance – which is why I’m repeating it.

    What don’t you understand about this clear, consistent standard? You can deny it all you want, but that doesn’t change the facts.

  122. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Also

    But even these restrictions are permissive that is an agency is not required to disclose records falling under these provisions. Conversely, these provisions do not prohibit the agency from releasing such records.

    Disclosure is protected by HRS 338-18 and thus even though the file number may have once been part of index data that could be released, presently it does not authorize such a release. And the release is not prevented through a reference to the sunshine laws but rather to the actual HRS 338-18.

  123. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    To understand some of the fascinating logic let’s compare the following

    The request

    Dear Dr. Fukino:

    Persuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.

    The Response

    Aloha Ms. (redacted),

    There are no records responsive to your request.

    The ‘conclusion’?

    So the receipts for the fees Obama paid to have his birth certificate amended existed in September of 2009 but were destroyed by January of 2010.

    One cannot make this up… And yet it shows the extreme illogical nature of these birthers where denials become admissions.

  124. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 9:56 pm #

    Index data consists of name, gender, and type of event.

  125. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    Why do you not present your case step by step:

    1. The following was requested
    2. This was the answer
    3. Because of OIP letter xxx, this must thus mean that…

    So far I have attempted to follow your logic and failed to see anything that leads to the conclusion you presented.

    The existence of an amendment was based on the statement “vital records” which was interpreted to mean more than one.

    Perhaps you are relying on the following exchange? It shows a request titled Third UIPA records request which is followed by a response to a different email titled
    RE: Please add to my UIPA request. It is not clear from this that the DOH was responding to the request for the data.

    From: terri(redacted)
    To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov; janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov; oip@hawaii.gov
    Subject: Third UIPA records request
    Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:17:45 -0400

    Dear Dr. Fukino…
    1.) I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records…
    Which the DOH responded to, referring to “your latest e-mails”:
    Subject: RE: Please add to my UIPA request
    Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:48:54 -1000
    From: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
    To: terri (redacted)
    Subject: RE: Please add to my UIPA request
    Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:48:54 -1000
    From: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
    To: terri (redacted)

    Aloha Terri K,
    I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health. Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.

    Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obamas birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.

    We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obamas birth certificate or any related information.

    A similar request made by “Nellie”

    From: Nellie

    To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov

    Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:28 PM

    Subject: UIPA Request

    12-10-09

    Dear Dr. Fukino:

    Persuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.

    Was met with the following response

    From: Okubo, Janice S.

    To: Nellie

    Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:50 PM

    Subject: RE: UIPA Request

    Aloha Ms. (redacted),

    There are no records responsive to your request.

    When in fact you asked Fukino for clarification it became clear that they never responded to her third request as they claim they never received it

    From:Okubo, Janice S.

    Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:27 PM

    Subject: RE: UIPA Request

    The department does not have a record responsive to your request.

    Here is the copy of Terri K’s UIPA Request that they say they don’t have.

    From: terri(redacted)

    In other words, there is no validity to the claim that they ever admitted the existence of amendments,

  126. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    She confirmed name “Barack Obama” and “birth”, the conclusion that this was a Hawaiian birth is implicit in the fact that it was registered in the State of Hawaii.

    Please explain your reasoning, if any

  127. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 10:01 pm #

    Exactly, nbC! I’ve been trying to make those exact same points. Your latest post here is a perfect illustration of the unbelievable illogical conclusions that BZ seems to base her whole “thesis” screed around.

    I read those same filings on her site and was like, WTF??? Where part of “NO” meant fees or evidence of any amended document?

    It just simply doesn’t. Which demonstrates that only one of three possibilities for BZ’s conclusions exist.

    Either A: BZ is knowingly and deliberately making up the false ideas about “fees” and “amended documents” in order to create conspiracy and gain unwitting “followers” and intentionally organizing their site in such a poor fashion, knowing that such followers are going to be too lazy to click through all the links and blurry small image documents to try to find the truth.

    Or B: BZ has extremely poor reading comprehension and logic skills. (If this is the case, and BZ is really a “teacher” by trade, then that definitely does not inspire confidence in their ability to teach).

    Or C: Both A and B are true.

    The only other possible conclusion is really a just subset of A, which is still deliberate intent by BZ, but driven by BZ’s own need to reinforce a pre-disposed “worldview” by creating false facts to support them.

  128. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:03 pm #

    She used the plural “recordS”, and the DOH has confirmed that the only vital event they have in their index is his birth.

    She said she looked at more than one document, and the index data shows it was regarding the one event they have for him – birth.

    The fact that the records of the amendment (receipts and such) were denied without an “if any” statement means that she also confirmed that those records exist and the birth certificate was thus amended. To amend a record affidavits and proof documents have to be provided.

    IOW, Fukino’s public statement and her UIPA response are totally consistent with each other. Oama has a birth certificate and some kind of other affidavits or documents to support a change to the original birth certificate.

    This is not rocket science.

  129. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    So we know so far that when requested

    Persuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.

    the response was that there were no such data.

    We also know that the DOH claims it never received Terrik’s request for

    ) I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records…

    Was never received and thus the September email response referring to HRS 338-18 was in response to her request to see the actually records that show amended.

    This is what the email was in response to

    Dear Dr. Fukino…

    1.) I request the blank/voided or unfilled’ forms issued by the Department of Health that Dr. Fukino saw per her public statement below, be disclosed OR a list of those forms & types of records. I would also like included copies of any notations, amendment notes and stamp impressions that are found on these documents. If any of the following records I requested are already available for downloading on the web, please send me direct links to their location(s). Please let me know if this is not clear or if there is a more suitable record(s) to be requesting:

    2.) I request any record of receipt by the DoH for all proof that was offered and/or used to amend any of the vital records that Dr. Fukino saw per her public statement below, be disclosed:

    3.) Also, per Dr. Fukino’s public statement on 7/27/09 (below), I would like a copy of the record OR portion of the record(s) that has the word Amended’ stamped or written and also initialed by the DoH reviewer. In addition to this I would like a copy of the record or portion of the record that states what type of information was amended, when and why. Please provide me electronic copies…

    If Terrik or BZ believe that there exist index data for an amendment then all they have to do is show up in person at the office during business hours, sign in and inspect the records.

    Why has this not been done?

  130. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    We are not denying anything.

    We just completely disagree with your conclusions.

    I’ve read both of your OIP Opinion letter links and nowhere within them did I find anything that supports what you claim. In fact, I found that they indicted the opposite.

    If you are going to try to keep pulling this BS, I suggest you cite specific language from those letters that you claim states:

    “records denial which doesn’t have the “if any” statement is a confirmation that the record exists.”

    You either intentionally or lazily try to make your claim and just provide a link to documents, assuming that the gullible will just automatically by your BS, because your provided a link, without checking it to see if it says what you claim.

    I’m calling you out – provide not just the link but also exact quotes from that link to support your position or else come clean and admit that you are either A) wrong or B) making it all up.

  131. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    HRS 338-17 says Fukino doesn’t have the authority.

    The date chosen was interesting because it was the same date that Neil Abercrombie got a bill passed saying that Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961 – and it was sent to Terri K in an e-mail before it was released publicly.

    Have I written and asked? lololol. How much time do you have? Have you asked her? Why or why not?

    Any reasonable person would think it was suspicious that she spent over a year telling everybody she couldn’t reveal anything on the birth certificate and then all of a sudden she makes an illegal public statement saying his birthplace is Hawaii.

  132. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    @butterdezillion: I found this about Sarah Palin.
    .

  133. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    BZ continues her confused logic

    She used the plural “recordS”, and the DOH has confirmed that the only vital event they have in their index is his birth.

    In other words, no evidence of an amendment, and the existence of a single birth certificate and the use of the term vital records is somehow seen as evidence that there must thus exist multiple documents…

    Fascinating…

    She said she looked at more than one document, and the index data shows it was regarding the one event they have for him – birth.

    Index data should also show amendments if any. Have you found any evidence that such index data exist?

    The fact that the records of the amendment (receipts and such) were denied without an “if any” statement means that she also confirmed that those records exist and the birth certificate was thus amended. To amend a record affidavits and proof documents have to be provided.

    What more can be understood from “no such records were found” than the obvious that there are none?

    There are no records responsive to your request.

    IOW, Fukino’s public statement and her UIPA response are totally consistent with each other. Oama has a birth certificate and some kind of other affidavits or documents to support a change to the original birth certificate.

    No such conclusion can be drawn from the data you have presented so far.
    In fact all the data point to the opposite.

    When asked by Terrik about amended records and more, the DOH responded that she had no right to see such data under HRS 338-18. To interpret this as if this thus was an admission of the existence of such data is illogical. In fact, the attorney stated clearly that Fukino had not mentioned any amendment.
    However the question about data surrounding an amendment was asked in an email that the DOH claims it never received. When you filed a similar request, you were told that no such records exist.

    All this leads you to conclude that there must therefor have been amended data even though there is no evidence other than the use of a common term “vital records” and there is no evidence of any receipt or payment for this mysterious amendment.

    Have you inspected the Index Data to see if there is any evidence for an amendment? That’s the place to find evidence. So far all you have shown is absence of evidence and poor ‘deductive logic’.

  134. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Oh and I forgot, the OIP affirms the usage of HRS 338-18 to reject access to any such data. Yep, you posted it yourself.

    Weird…

  135. avatar
    Kevin Bellas February 13, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    Ahh!!! you are the same John that’s posting this nonsense at Ed Hale’s funny farm.

  136. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    butterdezillion: She used the plural “recordS”, and the DOH has confirmed that the only vital event they have in their index is his birth.

    She said she looked at more than one document, and the index data shows it was regarding the one event they have for him – birth.

    Let’s look at Fukino’s statement again, shall we?

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Fukino is just using proper grammar here and plural is the correct tense to use in this type of generic statement, regardless if an individual had one record or multiple. It refers to the fact that any and all such type of records that exist fall under her authority.

    The fact that you are trying to read more into it than that shows once again that either A) you are being completely disingenuous and trying to tilt at windmills to make an issue out of nothing or B) your reading comprehension AND understanding of grammar are pathetic, in which again, I really question your capabilities as a so-called “teacher”.

    butterdezillion: The fact that the records of the amendment (receipts and such) were denied without an “if any” statement means that she also confirmed that those records exist and the birth certificate was thus amended. To amend a record affidavits and proof documents have to be provided.

    butterdezillion: This is not rocket science.

  137. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    Do you know what the term “grandfathered in” means?

    Did you read the document I gave on this? I think it explained it pretty clearly. In the legislative history of UIPA it was made clear that the exemptions to disclosure were not meant to close the availability of records that had previously been public. HRS 338 had specifically authorized the disclosure of the certificate number.

    Records available to the public before 1988 are still available to the public today. UIPA requires that if disclosure is allowed, disclosure must be made upon request.

    HRS 338-18 determines what records that have come into existence after 1988 can be released. But whatever was public before 1988 is still public.

    Furthermore, the index lists which the DOH was required to publish between 1977 and 1988 would have included the certificate number, and whatever has already been made public has no privacy interest. Without citing the privacy exemption from disclosure the DOH has no justification for their refusal to disclose the certificate number. The DOH has the burden of proof to show why they are allowed to withhold what is requested.

  138. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:29 pm #

    No, no, no. The response to Terri K’s request was that the records requested were exempt from disclosure and were thus being denied – which, according to the OIP over many years, means that those records ****DO*** exist.

    The DOH never claimed they didn’t get Terri’s request.

    And there is no index data for amendments.

    Good heavens. In every point of factual knowledge you have shown that you don’t get it. Did you bother to read any of what I wrote? Where are you getting this stuff?

    It reminds me of Janice Okubo going onto John Charlton’s site and quoting him as making a certain request when he’s got his e-mail showing that he requested something totally opposite. She made the stuff up out of whole cloth. Why make up stuff like that? Especially when it is so easily shown to be untrue?

  139. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Maybe my expectation of basic comprehension skills was a bit too much to expect at this site.

    Did you read http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/amendment-confirmed/ ?

    Yes or no?

  140. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Oops. Accidentally hit the submit button before typing my response to the bottom two parts I was quoting from BZ, so here is the rest of what I meant to rebut:

    butterdezillion: The fact that the records of the amendment (receipts and such) were denied without an “if any” statement means that she also confirmed that those records exist and the birth certificate was thus amended. To amend a record affidavits and proof documents have to be provided.

    You keep saying this but you are totally wrong and illogical. It means no such thing. The fact that you make such an absurd statement means that you have no idea what you are talking about. This is why you lack credibility.

    The fact that your fishing expedition for non-existing documents was denied says absolutely nothing about the existence of said documents.

    It simply only means that your request was denied. Nothing more.

    butterdezillion: This is not rocket science.

    No, it is not. It requires only extremely simple, basic logic and reading comprehension skills . The fact that you keep drawing the wrong conclusions and have wasted so much time chasing this rabbit down the hole only demonstrates that not only are you NOT a rocket scientist yourself but also makes me question how you are able to even function in society and find your way out of your own house every day. I shudder at the thought that you supposedly “teach” when you seem to be so adamant about drawing and supporting such pathetically non-existent conclusions.

  141. avatar
    Kevin Bellas February 13, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    It’s not the AG job to support the Dr. Fukino’s declaration of Pres. Obama NBC. If you doubt her statement take her to court.

  142. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    WE know they existed in September of 2009 because the DOH’s denial of access confirmed their existence.

    When I asked to see them in January of 2010 their answer went from saying we weren’t allowed to see them to saying they no longer exist.

    The records retention schedule says they must be kept for 2 years, at which time they are scheduled to be destroyed.

    Obviously they were destroyed sometime between September 2009 and January 2010 – unless the DOH was lying in one or the other of their answers.

    Which – if you comprehend what I’ve been revealing about the DOH – is entirely possible.

    And that is precisely my point. These people need to be investigated.

  143. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    Yes I did, several times, unfortunately. Including clicking through a number of the links.

    My conclusions are based upon reading your crap and realizing that your own evidence does not at all match up to what you claim it does.

    I can only conclude that you are a total idiot or a bad con artist…or possibly just severely self-deluded …or any combination of the above.

    So, which is it?

  144. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    I’m really beginning to suspect that you are extremely delusional at this point as you tend to “see” and “know” things that aren’t there and aren’t supported by even your own supporting links.

    You are on a crusade that only exists in your own mind, deeply engorged in a wasted and baseless effort of utter futility.

  145. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    The provisions referred to there are the exemptions to disclosure. For instance, the agency CAN refuse to disclose records which might interfere with their everyday routines. But they don’t have to. The agency CAN disclose records in spite of the privacy protections if they determine that the public interest outweighs the person’s privacy interest. Etc.

    But records that were available before 1988 are not protected by any of the exemptions to disclosure.

    If a record doesn’t fit an exemption or if the record is specifically authorized for disclosure (as were the certificate numbers by HRS 338 before 1988) then UIPA says they MUST be disclosed. The rule is that if they CAN be disclosed they MUST be disclosed.

  146. avatar
    Kevin Bellas February 13, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    You mean your blog with comments like these:

    “we passed the point of no return the day JFK was assasinated in Dallas by the Federal Reserve and Bilerberg group.The only way we will ever have a Republic again is to destroy all these traitors to the USA.It will require the tactics of the insugents fighting asymmetrically against them.We know who they are we know when and where they meet for the most part we must fight them now and to the death or there will not be a United States of America by this time in 2011″

    Yike!!! Conspiracy city.

  147. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    Re: G at 10:31

    You said, “You keep saying this but you are totally wrong and illogical. It means no such thing”

    Cite your sources. They better have more authority than the OIP and the Hawaii legislature.

    Also, you still haven’t grasped that we’re talking about documents that ****DID***** exist.

    Jeesh. This is basic comprehension. The DOH said the receipts ****DID**** exist. This was not a “fishing expedition for documents that don’t exist”. If was a request for documents the DOH acknowledged exist but claimed they weren’t anybody else’s business to see.

    You’re never going to see it, G. In your current state of mind you are not able to see it. You’re not even able to grasp what I’m CLAIMING – much less whether the claim is supported.

    I’m sorry to have disturbed you. Sleep well, dream of large women.

  148. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    It is pointless to try to do analysis with people who can’t perform at the basic facts stage.

    I’m sorry I’ve wasted both your time and mine.

  149. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Jeesh. This is basic comprehension. The DOH said the receipts ****DID**** exist. This was not a “fishing expedition for documents that don’t exist”. If was a request for documents the DOH acknowledged exist but claimed they weren’t anybody else’s business to see.

    This is contrary to what you have represented so far. In fact, the response by the DOH was not in response to the request for the receipts and in fact the DOH denies having received such a request.

    Let’s not change the facts now shall we….

  150. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    WE know they existed in September of 2009 because the DOH’s denial of access confirmed their existence.

    Nope, the DOH even admits that it never received such a request. In its response, it addressed whether or not T. should have access to any HRS 338-18 data and found that she lacked ‘standing’. No admissions to the existence of any data were made. Your own timeline also does not support this.

  151. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    Hawaiian vital records Index data exists for births, deaths, marriages and divorces in Hawaii. The fact that there is Hawaiian index data for the birth of Barack Obama means he was born in Hawaii. This is why Dr Fukino’s statement is allowed under 338-18. A birth outside of Hawaii registered later is not a vital event. An adoption is not a vital event. An amendment of a vital record is not a vital event.

  152. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    And that is precisely my point. These people need to be investigated.

    Why just because someone who confuses data and emails and interprets them to reach a foregone conclusion not supported by the facts? You’re kidding…

    If you really feel otherwise, then I am sure we can expect you to file a civil suit anytime soon now?

    You have no case however, other than reading ‘between the lines’ and ignoring the far more obvious interpretation.

    Why is that?

  153. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    butterdezillion: …which, according to the OIP over many years, means that those records ****DO*** exist.

    Sorry, but you are wrong. Your own OIP links to support your statements indicate exactly the opposite of what you claim.

    NOTHING in your OWN provided “evidence” anywhere supports the absurd conclusions that you make. NOTHING in your OWN “evidence” supports the existence of any fees or any amended document.

    Your requests just show that people have asked for such records and their requests for such have simply been rejected.

    The entire notion that you keep harping on a belief that a negative response to a non-existence hypothetical somehow proves its existence is beyond absurd and shows either an utter contempt for reason or an utter inability to do so on your part.

    butterdezillion:
    Did you bother to read any of what I wrote? Where are you getting this stuff?

    Yes. It is in wasting lots of time reading your own site and looking at your links and documented evidence that led me to the conclusion that you are wrong. You are either intentionally trying to mislead people or you are nearly incapable of basic rational understanding of issues.

    Your own site and “evidence” are what do you in and prove you wrong at nearly every turn.

    Your continued ability to cling to such crazy conclusions, after being repeatedly presented in detail with what is wrong with your own evidence and conclusions, leads me to suspect that you either a total con artist trying to desperately scramble after having your “game” utterly busted or else you really are seriously brain-impaired and need to seek mental help.

  154. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    I’m sorry I’ve wasted both your time and mine.

    I am also sorry to hear you wasted over 1000 hours of time only to find out the basic premise was flawed.

  155. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    BZ-The “issues” you raise are 100% certified red herrings. Elementary logic makes it obvious that regardless of any nits you wish to pick, Obama was born in Hawaii. Let’s look at the facts:

    1. His mother lived in Hawaii.
    2. Her parents lived in Hawaii.
    3. The doctors she saw during pregnancy were in Hawaii.
    4. Pregnant women are, for good and obvious reasons, reluctant to leave their homes and their relatives.
    5. If they do, they don’t go to third-world countries in a struggle for independence, where they don’t know a soul.
    6. Airlines in 1961 did not allow late-term pregnant women on board.
    7. The only way to get from Hawaii to Kenya in any reasonable time was by air.

    Therefore, even if you could prove with 100% certitude that the Hawaiian DOH now and then was a den of corruption and incompetence (in fact, you have proven nothing at all), my conclusion would not change. My conclusion is simple and the only one in agreement with the known facts and logic. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. In fact it is the ONLY place he could possibly have been born. To maintain otherwise defies all sense and logic.

    Now, you should leave this site, since here we respect the rules of logic and reason.

  156. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    The DOH never claimed they didn’t get Terri’s request.

    Your own site betrays you

    DOH Denies Existence of Terri K’s UIPA Request

    My request:

    From: redacted
    Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:57 PM
    To: Okubo, Janice S.
    Subject: UIPA Request

    12-10-09

    Aloha!

    Persuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the UIPA request sent by terri (redacted) on Aug 18, 2009 at 18:17:45 -0400 and all responses you gave to that request. Please include an electronic signature or a signed cover letter indicating that these are true copies of the communication that occurred.

    Thank you.

    Nellie

    Their response:

    —– Original Message —–

    From:Okubo, Janice S.

    Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:27 PM

    Subject: RE: UIPA Request

    The department does not have a record responsive to your request.

    Here is the copy of Terri K’s UIPA Request that they say they don’t have.

    From: terri(redacted)

    Really… Who are you trying to fool here?

  157. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    It reminds me of Janice Okubo going onto John Charlton’s site and quoting him as making a certain request when he’s got his e-mail showing that he requested something totally opposite. She made the stuff up out of whole cloth. Why make up stuff like that? Especially when it is so easily shown to be untrue?

    I have no idea as to what you are referring here but do you have any idea how ironic your comments must sound to me?

  158. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    Interesting point Kimba…

  159. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    Interesting quote from Okubo

    To verify we did have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested this month, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get one in April, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.

  160. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    butterdezillion: I’m sorry to have disturbed you. Sleep well, dream of large women.

    LOL! I love the reference to The Princess Bride, one of my favorite movies. At least I can commend your taste in film and sense of humor.

    But on to other points, I’m not trying to be mean, but I am frustrated and seriously feel that you are trying to “con” me. When you make statements and then just provide a link and authoritatively state that the link proves what you say…well, then it better darn well do that. Particularly when you just made declarative claims and don’t ALSO provide the EXACT QUOTES that should support your positions within the link you provided. If I check out your link AND spend the time reading through the ENTIRE document and cannot find anywhere that states what you claimed this link was in support of…well then I feel you are just trying to pull a fast one and trying to mislead and lie to me. Even more so, when the link you provide seems to state the OPPOSITE of what you claimed it would.

    Case in point, let’s look further at what you asked me:

    butterdezillion: Re: G at 10:31You said, “You keep saying this but you are totally wrong and illogical. It means no such thing”Cite your sources. They better have more authority than the OIP and the Hawaii legislature.

    I have no problem citing my sources, and I need to go no further than your own OIP document. As I stated in another post, here are 3 key quotes FROM YOUR OWN OIP document that seemed to sum it up and state the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim:

    “If there had been a record in existence that satisfied your request, it may have been protected from public disclosure under section 92V-13(2) of the UIPA if it was indeed attorney-client privileged information as Deputy A’t olsztyniak. asserted in his letter. However, the burden to prove that such a requested record is indeed protected from disclosure under the UIPA would he with the Corporation Counsel. Haw. Rev. Stat § 92F-15(c) (1993)”

    “The UIPA applies only to government records maintained by an agency as defined above. Accordingly, the UIPA is not applicable in this instance because, based on a reasonable search for records, there is no record that would be responsive to your request. The UIPA does not apply to oral conversations unless there is some physical record of them.”

    “The UIPA applies only to existing records. As there are no records which memorialize the authority to settle, the UIPA is not applicable and the Corporation Counsel is not required to create a summary.”

    OIP Op. Ltr. No. 97-8

    Now, it is your turn:

    Please respond both to these quotes, which don’t seem to support your position

    AND

    provide any exact quotes you can from your own documents which somehow DO claim that a denial of access to any request somehow PROVES the existence of that information.

    Because I certainly cannot find anything that in any way supports that claim by you.

  161. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    butterdezillion: Also, you still haven’t grasped that we’re talking about documents that ****DID***** exist.Jeesh. This is basic comprehension. The DOH said the receipts ****DID**** exist. This was not a “fishing expedition for documents that don’t exist”.

    Again, then clearly and plainly provide direct evidence that supports such information ****DID***** exist, as I’ve been through your site and your stuff and don’t see it anywhere.

    And this better be harder “evidence” than a statement denying a request for non-existent info, because if that is ALL you have, then you have nothing at all.

  162. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    Yikes! Wow, what an utterly vile threat.

    That totally sounds like someone advocating violence against this country and their fellow citizens. Which sounds like the definition of a traitor to me.

  163. avatar
    butterdezillion February 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    The DOH claims that processing records ARE HRS 338-18(**A**) records. That’s where they are totally screwed up. HRS 338-18(a) deals with actual certificates and will not allow certified copies or the release of any information from the certs except as authorized by law or by DOH rules.

    HRS 338-18(***B**) deals with “public health statistics records”, which is defined in 338-1 as including the records of processing. And disclosure of information from those records is not forbidden as the DOH claims. Only direct viewing and certified copies are forbidden.

    So when the DOH says they deny access because of 338-18(a) it isn’t because Terri K was only asking for certificates. It’s because they lump it all together – even though the records she asked for fit under 338-18(****B****).

    I have Terri K’s complete set of e-mails. The response that they gave includes the record of all the e-mails Terri K had sent before, and it is all in there. They received everything she sent, and it was included on the e-mail they sent her. I don’t know if I cut the rest of that out in the interest of conserving space or what, but their response was to all the requests she had made, which were included in the history portion of their e-mail.

    If you read http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/amendment-confirmed/ you saw that the OIP and the other sources I gave show that the DOH gave a denial of access that had no “if any” statement. That is a confirmation that what is being denied actually exists.

    This is a very important concept to get. They cannot deny access to a record that doesn’t exist. If you look at the “Response to Requestor” form and if you look at the e-mails from Joesting, they all say that – that if the record doesn’t exist they have to say so. They didn’t say so. Instead they denied access, which is confirmation that the records exist.

    I’ve said this numerous times and I’ve shown the legal documents which explain why the DOH response means what it does. If you haven’t understood this concept by now you’re probably not going to understand it.

  164. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    The DOH claims that processing records ARE HRS 338-18(**A**) records. That’s where they are totally screwed up. HRS 338-18(a) deals with actual certificates and will not allow certified copies or the release of any information from the certs except as authorized by law or by DOH rules.

    So you admit that the response of the DOH was not in response to the request for index data or receipts. Fine. If you have additional emails that clarify your position then please provide them as the record so far belies your interpretation. Especially the part where the DOH denies the receipt of Terrik’s request for the receipts.

    So far you are doing not much of a job to present your case in any logical manner as I have shown how the data you have provided contradicts you in all relevant aspects

    I’ve said this numerous times and I’ve shown the legal documents which explain why the DOH response means what it does. If you haven’t understood this concept by now you’re probably not going to understand it.

    Nice… Accuse others of misinterpreting the DOH response and yet it is you who misconstrues their statements as admission of the existence of amendments.

    That’s just hilarious BZ…

    Perhaps you could release the full email exchange involving Terrik and the DOH?

  165. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    “They cannot deny access to a record that doesn’t exist”

    Huh? That statement makes no sense. BZ, you are off in your own little speculation, make-something-of-nothing, they’re-all-out-to-try-to-deceive-us world. You don’t make sense. What you write may appeal to those who want to believe, but it doesn’t stand up to even mild scrutiny. You are stretching beyond the limits of even Gumby to make what the Hawaiian DOH says mean what you want it to say.

  166. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    What do you think was meant by the following DOH response?

    From: “Okubo, Janice S.”
    Date: July 29, 2009 2:27:49 PM EDT
    To: [TerriK, real name redacted]
    Subject: RE: One more question.

    The director has never used the word “AMMENDED” (sic) in her statements, and has nothing further to add to her statements.

    Janice Okubo

    The fact that she denies must obviously be interpreted as evidence that such an amendment exists.

  167. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    Well said… Devastating how time after time the facts so clearly seem to contradict the specious statement that an amendment must exists….
    Fascinating logic found in Alice in Wonderland

  168. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    Better be careful, Nellie. Sedition is serious.

    Get a hobby.

  169. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    butterdezillion: you saw that the OIP and the other sources I gave show that the DOH gave a denial of access that had no “if any” statement. That is a confirmation that what is being denied actually exists.

    This is a very important concept to get. They cannot deny access to a record that doesn’t exist. If you look at the “Response to Requestor” form and if you look at the e-mails from Joesting, they all say that – that if the record doesn’t exist they have to say so. They didn’t say so. Instead they denied access, which is confirmation that the records exist.I’ve said this numerous times and I’ve shown the legal documents which explain why the DOH response means what it does. If you haven’t understood this concept by now you’re probably not going to understand it.

    But therein lies the whole fallacy of your thesis here.

    Whether they chose to include an “if any” statement or not has absolutely no bearing. The legal documents you show to support your claim do not bear you out at all either.

    Your whole premise is making an assumption that by them merely responding “no” to these requests that they have made an admission of having certain specific documents.

    That just simply is NOT a conclusion supported by logic. Their statement neither confirms nor denies the existence of what is being requested. It merely states that they cannot answer that question.

    Not answering a question does NOT imply a “yes” by any means. It simply is a rejection of the need to respond to the request at all.

    In many ways, it is similar to when a judge refuses to hear a frivolous claim and just flat out denies it without any hearing or trial.

    If you would take such a denial as proof that said frivolous case had merit, you would be similarly woefully mistaken.

    But then again, folks like Orly and many other birthers seem to point to their cases being denied and tossed out as somehow “proof” and “vindication” of their position.

    So, I guess drawing conclusions out of thin air are part and parcel part of how birther’s minds work and therefore you are probably beyond the ability to be reasoned with at all.

    In that case, keep spending all your time on this fruitless quest.

    Honestly, where do you think you are going with all this and what do you seriously plan to do about it, other than get riled up on a blog.

    I’m betting you get absolutely nowhere with it and just continue to obsess and waste time tilting at windmills to no avail. I’m betting that any complaints or filings you attempt will just similarly be rejected, yet that still won’t sink in that maybe you are wrong and you’ll just keep wasting your time with no result other than repeated failure.

  170. avatar
    nbC February 13, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    Wowsers…

  171. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    nbC: The fact that she denies must obviously be interpreted as evidence that such an amendment exists.

    LOL! Careful nbC, you should be more clear that you are obviously be facetious in your response here.

    Folks like BZ or even the casual reader / stranger who comes here might accidentally take your statement seriously and not see the biting sarcasm.

  172. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    Me? Facetious? Where did you get that idea?

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    I must admit, Don Quixote comes to mind.

  174. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    You are too kind Doc….

  175. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    ;)

  176. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    To understand the meaning of those quotes you have to realize the context of the case. Somebody had requested to see the legal counsel given within an agency. The lawyer responded by saying access was denied because of attorney-client privilege (one of the exception to disclosure in UIPA). The requestor appealed the decision and the OIP ordered the lawyer to produce the documents for them to look at so they could decide whether the attorney-client privilege applied.

    The reason they asked to see the records is because records that don’t exist can’t be denied.

    The long and short of it is that the lawyer confessed that the documents didn’t exist. They did what the OIP said was a reasonable search and didn’t come up with records because the conversation had not been done in writing. So their answer to the requestor was that the lawyer couldn’t give him the records because they don’t exist – a fact that was hidden by the “ambiguous” response: a denial of access for a record that actually didn’t exist.

    So what is being said in the quotes you gave is that the denial of access is moot and that there is no UIPA response to be made because the requested record doesn’t exist.

    I see now that I should have gone into OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 in more detail. Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve changed the entry so hopefully it documents this better. Check out http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/amendment-confirmed/ and see if that makes more sense.

    The point of it is that unless a denial of access has the “if any” statement, it is confirmation that the record to which access is being denied actually exists. And their denial of access to Terri K did not have “if any” in it, so it was a confirmation that what she requested exists.

    This probably all seems nit-picky and like it would be easy for the DOH to just screw up. But Glomarization is a big deal with FOIA and the rules are quite clear. And the DOH was in contact with OIP for several weeks regarding that request and its response.

    Judging by the way that the OIP handled the case I described above, the OIP would have asked to see the records to determine whether they really were exempt, and if they didn’t actually exist the OIP would have found that out and responded just like they did in the above case.

    But the OIP didn’t respond that way. They responded by saying it was a denial of the records – meaning that the records were confirmed as existing, like the OIP handbook orders in its rules/protocols.

    Sorry I’ve been so suffy. Looking at what I’ve got there I can understand why my point might not have been clear. I’ve been through so many explanations from the officials and had such experiences with what the responses mean that I’ve forgotten how confusing it was to sort it out. But the explanations given to Terri K, and to me, and to the people who requested the OIP Opinion Letters are all consistent in saying that a denial of access without the “if any” is confirmation of the record’s existence.

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 1:25 am #

    G: come clean and admit that you are either A) wrong or B) making it all up.

    I don’t think it is either. It appears that BZ has some problems with inference. Her way of thinking is characterized by some formal logical fallacies (like affirming the antecedent). She simply sees connections and inferences that normal people don’t see (and formal logic proves lead to false conclusions). It’s almost like she sees a physical object that no one else sees. I’m sure it’s quite frustrating for her, and it’s rather frustrating for us as well.

    I would really like to study the general topic of conspiracy theorists and the thinking defects they have. It would seem to me that the inability to recognize valid argument and make correct inferences would manifest it in all kinds of problems in daily living.

  178. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 1:28 am #

    butterdezillion: She used the plural “recordS”, and the DOH has confirmed that the only vital event they have in their index is his birth.

    We are not convinced.

  179. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 1:35 am #

    The point of it is that unless a denial of access has the “if any” statement, it is confirmation that the record to which access is being denied actually exists. And their denial of access to Terri K did not have “if any” in it, so it was a confirmation that what she requested exists.

    Of course a HRS 338-18 record exists, it’s just that terrik has no access to it. To conclude from this that an amendment exists is just ridiculous as no such statement was made.
    You are looking at absence of evidence as evidence that something exists, and for that you are butchering OIP ruling without giving notice to the fact that Terrik was requesting data to which she just would not have any rights to see them.
    To suggest that this confirms the existence is just plain weird as there is no evidence of any amendment.

    We know that President Obama was born in Hawaii and even allowing for an amendment, nothing is going to change that fact.

    You can ‘argue’ all you want but there is nothing in the email to support your fantasy.

  180. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    Neither are we…

  181. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:41 am #

    The DOH didn’t have Terri K’s request because they destroyed it – against rules.

    We know they got the request because they actually answered it – complete with all the history of what she had requested. Terri K’s e-mail from them shows that. And the OIP also has copies of the exchange between Terri K and the DOH. They sent it to me when I made a UIPA request for it.

    So we know this stuff happened, it exists, the DOH got the request and responded to it just as I said.

    But the DOH, when asked about the exchange, denied that they have any record that it happened – even though I’ve got the records in my hot little hands straight from Terri K and also straight from OIP who was copied on the whole thing.

    I made a UIPA request to the DOH to send me a copy of Terri K’s UIPA request and their responses. I didn’t tell them this, but the reason I asked for it was so that I could document that they had confirmed the amendment. They knew that was what I wanted to do, though, so they destroyed the file for that UIPA request (or else just lied by saying they didn’t have it).

    Okubo has since sent me, at my request, the records retention form showing that they are required to keep the UIPA requests for 2 years.

    My point in including that is that the DOH either destroyed the record of their exchange with Terri K (destroying the evidence) – thus breaking the rules – or else lied about not having those records. The OIP’s records show that the DOH lied.

    And actually, we have proof now that the OIP did the same thing later by claiming they sent us all the appeals they handled in a certain timeframe but leaving out a substantial number of appeals that we already have in our hot little hands.

    These people are being caught red-handed.

  182. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Show me the documents proving she saw any doctor in Hawaii.

    You can say whatever you want, but what I’m looking for is documentation. That has always seemed a better epistemology than mere speculation.

  183. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 1:46 am #

    The DOH didn’t have Terri K’s request because they destroyed it – against rules.

    My goodness sake. When facts contradict you, you quickly refer to these nonsensical statements.

    So far all you have done is contradict your claim here using Terrik and your own requests.

    So when can we expect the data that would support your position?

    When hell freezes over, I predict.

    This is just pathetic… Thousands of hours of research and then this nonsense…

    Dr C and others have shown that you have no case, that your arguments are ill founded and based on specious logic.

    What a waste of so many hours which could have been applied far more productively.

    Obama by any standard was born on US soil, anything else, even if you had a case, would be totally irrelevant. Now that your case is quickly unraveling we see how you return to conspiracy and more unsupported assertions.

    Pathetic my dear Nellie…

  184. avatar
    misha February 14, 2010 at 1:47 am #

    “the inability to recognize valid argument and make correct inferences would manifest it in all kinds of problems in daily living.”

    I wonder if any of them are hoarders?

  185. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    You can say whatever you want, but what I’m looking for is documentation. That has always seemed a better epistemology than mere speculation.

    Oh the irony Nellie, the irony…. Why not apply this lesson to your own ‘arguments’?

    Obama, by any standard, was born on US soil. Nothing you have claimed so far undermines any of this.

    Nothing…

  186. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:49 am #

    Funny. When asked in official UIPA responses, the responses for which she is legally liable, she said she can’t reveal any processing records.

    So which story is true, Janice? Can you reveal when requests are made, or can’t you?

    That article was from Politifact, which concluded with Okubo’s statement that, regarding the Factcheck COLB specifically, she “can’t say what that represents”.

  187. avatar
    NBCCC February 14, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    Nellie is a riot. When shown to be without merit, she quickly returned to “well they destroyed the emails”.

    Pathetic, truly pathetic. Even the email subject clearly indicates to which request they were responding, and it wasn’t the “show me the receipts one’.

    Hilarious, thousands of hours of so called research wasted….

  188. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    That’s just like Bill Clinton saying, “I never SAID I had sex with that woman!!”

    When push came to shove, Janice Okubo denied Terri K access to the receipts for Obama’s amendment. She may never to this day have SAID the BC was amended, but her response indicated that it was.

  189. avatar
    NBCCC February 14, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    Funny. When asked in official UIPA responses, the responses for which she is legally liable, she said she can’t reveal any processing records.

    You’re funny and quite desperate my dear Nellie. Of course, the fact that she inadvertently admitted that a COLB had been requested and that the COLB was real is somehow ignored while statements that deny the existence of an amendment are somehow seen as evidence that they existed…

    What a wonderful world you live in Nellie. But it is not based on facts.
    Or at least it is based on a careful picking and interpretation of statements that run counter to Occam’s razor

  190. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:55 am #

    Psycho-babble means nothing.

    Give me documented facts.

  191. avatar
    NBCCC February 14, 2010 at 1:56 am #

    When push came to shove, Janice Okubo denied Terri K access to the receipts for Obama’s amendment. She may never to this day have SAID the BC was amended, but her response indicated that it was.

    She never said it thus she said it… Wonderful… All Okubo did was to point out that under hrs 338-18, Terrik failed to be in a position to have standing. Suddenly that becomes in your imagination evidence that an amendment must exist.

    Terrik was denied access to any relevant records.
    Your interpretation strains credulity and is contradicted by facts. If as Okubo stated, the COLB was real and it did not show evidence of any amendment then what does this to your case.
    Oh I see, you get to chose and pick what to believe and how to interpret.

    Funny… Ironic and indeed hilarious

  192. avatar
    NBCCC February 14, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    You have been provided such facts and have shown yourself to be unable to digest them. Instead you take speculation and denial as evidence of the opposite.

    You would not recognize a documented fact if it bit you in your face.

    Psycho babble means nothing and yet you quickly resort to such when discussing Okubo and the DOH of Hawaii… It’s not what they said, it’s what they did not say that is evidence of what they should have said.

  193. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    I posted the very e-mail they said they don’t have – and that you imply never existed.

    Who ya gonna believe – the DOH or your lyin’ eyes? lol.

    I can’t get any plainer than that. You’ve got the e-mail right in front of your face and you deny that it existed. Inconceivable.

  194. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    When have I ever psycho-babbled about Okubo?

    What I’ve described is their behavior – i.e. they denied that they have the records whose existence and possession by the DOH the OIP has already corroborated.

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    I think I’m going to leave it alone. The discussion seems to be running in circles. BZ sees things we don’t and draws inferences we consider invalid. Where is there to go from that? One cannot have a rational discussion when the parties cannot agree on what is a valid argument form.

  196. avatar
    nBC February 14, 2010 at 2:02 am #

    I posted the very e-mail they said they don’t have – and that you imply never existed.

    Liar, I stated that they claimed they never received it. Which is, given the context of their response, quite self evident.

    You’re such a liar my dear Nellie. And I mean that in the nicest meaning of the word.

    And how have you verified that the so called email was in fact sent, or in fact received by the DOH?

    Pray tell us how you have achieved this miracle…

  197. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    “My interpretation” is supported by the OIP repeatedly, by Staff Attorney Linden Joesting, and by FOIA rules regarding Glomarization.

    What is your “interpretation” supported by?

  198. avatar
    nBC February 14, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    What I’ve described is their behavior – i.e. they denied that they have the records whose existence and possession by the DOH the OIP has already corroborated.

    So you claim and yet, you have done nothing here of that kind. Liar…

  199. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 2:06 am #

    She admitted that what COLB was real?

    When asked specifically about the Factcheck COLB she said she could not say what it represented.

    And when I asked her directly whether she would reveal a forgery she knew of she said that law forbids her to do so.

    So what would her answer have been if she knew the Factcheck COLB was a forgery? How would it differ from what she actually said – given that she considered any other response illegal?

  200. avatar
    nBC February 14, 2010 at 2:06 am #

    What is your “interpretation” supported by?

    By the OIP who admitted that the rejection based on HRS 338-18 was correct.

    Seriously, you should remember what you post…

  201. avatar
    nBC February 14, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    She admitted that what COLB was real?

    That was later, initially she confirmed it as being a real COLB and that it had been requested earlier.

    Why are you ignoring what she said in favor of her later response when she remembered that she should not have said this?
    After all, you love to read between the lines but when it does not serve your purpose…

    Pathetic Nellie… All part of the Factcheck COLB have been confirmed other than the time of birth.

    Keep ignoring them facts my dear.

  202. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    You are correct but I will refuse to let Nellie use poor logic and reason to make her claims while ignoring the facts and the far more reasonable interpretation thereof.

    She claims that while Okubo never stated that there was an amendment, she obviously meant to say this when she didn’t….

  203. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 2:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy earlier was complaining that I had so many links in my blog – links to documentation.

    How many documents has the whole lot of you here provided to support your claims?

    You probably don’t realize it, but the reason this issue is gaining traction is because a lot of people are seeing that one side has documentation and reason and the other side merely ridicules.

    The whole world is not blind. They can see who is arguing facts and substance here, and who is just repeating a mantra they want to be true. I’m giving you OIP Opinion Letters and e-mail communications from the horses’ mouths…. and you’re telling me I’m so stupid and speculative imbetween your rounds of psychoanalyzing why I’m so stupid.

    People see. You don’t. But they do.

  204. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    And when I asked her directly whether she would reveal a forgery she knew of she said that law forbids her to do so.

    Your point? She confirmed that Obama was born on US soil.

    Keep ignoring that fact my friend…

  205. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 2:13 am #

    How many documents has the whole lot of you here provided to support your claims?

    I venture to guess around 500 to 1000 documents in total.

    Of course, in your case one has to but point out that the DOH of Hawaii verified his birth place to be in Hawaii.

    I am not saying that you are stupid, there are other explanations for your behavior.

  206. avatar
    Bob Bircher February 14, 2010 at 2:14 am #

    butterdezillion is a man.

  207. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 2:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy earlier was complaining that I had so many links in my blog – links to documentation.

    Worse, links which failed to provide support for your claims in any logical manner.

    Anyone can link to irrelevant data, but to make a coherent claim requires effort. And yet thousands of hours of effort seem to have been wasted.
    I understand that this will take some time for you to accept.

  208. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 3:05 am #

    RESPONSE 1 of 3 to BZ: SUMMARY

    This is in response to the your further detail and updates on your website in regards to OIP Opinion Letter 07-01.

    First of all, thank you for the time to respond and for updating your site accordingly. I think I have a slightly better idea of why you think this letter means something to your UIPA argument, but after detailed review, I still disagree completely with your conclusions.

    First of all, OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 was in regards to a specific matter dealing with a UIPA request to the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) to disclose certain records of individuals obtained through the firearm permitting process. The Opinion Letter was in response to the Police Chief, who requested the opinion.

    In reading this opinion, while it is possible to interpret the findings more broadly, nothing leads me to conclude that the findings would have to be applied more broadly than in context of the specific instance, department, and situation as described therein.

    Therefore, use of this particular finding in support of the UIPA requests on Obama’s vital records is still a stretch at best.
    Second, the particular quotes you reference in this OPINION to back up your position comes down to ONE statement within that entire document, as found on page 7:

    “Accordingly, OIP believes that HPD should deny such a request by stating that records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4).”
    The problem is that you are OVERREACHING by taking an OPINION which uses the word SHOULD to imply MUST.
    Those are two different things. Nowhere does the opinion state that responses to UIPA requests, even in this situation, MUST deny non-existent records or that they MUST include the phrase “IF ANY”.
    All it does is state that in this situation, it would have been better and clearer for them to have done so.
    I will address your words on such and the exact language from that Opinion in 2 follow-up posts, as this one is long enough for an embedded response.
    In summary, you are drawing conclusions in a definitive that do not exist, by making an extremely broad interpretation of a recommendation in an unrelated type of UIPA case and treating it like it is law for how to handle the situation on your folks UIPA requests on Obama. While you may wish that the DOH would explicitly state that they deny the existence of certain forms, there is no actual requirement for them to do so or to respond to you with “IF ANY” language to imply otherwise. Therefore, you are jumping to conclusions which simply cannot be made or ascertained based on their actual responses.
    All you can rightfully conclude is that they’ve turned down those requests. Nothing further can logically be concluded and you are left with mere speculation, which is utterly impotent and useless.

  209. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 3:23 am #

    RESPONSE 2 of 3 to BZ: EXAMINATION OF YOUR REVISED STATEMENTS ON YOUR WEBSITE:

    From your “revised” update on your blog:

    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/amendment-confirmed/

    You have now added:

    From that Opinion Letter 07-01, it says on pp. 6-7 (emphasis mine):

    “For those whose identities are not public, a response that neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records maintains the confidentiality of the individual’s identity required by the registration statute. 13 See Haw. Rev. Stat.§ 92F-13(3). Accordingly, OIP believes that HPD should deny such a request by stating that records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4).”

    The words, “if any” should be inserted into the standard denial in that case because without them, a standard denial confirms the existence of responsive records.

    First of all, your first paragraph, which is your entire supporting point, is just an excerpt of the relevant quotes on pp 6-7, the full context, which is more revealing, and shows that this recommendation is just a MERE SUGGESTION for how to handle such requests, while STILL ALLOWING and stating that it is GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE and STANDARD PRACTICE for a BLANKET REQUEST DENIAL that completely disregards the issue of whether or not the request is for non-existent records:

    Page 6-7:
    If a request is made for a specific permit holder’s Permit Information, OIP believes that HPD generally should not disclose whether or not Permit Information exists for that person, unless that person’s identity as a permit holder is public. For those whose identities are not public, a response that neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records maintains the confidentiality of the individual’s identity required by the registration statute. [13] See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(3). Accordingly, OIP believes that HPD should deny such a request by stating that records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4).

    To prevent identification of specific permit holders by the pattern of HPD’s responses, OIP suggests that HPD respond in the same manner whether an individual has been issued or denied a permit, as well as where an individual has not applied for a permit, withdrawn an application, failed to complete the
    application, or failed to retrieve or use the permit prior to its expiration. See Bassiouni v. CIA, 392 F.3d 244, 246 (7th Cir. III. 2004) (“When a pattern of responses itself reveals classified information, the only way to keep secrets is to maintain silence uniformly.”); see also discussion below regarding responses to nonpermit holders.

    [13]: Cf. Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 887 n.2 (U.S. App. D.C. 1995) (A response to a Efederal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)] request, in which an agency states that it can “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of responsive records, is popularly referred to as a “Glomar response,” after a case concerning a FOIA request for records relating to an underwater sea craft called the “Glomar Explorer.”); see OIP Op. Ltr. No. 95-21 at 18 (recognizing use of “Glomar response” in privacy context).

    Page 8:
    If HPD receives a request for a specific Non-Permit Holder’s Application, HPD may generally, as with the Permit Information, decline to disclose whether records exist for that individual in order to protect the privacy interests outlined above. Again, to protect the identification of individuals by the pattern of HPD’s responses, OIP believes it appropriate for HPD to deny requests for a specific individual’s Application without indicating whether or not they exist. Accordingly, HPD may deny the request stating that records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure under section 92F-13(1).

    Second, I feel that you are intentionally being misleading on your website, as your second paragraph which follows the quote is a conclusion that YOU MAKE and which is NOT in the Opinion Letter at all:

    The words, “if any” should be inserted into the standard denial in that case because without them, a standard denial confirms the existence of responsive records.

    Even though you were “careful” enough not to use quotes, I suspect that you are intentionally trying to con the reader on your site think that the OIP stated “without them, a standard denial confirms the existence of responsive records”, when they did nothing of the sort and in fact, you just made that part up yourself.

  210. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:32 am #

    I’ve updated my blog to include Terri K’s e-mail from the DOH which contains the communication history. Their own e-mail says they are responding to her previous e-mails and includes the very e-mails they are talking about. It’s here: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/complete-e-mail-response-to-terri-k-from-doh/

    They did get her e-mails.

    But they either destroyed them or lied about not having them when I later asked them to disclose them as required by UIPA.

  211. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 3:33 am #

    RESPONSE 3 of 3 to BZ: WHAT Opinion Letter 07-01 is really all about:

    Just so the readers here can have some actual text context of the issue that BZ uses to support her entire “thesis”, I’ve boiled down the 10-page Opinion Letter 07-01 into some key text excerpts that give you the full gist of what it really refers to. For those that want to read the whole opinion for themselves, the link is as follows.

    As I’ve stated in RESPONSE parts 1 & 2 – it doesn’t in any way draw the “definitive” conclusions that BZ claims and its relevance to Obama’s BC requests are tenuous at best and only support mere speculation, which is the same as boiling down to nothing useful to the issue at hand.

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2007-01.pdf

    Requester seeks an advisory opinion on whether the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) (“UIPA”), requires the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) to disclose certain records of individuals obtained through the firearm permitting process. 2

    Specifically, the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) understands HPD’s question to be whether
    the confidentiality afforded individually identifiable “registration data” under section 134-3(b), HRS (the “registration statute”), extends to information obtained under section 134-2, HRS (the “permitting statute”), including information that does not result in the registration of a firearm. OIP understands the permitting records to include individuals’ firearm permit applications, supporting records contained in the individuals’ permit application files, and issued firearm permits (collectively “Permit Information”).
    In submitting its request, HPD asked for a general advisory opinion rather than an opinion based upon a specific request made. However, OIP subsequently became aware of the fact that HPD’s opinion request was prompted by its receipt of numerous requests to access gun registration and related records for Mr. Byran Uyesugi.

    The question presented here is whether, by this same reasoning, information identifying permit holders is also protected as “registration data,” including where no permit is actually obtained or used to acquire a registered firearm.

    The registration statute contains a confidentiality provision that is clearly intended to protect the identity of those individuals registering firearms. Specifically, that provision makes all “registration data” that would identify an individual by name or address confidential:
    . . . All registration data that would identify the individual registering the firearm by name or address shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone, except as may be
    required for processing the registration or as may be required by a law enforcement agency for the lawful performance of its duties or as may be required by order of a court.

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-3(b) (emphasis added). Given this confidentiality provision, individually identifiable “registration data” should be withheld under section 92F-13(4) of the UIPA because state law protects it from disclosure, while nonidentifiable data, which is not protected by the registration statute, must be disclosed. 6 See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(4) (1993) (providing that an agency may withhold “[glovernment records which, pursuant to State or federal law . . . are
    protected from disclosure”); OIP Op. Ltr. No. 95-18.

    The question presented here is whether, by this same reasoning, information identifying permit holders is also protected as “registration data,” including where no permit is actually obtained or used to acquire a registered firearm.

  212. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:52 am #

    In response to: –G says:
    February 14, 2010 at 3:05 am (Quote)

    Both the responses I got personally from the OIP explained that the Glomar response is used to answer a request without either confirming or denying the existence of the requested record.

    They themselves clearly extend the same principle as was used in 07-01 to the precise requests I was making to the DOH. Also, the OIP person gave me a link to the Wikipedia entry for “Glomar Response” – where it explained that it is used when someone wants to neither confirm nor deny the EXISTENCE of a record.

    It is a big deal in the FOIA world. It represents the very ability to evade FOIA. It’s a get-out-of-jai-free-card, since denying access is confirming existence and the other option is to confirm non-existence.

    The issue in Terri K’s request was whether processing records for an amendment to Obama’s birth certificate EXISTED. That is precisely the moment when a Glomar Response would be used – if the answer was truly non-committal as to the existence of the records.

    The DOH response was not non-committal. It denied Terri access to real documents which existed.

    Both Terri K and I have had the DOH retract answers that they later realized were erroneous. The DOH has had FIVE MONTHS and an OIP appeals process during which they could have changed their answer at any time – all the while knowing that Leo Donofrio was saying their answer confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended.

    Why haven’t they retracted their answer, correcting it to explicitly state that those records didn’t exist?

    Why didn’t the OIP do with this case what they did with the case where the lawyer denied access to records which didn’t exist – and clearly tell Terri K that the records couldn’t be given to her because they never existed? That’s the clearly-demonstrated protocol and precedent for this type of situation. Why didn’t this case happen like that?

    This wasn’t just a heat-of-the-moment boo-boo. This was a response they could have corrected any time over a 5-month period. They didn’t, even after all the strong words were spoken showing how serious the implications of that response actually are. They have not been acting in ignorance these past 5 months. They know the claims that are being made. They have not either clarified or recanted their answer, even after it’s repeatedly been pointed out what the answer legally means. They know what their answer means and they are standing by it.

  213. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 3:57 am #

    Dr. C:

    I think your idea of a general topic on commonalities to the “conspiracy drawn” would be fascinating and a great idea! Please file that idea away as a good thread to address once we a good slow news cycle around here…LOL!

    In regards to BZ, I’m still not sure what to think. Your explanation of inference issues is definitely one possibility. That may be true and yet it may not. Or it may only be part of all of what is going on here.

    I do have to give BZ props for posting here (as I always give Mario) as well as for generally being fairly polite (despite our skepticism resulting in a lot of push back, flack, suspicion and ridicule) and trying to offer her answers pretty frequently.

    I also give her credit for making now several updates to her page, based on the conversations here.

    Finally, I always like when someone can interject some humor, even with those they are at complete odds with, which BZ has also demonstrated.

    However, I’m still not convinced that BZ isn’t on some level playing an intentional con game on her readers – even with the updates, the whole layout and burying of the links and how statements are put together almost seem to be deliberately misleading wherever possible.

    I don’t know if that is all an unintended symptom of inference issues / poor logic comprehension skills / cognitive dissonance and other thinking defects or if it is all part of a deliberate con and misinformation campaign. Maybe it is some of both.

  214. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:59 am #

    Why add “if any”?

  215. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:02 am #

    Terri K forwarded to me the DOH’s response which included the history of e-mails from her.

    And the OIP sent me their copies as well, since they were cc’ed on the e-mails.

  216. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:04 am #

    misha: “the inability to recognize valid argument and make correct inferences would manifest it in all kinds of problems in daily living.”I wonder if any of them are hoarders?

    Hmmm… interesting link. Although, to be fair, there are lots of reasons that can lead to people being hoarders and lots of types of hoarders too, so although a Venn Diagram might show an intersection, I think the sum circle of hoarders would be much broader than what could encompass conspiracy-minded folks.

    Heck, I know for sure my wife would say that I am a hoarder! LOL! I’ll definitely admit to it too. For me, it is
    part of having too many hobbies and not enough time. ;)

    One of these days, I’ll stop spending so much time on sites like this and get around to finally cataloging and ebaying a lot of stuff that I no longer need to “hoard” and then get around to turning one of the spare rooms into some sort of nice hobby showcase or mini-museum or something like that ;)

  217. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:08 am #

    nBc, the OIP said the DOH was justified in refusing to disclose the documents which exist. The OIP agrees that the DOH confirmed the existence of these documents.

    If they did otherwise, they would have given the same response as in the opinion letter where the OIP said the lawyer couldn’t disclose the counsel because the records didn’t exist.

    The OIP’s response was the reason that Terri K and Leo Donofrio knew the records existed. OIP had the job of checking to see whether the rules for request processing was followed by the DOH – the first step of which is to see whether the requested records even exist. Because their answer didn’t correct the DOH’s reply, it is their seal that the process of verifying existence did in fact happen, and that the proper answer WASN’T a check in the box saying that the records don’t exist.

  218. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:20 am #

    I think I’m a hoarder because my parents had 12 kids and little money. They were born during the Great Depression and found a use for everything. I’d give anything to be able to give to my kids what they gave to theirs – including a free world where there’s a community with a general sense of fairness and the rule of law.

    Funny that somebody said I’m like the Black Knight from Monty Python-Holy Grail, because I just said on Free Republic the other day that I will be fighting even if I know I can’t win. I said if my arms and legs are cut off I’ll still bleed on somebody. lol.

    All the old alliances are off now, with the way the world is. Ten years ago I probably would have laughed at the allegations that the Florida election was rigged for Bush. But I’ve done some research on how this can be done and I’ve read news reports of Manuel Zelaya having the elections results on his laptop even though they never had an election… and I no longer care whether it’s the republicans cheating or the democrats cheating. The only way we win is if NOBODY can cheat. The only way that happens is when there is real accountability for all sides of the political, racial,and cultural aisle. Justice is supposed to be blind to everything but the facts.

    That is why I am so passionate about this. To me it’s about law enforcement. Nobody should be above the law. Not Nixon. Not Obama.

  219. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:24 am #

    Hi BZ,

    I totally follow what you are saying on this post in regards to the Glomar Response.

    To your credit, I do want to point out that you mention it by definition on your site and that the Opinion 07-01 is really all about that specific issue and covers it in detail.

    You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the he Glomar response is used to answer a request without either confirming or denying the existence of the requested record.

    I also fully agree and even do sympathize with you about how maddeningly frustrating it would be to be constantly on the receiving end of such a meaningless type of response and also that the government is known for doing such often.

    It really is a blow-off type of response, sort of like virtually closing the door in your face and saying “go away” without answering any questions. So from that aspect, I totally do understand your frustration with that tactic.

    However, I can also understand from the government’s aspects why there are situations and reasons where they feel they need to respond in this method. They are just trying to follow their laws and procedures too and not violate other statues or privacy rights, so although maybe there are situations in which they could be clearer as to exactly what they are saying no to, it is still a legitimate and sometimes standard procedure response for them to give, particularly in situations where the requester does not have the authority to request the info they are requesting.

    Honestly, that is the situation you and your folks are in on this situation. I totally respect and understand your wanting information. At the same time, I fully agree that according to privacy laws, which are designed to protect ALL OF US, they fully have the right to simply say that you or those you are supporting don’t have the right to inquire into someone else’s private records.

    Furthermore, if you go on a fishing expedition for records which are likely non-existent on other individuals, they are fully within their rights to simply deny your request without ever addressing whether such records exist at all.

    And that is exactly what has happened in the situations you’ve described. They’ve given you a typical Glomar response. And it means nothing more that what it is on its face – a simple denial of the request in general – whether the records are non-existent or otherwise.

    The only logical conclusion that you can draw from their response is that they will not respond to your request. Anything else is jumping to an unsupportable conclusion that obviously is leading you down a path to nowhere.

  220. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:37 am #

    I really liked your whole hoarder comment and explanation of some of what drives you, BZ.

    (Also loved the Monty Python refereces too – I do commend your taste in movies!)

    I think all of us have various frustrations about what is inept, broken, or corrupt within our system and within the world around us. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes, I think it is easy to get too obsessed with trying to put a face on broader problems, which can lead to excessive demonization of others and an unhealthy fixation on taking actions that seem like you are taking control and doing something, but which really aren’t addressing the real problems out there.

    The 2000 Election fracas was definitely a mess and undoubtedly controversial. However, whether people agree with how that went down and how the Supreme Court ruled on it, nothing changes that fact that as soon as W was sworn in, he became the President. At that point, it becomes about how he handled governing.

    Now Obama is President and what matters will be what gets accomplished and addressed over the rest of his term as well as those areas in which his administration will screw up.

    The 2012 election will be a referendum on what he’s accomplished and what he proposes for the years following that. His background and past prior to becoming President really become nothing more than trivia issues at this point and will be even more insignificant a factor in a re-election campaign.

  221. avatar
    Mike February 14, 2010 at 8:13 am #

    It is pointless to try to do analysis with people who can’t perform at the basic facts stage.

    This is apparent to everyone here who is attempting to reason with you.

  222. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    If they did otherwise, they would have given the same response as in the opinion letter where the OIP said the lawyer couldn’t disclose the counsel because the records didn’t exist.

    This does not make sense. The fact that they claim a generic statement that Terrik has no rights to see the data she requested, which is deadly to any OIP request is now interpreted as admitting that which does not exist…

    THis runs counter to any logic and reason. And the facts…

    You are suggesting that the DOH should have known about previous OIP’s unrelated to them, discussing a very different topic? Why not apply the OIP that states that absent a clear reason, Terrik has no reason to be granted access to any data she requested?

    You seem to confuse this with an admission that any and all data she requested, does in fact exist, even though the facts do not support such an interpretation.

    And the lawyers agreed that this was an appropriate response…

    Once it is accepted that no evidence of an amendment exists, all your objections fall flat on their face and the actions of the DOH make complete sense, without the need for conspiracies and destruction of data, and violation of rules.

  223. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 9:26 am #

    A large family, that explains the need for attention and being right… Damn the facts, even with arms cut off, the ‘fight’ against these darn windmills will have to continue.

    Passion should not be confused with being right my dear Nellie, it can very easily points to emotional over investment into something you believe to be true, even though the facts do not support such.

    Once you accept the flawed premise, all your claims fall apart and the DOH’s behavior fully makes sense as no laws were broken.

    So what is more likely? That there exists a mysterious amendment, of which no evidence exists, which has caused the DOH to violate laws and regulations, or the simple fact that Obama was born on US soil, and there is nothing more here?

    The COLB, which had the raised seal and signature shows him born in Hawaii, the statements of the DOH show him born in Hawaii, the birth announcement support his birth in Hawaii but somehow you cannot accept these facts.

    Justice is supposed to be blind but that does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the facts.

  224. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    Nice non-answer to the question.

  225. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    This is re: –nbC says:
    February 13, 2010 at 10:14 pm (Quote)

    I have asked to see index data for Barack Hussein Obama II from each of the individual birth indexes (indices) they have listed to search on the “For Office Use Only” portion of their birth certificate request form.

    They refuse to disclose any such index data because doing so would reveal the STATUS of the birth certificate – which they say they can’t disclose.

    Let that sink in. They say they cannot disclose whether the index they cite is even for a VALID birth certificate, or whether it is from the “pending” or “no records” file.

    So what – really – does their index data tell us? That Obama’s name is on a piece of paper somewhere in their office. Period.

  226. avatar
    kimba February 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    “So what – really – does their index data tell us?”

    Their index data tells us Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii. This is all that is needed to know to confirm he is a natural born citizen.

    Look BZ, I have followed this thread and read your post. It is my opinion that you concluded there is something that Hawaii is hiding before you wrote anything. You haven’t written a compelling argument as much as you’ve set forth a series of contortions to make your information, emails, statutes fit the conclusion you have already reached. My advice to you is to stop thinking you can coax, goad, threaten Hawaii into breaking its own public records laws. You can’t. And if you wish to see the documents that Hawaii says are available on request in the various Hawaiian offices, take a trip there. It’s a great time of year to visit Hawaii. Barring that, put an ad on Craig’s List Honolulu and pay someone $50 to go to the Dept of Health and look at the index data.

  227. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    All your foolishness is only attempting to obscure the simple plain truth.

    My birth records belong to me. I expect the jurisdiction that holds them to deny any and all requests or inquiries about them from anyone other than me. Your birth records belong to you and you are entitled to the same. Barack Obama’s records belong to him and only him. He can release nothing in the file, part of what is in the file or the entire file as he and only he chooses.

    There is no mention of birth certificates in either the Constitution or the law. In fact, since state-issued birth certificates were only codified in the late 19th century, the majority of Presidents never had them. Their births were at most recorded by their parents in a family Bible. Therefore, no President or candidate is required to release a damn thing. You can vote or not vote for them as you choose, but that is the totality of your rights in the matter.

  228. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    I understand that there are some things that they can’t disclose. I disagree with them on what things those are.

    For instance, the rules authorize release of a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate to anybody who asks for it. So anything that is on an abbreviated birth certificate (COLB) is discloseable – including certificate number and, if any, notes of amendments or late filing which are required to be included on any certificate the DOH prints. That is the only way the public is able to know the status of the birth record.

    Processing records are also discloseable, since they are “public health statistics records”, referred to in 338-18**b**. But the DOH tries to apply the protections of 338-18**a*** to them, even though A only deals with actual certificates.

    I think the DOH is manipulating terms and it is shown when one sees how far their statements are from what is actually in their rules.

    When Terri K made her initial request it was after getting direction from the OIP about what was appropriate to ask for. The OIP indicated that her request for processing records was appropriate; processing records are discloseable. In fact, there is an OIP Opinion Letter which concludes that the processing for name change orders are discloseable, except for the initial application for a name change because the information in it has a significant privacy interest. And even law enforcement processing records are discloseable when none of the exceptions applies.

    In Terri K’s case, it would not have been appropriate for the DOH to use a Glomar response because the existence of the processing records was discloseable. If the records didn’t exist the DOH could have gotten out of answering the question by simply saying they don’t exist. Instead, they denied access, which is confirmation that the records exist, and claimed that she didn’t have standing to know what was on those records.

    Ever play Mastermind? We used to play that when I was a kid. There was a specific meaning that the white peg had, as compared with the black peg. If you played the white peg (confirming only that one color was correct) it had to be because you couldn’t play a black peg (confirming that a color was correct and in the right location).

    The OIP has written up specific rules the departments have to follow when processing UIPA requests: The white peg means this and the black peg means that. First check if the records exist. If they don’t, you simply say they don’t exist and put no pegs on the board. If they exist but the person isn’t eligible to receive them, put a white peg on the board. If they exist and they are discloseable, put a black peg.

    The DOH put a white peg on the board.

    For five months we’ve been saying, “Hey! They put a white peg on the board! That means the records exist!” And for five months they have left that peg on the board.

    You seem like a very honest person, G, and I respect your willingness to look at what I’ve presented. You have been more than patient with me as I’ve realized I didn’t state things as clearly as I thought I had. And you’ve got great taste in movies. =) I believe you will sort this out in your own mind and will arrive at a conclusion that makes sense to you. That’s all I want anybody to do.

  229. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    My biggest concern isn’t whether Obama is president or not. My biggest concern is the lawlessness within our government. The answers that I got from the watchdogs in Hawaii leave me realizing we are totally on our own.

    And that is scary to me for several reasons – not the least of which is that if there is no legitimate way for people to hold their government accountable it will eventually get so bad that their only option is revolution. I don’t want that. I like the non-violent revolutions we have every time we vote. We have survived as a nation because we have provided a peaceful way for the people to reject a government that doesn’t represent them.

    But we don’t vote for police officers, ombudsman, attorneys general, US attorneys,inspectors general, etc – and THEY are the people who alone can make sure that justice is blind to everything but the facts. It is their corruption in Mexico that results in people sewing faces onto soccer balls.

    What I see here is a systemic failure that transcends political party. Much like the terrorism in Iraq transcended Sunni and Shiite. AT some point both Sunni and Shiite had to decide they would fight the lawless elements in their own party as well as in the other one so that they could get law and order back into their country.

    When the DOH communications director says straight-out that it is her duty to play along as though nothing was wrong even if she knows people are believing a forgery, that’s a problem.

    When the ombudsman’s office – which has full subpoena power and the right to do warrantless searches of government offices – says they can’t investigate a report because there are crimes by government personnel involved, that’s a problem.

    When the FBI tells you they don’t investigate document fraud, that’s a problem.

    I really don’t care much about whether Obama remains in office or not. What I want is my country back – a country that believes in the rule of law, equity under the law, and government that is accountable to follow the law.

    Those are the red flags I’m raising, and I raise them because I believe that if we the people can’t make the government obey the rule of law it will be just as deadly to us as any external terrorists that threaten us. Great nations fall from within – usually enabled by the applause of people who don’t realize what’s right in front of them.

  230. avatar
    kimba February 14, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    “For instance, the rules authorize release of a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate to anybody who asks for it. So anything that is on an abbreviated birth certificate (COLB) is discloseable – including certificate number and, if any, notes of amendments or late filing which are required to be included on any certificate the DOH prints. That is the only way the public is able to know the status of the birth record.”

    I disagree. I don’t think the public has the right to know the details of any particular birth record. 338-18 is clear on who may obtain a particular Hawaiian birth record. It doesn’t appear to me that there is any Hawaiian statute that allows a non-certified COLB to be released to just anyone. The circumstances of my birth are my business. They aren’t your business. The only thing you need to know is that the President of the United States was born in Hawaii, which makes him eligible to be President. Hawaii has already confirmed it is so. It is your problem if you don’t believe them and they have no obligation to assist you in your efforts to undermine their authority over vital records.

  231. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    Their index data is Barack Hussein Obama II, male, birth.

    And they refuse to say whether it’s in the “No Records” file or any other file.

    You can say that Fukino’s announcement says Obama was born in Hawaii, but come on – the birth index that the DOH is willing to release tells us only that there is a piece of paper somewhere in their office that says Obama’s a male and was born.

    I could send them a piece of paper saying I’m Bazooka Joe, I’m male, and I was born, and they would have an index for me too – and they would be unable to say that my record was any more or less legally meaningful than Obama’s.

    Let’s at least be accurate regarding what information says what.

  232. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    butterdezillion: I could send them a piece of paper saying I’m Bazooka Joe, I’m male, and I was born, and they would have an index for me too

    Where in your massive collection of laws, rules, practices and regulations does it say that the state registers events they cannot verify? The answer is nowhere. Birth registrations are legal events. For a birth to be indexed, it has to be registered. For it to be registered there must be attestation to the information.

    But prove us wrong. Get yourself on Hawaii’s birth index and you will have impressed the whole world.

  233. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    butterdezillion: They say they cannot disclose whether the index they cite is even for a VALID birth certificate, or whether it is from the “pending” or “no records” file.

    Citation please. No offense, but your record or faithfully characterizing what Hawaii does and says is not very good.

  234. avatar
    misha February 14, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    “I could send them a piece of paper saying I’m Bazooka Joe, I’m male, and I was born, and they would have an index for me too”

    Then do it, prove to us you did, and then I’ll believe you.

    Otherwise, shut up.

  235. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    Go to http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf and look at the “For Office Use Only” portion at the bottom. There are places to check off the indexes as they have been searched.

    I know these are indexes because – for instance – DOH retention schedules mention a “Hawaiian Birth Certificate Index”, which must be permanent. And sure enough, it’s there on the “For Office Use” portion as HBC (Hawaiian Birth Certificate).

    Other abbreviations with their presumed meanings are: DBC (delayed birth certificate), “Unrec BC” (unrecorded BC), “NR file” (No Records file), and “Pending”.

    So we know there are separate indexes because of both the checklist on that form and the records retention schedule.

    I also know because I have asked for Obama’s index data from each of those indexes. This was their response (minus the history of me telling them they hadn’t answered my request, etc):

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Okubo, Janice S.
    To: Nellie (redacted)
    Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:55 PM
    Subject: RE: Please clarify

    This is the department’s response to UIPA Requests: UIPA Request – “Unrec. BC” index, “DBC” index, “HBC” index, NR file, and “Pending” index. Your requests are attached to this response. Index data for the name Barack Hussein Obama II is as follows:

    BIRTH INDEX

    OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN

    Male

    Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18 states, “Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.” The Director has only authorized that index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, and type of vital event be made available to the public. The Director has not authorized any other information contained in vital statistics records to be included as index data.

    This is the department’s response to your attached UIPA requests and we now consider these requests completed.

    ——————————————————————————–

  236. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    butterdezillion: the rule of law, equity under the law,

    The rule of law says that an individual’s records-birth, academic transcripts, tax returns, SSN, passports-belong to THEM to release or not as THEY choose. Equity in law says that applies to you, me and the President.

    No one in Hawaii is doing anything other than following those basic principles.

  237. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    butterdezillion: This is the department’s response to your attached UIPA requests and we now consider these requests completed

    Right on!!!!!

  238. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Have you read on my blog all the rules and laws that are being broken in Hawaii?

    The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, which says that only a natural born United States citizen can be the president. If Fidel Castro came forward and signed a paper saying he was eligible to be president, according to your standards our legal process has to accept that as the final answer.

    You don’t see that as a compromise of the Constitution?

    Try telling a cop it’s none of his/her business if you have a driver’s license.

    Then – quick – run! lol.

  239. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    G: I also give her credit for making now several updates to her page, based on the conversations here.

    Well then my Saturday wasn’t completely wasted.

    I have a bit of the same dilemma as Butterdezillion here. There are over 600(!) articles on this site, and it’s really easy to gloss over something that is clear to me because I know all this background material, but a mystery to someone else. One also becomes weary writing the same thing over and over and looking up hyperlinks to original sources of claims. More and more, I say “this was discussed last July in such and such article.” I’m the first to admit that I get lazy sometimes. Organization and presentation is a challenge too. We can’t expect every web site to be the Encyclopaedia Britannica (or even the Wikipedia).

    Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the writer to present understandable material if he or she wants to be understood.

    In the case of Butterdezillion, the two claims that interest me (“The DOH admitted that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended” and “The DOH knows the COLB is a forgery”) cannot be presented as a logical argument because they are false. Any attempt will either fall apart in fallacy or for lack or evidence, or it will be intentionally fraudulent. It is my opinion that BZ believes her web pages make perfect sense.

  240. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    butterdezillion: Try telling a cop it’s none of his/her business if you have a driver’s license

    If a cop properly identifies themselves and is lawfully permitted to ask for my license, then I will gladly show it. However, if you or Orly Taitz attempt to pull me over, you are going to find yourselves 2 very sorry ladies.

  241. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    In Terri K’s case, it would not have been appropriate for the DOH to use a Glomar response because the existence of the processing records was discloseable. If the records didn’t exist the DOH could have gotten out of answering the question by simply saying they don’t exist. Instead, they denied access, which is confirmation that the records exist, and claimed that she didn’t have standing to know what was on those records.

    But remember, the DOH never got the additional request for processing orders, they responded to Terrik’s request to gain access to Obama’s actual document records.

    Understanding proper context is important. You say that they must have destroyed the later request, I see a far more probable explanation for their response.

  242. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    But prove us wrong. Get yourself on Hawaii’s birth index and you will have impressed the whole world.

    Indeed, you seem to have many fantasies about how things could happen. You were forwarded to the records clerk and you did not even follow through, even though this is the correct person with whom to schedule an office visit to inspect the data.

    As Doc says, take some effort to support your claims. Get on the index data.

  243. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    You said: “Look BZ, I have followed this thread and read your post. It is my opinion that you concluded there is something that Hawaii is hiding before you wrote anything”

    Absolutely. I had spent five months asking the DOH for records and I documented their responses.

    I documented that they hid “Public Health Regulations” during the time when elections officials in my state could have asked for and received a certified copy of the original birth certificate and put an end to this silly boondoggle.

    I documented that they manipulated the meanings of words, changed their rules without following proper procedure, stated that they can’t report known forgery, either destroyed documents they were required to keep or lied about them not existing, etc.

    I didn’t write a word of any of this until I had proof (a portion of which is on my blog) that I wasn’t just misunderstanding.

    So yes, I absolutely concluded that Hawaii was not only hiding something but breaking laws to do so… before I wrote anything on my blog.

    It was probably about a month into my writing to the DOH when I realized that they were helping with the hiding. I initially wrote them because I expected honest answers from them. It was only when I didn’t receive honest answers from them that I realized things were worse than I had ever imagined.

    Somebody asked me once why the DOH wouldn’t have reported a forgery if they knew it. Come to think of it, it may have been Dr Conspiracy who asked me that in a different forum. I said I didn’t know. So I checked it out. I asked Janice Okubo, “If it wasn’t the same certificate number you would have reported it to law enforcement and spoken negatively about the online images, right?”

    Here’s your answer, Dr. Conspiracy, straight from Janice Okubo’s pen, regarding why she wouldn’t have reported a known forgery:

    “If you are asking for verification of information contained in a birth record, state law prohibits the department from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule.”

    Paraphrased (very loosely. lol): None of Obama’s relatives bothered to ask Okubo whether the Factcheck COLB was a forgery. It’s nobody else’s business.

  244. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    Per the Opinion Letter 07-01, adding “if any” was the recommended verbiage to make their responses slightly clearer and more of a catch all.

    It wasn’t a requirement, just a suggestion for better phrasing.

    From a grammatical standpoint, “if any” does succeed in making such a denial statement more of a catch all. But it still seems like it is geared to cover the government responder’s bases better and does not really provide much additional info or solace to the requester.

  245. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    So let’s assume that there exists other index data records.
    None of these make sense in case of President Obama since we know that his birth certificate was filed 4 days after his birth and the birth was announced in two newspapers a few days later.
    In other words, the only relevant category in 1961 would have been delayed birth and we know that that is incorrect.
    We also know that President Obama was born in Honolulu.

    So what scenarios do you have in mind that explain these facts? Deny the facts? Now that’s a though, claim that there exists an amendment even though there is no evidence of such.
    All based on a request by Terrik to see the actual amended records, followed later by a request for the actual index data.
    Given that the poor DOH was getting hundreds of such request during that period of time, it is not surprising that they use HRS 338-18 to deny any and all access to records and for index data requests, they posted the information on their website.

  246. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    The Administrative Rules would allow any secretary of state in the country to get a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate in order to verify his eligibility and place his name on the ballot.

    But a funny thing happened. The DOH Director took “Public Health Regulations” off the website and refused to even tell anybody what rules were in effect until a year after the election was over. In the meantime Janice Okubo was repeatedly saying that they can’t release anything to anybody without Obama’s permission. Everybody thought their hands were tied.

    But only because they couldn’t see the rules which showed that they WERE the cop and could have asked at any moment to receive the driver’s license.

    IOW, Fukino in effect stole all the cops’ badges until the election was over.

    Why do you think she did that? And do you have any problem with that fact?

    If she had not done that, I could have been saved thousands of hours of hassle and headache, the nation could have had closure, and we could have gone on to bigger and better issues. Why did she take that active step to remove those rules which were required to be posted on her site at all times?

  247. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    When I said *everybody thought their hands were tied* I was referring to secretaries of state. They were the proper authorities to see the original birth certificate – as allowable by Hawaii law and rules.

    What the “birthers” were asking for is common sense. Even the Hawaii laws and rules agree.

    All Fukino had to do was hide those rules and voila! what had always been common sense was suddenly “fringe”, lunatic conspiracist drivel.

    Amazing! Now THAT would be a phenomenon worth psychoanalyzing!

  248. avatar
    misha February 14, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    @butterdezillion: “I know these are indexes because”

    The plural of index is “indices.”

  249. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    NBC, you are not being honest. I’ve already posted the e-mail from the DOH showing that they knew exactly what they were responding to.

    We can discuss but life is too short to waste time lying. If you haven’t seen that document it’s at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/complete-e-mail-response-to-terri-k-from-doh/

  250. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    All Fukino had to do was hide those rules and voila! what had always been common sense was suddenly “fringe”, lunatic conspiracist drivel.

    Yes that’s one explanation but the facts are much better served by a far more innocent explanation.
    That you refuse to acknowledge this and the fact that the rules in the form of HRS338-18 have always been available, and furthermore that none of the SOS felt obliged under their State laws to verify the information, since qualification was left to Congress, somehow punches a gaping hole in your position.

    That you are now blaming Fukino for hiding rules since the Birthers were not able to read HRS 338-18 correctly seems to be shifting the blame to others.

  251. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    Remember Andy Martin who filed a lawsuit in Hawaii under HRS 338-18

    BASED ON THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL ON THE MERITS AS IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECT AND TANGIBLE INTEREST IN THE VITAL STATISTIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT, NAMELY THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. PLAINTIFF ALSO DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS AS ENUMERATED IN HRS 338-18(B). IN ADDITION, HRS 92-13 PROVIDES THAT DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS IS NOT REQUIRED WHICH, PURSUANT TO STATE LAW, ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE.

    The question now is: Would SOS, who do not have to certify eligibility for candidates have such an interest different from Andy Martin?
    I doubt that the courts would have allowed such to move forward anyway.

  252. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    Hi BZ,

    This is in response to your post that has the Mastermind game analogy.

    First of all, I thought that was a fairly good post and you did a good job with your analogy of explaining your position. I understand what you are saying here and I see what you are expecting from these government responses.

    However, I don’t necessarily agree that your expected outcomes or your interpretive outcomes fully match how the DOH actually operates or how they responded.

    I think some of the issue, from reading the various government rules or opinions that you reference is that you assume that SUGGESTED government procedures are an absolute that has to be followed.

    Words like “should” and “may” don’t enforce or insist on a certain action or use of language. They are suggestive only. Sort of like giving advice for what would be a preferred way to handle things.

    Therefore, I understand that you’ve viewed their actions as putting the “white peg” on the board (I really liked that analogy).

    However, you’ve jumped the gun in making that conclusion and although I like your Mastermind analogy, the government’s procedures in these scenarios don’t fully or cleanly line up with the rules of that game.

    You are expecting a much cleaner and definitive black and white process that how they actually operate.

    You were expecting an outcome to either be a white peg or no peg played on the board at all. Instead, they just simply responded by putting the board back in the box and closing it up.

  253. avatar
    misha February 14, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    “My biggest concern isn’t whether Obama is president or not. My biggest concern is the lawlessness within our government. The answers that I got from the watchdogs in Hawaii leave me realizing we are totally on our own.”

    Thank you for being the self-appointed guardian of the republic. Max and I can sleep much better knowing you are watching public employees.

    I want you to know I am a dedicated communist.

  254. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    And it’s not due to a lack of trying.

    NC State Superior Court 08CV1076 State Sullivan v. Secretary of State

    NC State Superior Court 08CVS-021393 Sullivan v. Marshall

    “No requirement for SOS to certify the eligibility of the Candidates”

    Indiana State Court Marion Superior Court 49D10-0812-PL-55511, Ankeny v. Daniels

    Dismissal Affirmed

    Ankeny argued that the Governor had a duty not the certify Obama and McCain but fails to cite any authority to support this claim.
    The court went further that even if there had been such an authority, President Obama would have been found a natural born citizen.

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    Washington State Supreme Court 82473-8, Broe v Reed

    Beneath all arguments and assertions put forward by the Petitioners lurks one salient fact: As Petitioners acknowledge, Barack Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. Am. Pet. at 12 (date and place of birth); ld. at 10-11 (birth certificate);

    and

    A person born in the United States is a natural born United States citizen. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Absent competent evidence proving that the publicly-acknowledged version of the President-elect’s biography are false, there is simply no legal question as to his citizenship.

    I could go on and on…

  255. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    Tou are absolutely WRONG that Secretaries of State could have received information from Hawaii. The records cannot be released to ANY 3rd party without the interested person’s permission. The SOSs could have asked Obama to provide copies. However, Secretaries of State have NEVER demanded such from a Presidential candidate. Surely, as a self-professed believer in “equity in law” you are not suggesting that SOSs treat one candidate different from all others, past and present?

  256. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    Kimba at 1:54 (I include this because my posts haven’t been going to the right place when I click to reply to somebody’s comment. So the discussion is getting lost. I don’t know how other people are able to reply to the comments and have it appear under the comment but mine haven’t been.

    Anyway, “Public Health Regulations” Chapter 8b, 2.5B2 is where the non-certified abbreviated birth certificate is authorized for release to anyone. You’ll notice that it has to comply with the same requirements for index data – that they can’t release information about illegitimate births, etc. This passage of the rules can be seen at

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

  257. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    The Administrative Rules would allow any secretary of state in the country to get a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate in order to verify his eligibility and place his name on the ballot.

    That is begging the question. In fact, the guiding law HRS 338-18 has always been available mentioning two relevant categories. However, in their defense, SOS pointed out consistently that they had no duty to certify.

    And the courts consistently ruled that the plaintiffs had no access to the information under HRS 338-18.

    It is not even clear to me that a SOS who, lacking any authority to do so, decides to ask for a birth certificate can do so.

  258. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    HRS 338-18(a) only forbids disclosures not authorized by law OR DOH RULES.

    IF the DOH rules authorize a disclosure then HRS 338-18(a)doesn’t forbid that disclosure. It defers to the DOH rules.

    Fukino hid those rules and then misrepresented what she was and wasn’t able to disclose. She’s STILL misrepresenting it, as though HRS 338-18 trumps “Public Health Regulations” when in fact 338-18 says directly that its prohibitions only apply to disclosures NOT authorized by DOH rules.

    Do you see anything wrong with that?

  259. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    It should not even have to go through a court. This is supposed to be routine administrative procedure – just like a cop checking a license.

    The fact that it’s this big hairy deal, worth spending millions of dollars over, tells us right now that some people are “more equal than others” under the law.

    And that is precisely my point. The political machine runs everything.

  260. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    So what about the administrative rules 11-117 also known as 8 8a/b VR Admin Rules?

    First of all the rules clarify where to gain access to said rules

    §11-1-5 Public records. Records of the department shall be available for inspection during established business hours, pursuant to chapter 92F, HRS, rules adopted under that chapter, and any other applicable laws. [Eff 2/14/2005 ] (Auth: HRS §§91-2, 321-9) (Imp: HRS §91-2, ch. 92F, ch. 323C, §325-101, §334-5)

    In other words, they are not hidden but requires one to visit the actual office. That the DOH also provides online access for some of the documents is laudable but as far as I can tell, they are not required to do so.

  261. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    It should not even have to go through a court. This is supposed to be routine administrative procedure – just like a cop checking a license.

    There is no evidence that this is a routine procedure, in fact, we know now that the SOS do not believe that they have to perform, what you call, a routine procedure. In fact, they deny that they have to perform such a procedure, making it less than routine.

    If there is no law that requires the SOS to certify the eligibility of the candidates, then any such request is hardly routine.

    Of course, no SOS felt obliged by State Law to even inquire into these matters. No official business, no business to see the vital records.

    Interestingly enough, there is a US wide initiative to make verification of birth certificate data simpler using electronic means.
    Should be pretty straightforward to check…

  262. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    As far back as July 2008, and according to some as far back as 2007, Hawaii had announced that it was

    “Converting from Public Health Regulations Chapters 8, 8A, and 8B to Administrative Rules.”

  263. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    butterdezillion: My biggest concern isn’t whether Obama is president or not. My biggest concern is the lawlessness within our government. …
    What I see here is a systemic failure that transcends political party.

    We live in an imperfect society, although it is one with a fairly stable structure. As humans are imperfect and tend towards greed and laziness, you almost always end up with a degree of corruption, waste, inept, and bloat entering into any system, particularly as time goes on. These are addressable problems, but rarely are there systemic wholesale fixes. Problems like this build over time unless you expend the time and resources to monitor and adjust the process every step of the way.

    To want to fix and improve the problems in the system is commendable. To become skeptical, frustrated or cynical because of the problems is understandable.

    However, the best way to address real issues that you care about is find out how to improve the system legally and lawfully from within and to take the time to openly understand both how/why things have gotten to where they are and what is realistic, practical and affordable to make improvement.

    Stable change often means incremental change.

    When the DOH communications director says straight-out that it is her duty to play along as though nothing was wrong even if she knows people are believing a forgery, that’s a problem.When the ombudsman’s office – which has full subpoena power and the right to do warrantless searches of government offices – says they can’t investigate a report because there are crimes by government personnel involved, that’s a problem.When the FBI tells you they don’t investigate document fraud, that’s a problem.I really don’t care much about whether Obama remains in office or not.

    BZ – The problem here is that you are starting off with a perspective of jumping the gun and assuming that a crime or fraud occurred and then fishing to try to find evidence to back up that assertion. And then you get upset and have to twist things in your own mind when the facts don’t bear you out.

    That is not the way that the law works nor that logic works.

    Let’s objectively look at the situation here. The whole “NBC” issue on Obama really comes down to certain people not liking or not comfortable with the idea of Obama being president (for whatever reasons) and trying to find any way to de-legitimize his chances of being elected and to make others suspcicious as well . The whole “birther” thing started around May 2008 I think, during the campaign, initially by those that wanted Hillary during the primaries and then that meme shifted to those that wanted McCain during the general.

    From that entire time to now, despite all of those efforts, not a single, solid credible piece of evidence that could stand up in a court of law has surfaced to challenge the base assumption – which is that he is an NBC. He may have a more diverse and traveled background than most candidates in the past, but other than being different, there is nothing that has come out that would de-legitimize him in any way.

    Your anger and frustration against the government in this situation just isn’t borne out by the facts on the ground. You start with an assumption of document fraud and then go looking for document fraud to back you up and then get mad at the government for not taking you seriously.

    The government and the law are simply doing their jobs properly in this situation.

    The way things work is that FIRST there must be credible evidence of fraud, which then leads to starting an investigation, based on such evidence. That is the ONLY way things work in the real world. As there is none, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing and no reason for the law or the government to take any of these inquires or lawsuits seriously.

    Think about it this way –

    What if your neighbor decided tomorrow that they didn’t like the way you looked or your views and then decided on their own that you must be, oh heck, I don’t know, let’s say something horrible like a child molester. But they have no actual basis for this suspicion, other than they aren’t totally comfortable with you and therefore leap to assuming you *must* be guilty of *something*.

    If said neighbor then calls the cops and the media demands you are arrested and then demands that everyone start looking into your background to try to find anything that could look even the slightest bit suspicious, would that be right?

    No, it wouldn’t. And that is exactly how the birther movement is operating and once you realize that, you will see that you looking at this whole issue from the wrong perspective.

    What I want is my country back – a country that believes in the rule of law, equity under the law, and government that is accountable to follow the law.
    Those are the red flags I’m raising, and I raise them because I believe that if we the people can’t make the government obey the rule of law it will be just as deadly to us as any external terrorists that threaten us. Great nations fall from within – usually enabled by the applause of people who don’t realize what’s right in front of them.

    I get a bit concerned when I hear such extreme and dangerous rhetoric. I seriously hope you are just spouting off in anger and don’t really plan to harm others or this country. That would be wrong and against everything you claim to care about.

    There is always a better way to address issues and improve things.

    I keep hearing statements such as yours of “I want my country back” and I really don’t understand what people mean by that. The country hasn’t changed since Obama was elected and I didn’t seem to hear these same people making that claim prior to that, so I don’t know what you perceive has radically become different, other than what party is in power and who is in office.

    The rule of law is imperfect and sometimes the legal process itself is unbearably slow, but it is fully in place in this country and overall it is functioning as it should be.

  264. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Fukino did not hide the rules, they had not been available online since at least 2007. Furthermore, HRS 338-18 clearly states who may gain access to vital records, the administrative rules, repeat much of the same information.
    However, if an SOS has no official business to verify eligibility, as they have so consistently stated, then there is no official business exemption to see the vital records under HRS 338-18.

    So let’s follow your ‘argument’

    (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    HRS 338-18 mentions two relevant categories

    (7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

    (9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

    The rules merely explain that (7) includes “a government agency acting on behalf of the registrant to process a financial claim, benefit, award or other compensation or to transact official business involving the registrant or his affairs;” 8B 2.5(a)(1)(f)

    But if there is no official business reason then inspection will not be allowed and since the SOS’s have consistently argued that they have no official duty and since the courts have held that this means that they will not grant a court ordered discovery, your scenario, seems to be moot.

    It’s based on the following fallacies

    1. Fukino hid the administrative rules on purpose.

    2. The administrative rules which implement HRS 338-18 extend access to SOS seeking verification of eligibility, when there is no official business reason for them to do so.

    In fact, HRS 338-18 clearly states who may get access and the Adm. rules do not seem to extend this beyond what HRS 338-18 states.

  265. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    nbC:
    Interestingly enough, there is a US wide initiative to make verification of birth certificate data simpler using electronic means.
    Should be pretty straightforward to check…

    NBC – are you referring to the REAL ID Act?

    Of course, that was originally “mandated” to go into effect several years ago and still the states haven’t made much progress on it.

    That would also standardize other forms, such as the Drivers License across all states and finally address the problem of information sharing between all the disparate databases out there.

  266. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    AT the thick of things, when the DOH was delaying responses beyond the 20 days they are allowed to use in responding and they were claiming they were so busy, they received 7 requests in a 2-week period. Five were standard denials of access, one was a little longer denying me access, and the other was a little longer to somebody else who had also asked for a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate.

    Most of the requests to the DOH didn’t come in until after Terri K got her response. I didn’t send anything in to the DOH until Oct 15th – over a month after Terri K received her response from the DOH.

    Second, my point about the index data is that the DOH is claiming that any information about the VERACITY of the birth record is considered confidential information. How, then, can they make ANY statement that would even be construed as either support or refutation for the validity of Obama’s records?

    If they were being consistent in their responses they should have told Politifact, “I am not allowed to comment on vital records.”

    They’re talking out of both sides of their mouths. That should be a problem to a vigilant people.

    Regarding Obama’s records, there are scenarios that could result in his name being on any one of those lists except the Hawaiian Birth Certificate (presuming that the DOH has correctly stated that they had a birth record for Obama by Aug 9, 1961).

    For instance, if his birth certificate was not completed by the required deadline but the information was eventually received it would have been labeled “Delayed”. If it didn’t have the required affidavits it could have been filed as “No Records”. If it was incomplete and the documentation to complete it hadn’t been submitted yet it could be “Pending”.

    It does seem that there were affidavits filed in support of the claims on the birth certificate though – either the original claims or the amendment – because the DOH also denied access to those records when requested. None of that would be necessary if Obama was born in a hospital.

    So we actually don’t know much at all. The only official record that has been released is….. drum roll…… Barack Hussein Obama II, male, birth.

    Fukino’s Oct 28, 2008 announcement was legal. It was just a public announcement of the index data.

    But her July 27, 2009 announcement regarding Obama’s alleged birth place was not legal. According to HRS 338-19(a), disclosure of any information from a birth certificate is prohibited except as authorized by statute or DOH rules. Where in the statutes or DOH rules is the DOH director authorized to make a public announcement of what is on an individual’s birth certificate? All the disclosures in the DOH rules involve the issuance of certificates.

    The rules authorize the release of documents and prohibit the release of announcements.

    By contrast, the DOH has refused to release documents and instead released announcements (while hiding the documents which would show whether their disclosure was truthful).

  267. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    When the head of the DOH certifies that President Obama was born in Hawaii, confirming all but one of the facts found on the Hawaiian COLB presented by President Obama, it seems rather ironic that you seek for alternative ‘explanations’ that would allow you to reject these facts.

    As such it seems that you have to pick and chose carefully amongst the statements of those involved to make a case for a scenario which has a far more probable explanation.

    That’s the problem with conspiracies, they are forced to stack conspiracy onto conspiracy to ‘explain’ the facts while ignoring the simplest interpretation.

  268. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    “Equality under law”, which our “friend” BZ says she supports (she lies) means that the same checks are made for all. If you can show me that Secretaries of State routinely demanded a particular document from all candidates, then fine. But if they demand it only where the candidate’s name “sounds foreign”, then that is NOT equality under law. There is in fact a name for that, but BZ will get mad if I say it.

  269. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    Second, my point about the index data is that the DOH is claiming that any information about the VERACITY of the birth record is considered confidential information. How, then, can they make ANY statement that would even be construed as either support or refutation for the validity of Obama’s records?

    If they were being consistent in their responses they should have told Politifact, “I am not allowed to comment on vital records.”

    So they are not consistent. The problem for you is that you get to pick and chose the statement which you want to believe. When the DOH claims that the Document online is a real Hawaiian COLB and that it had been requested earlier, they may have violated what they could share with 3rd parties and when later asked for details, they returned to the default position of being unable to further discuss this issue.

    You ignore the whole precedent and interpret the backtracking as evidence of something more nefarious that a simple mistake.

    Combine the early disclosures with the statement that they certify the birth of President Obama in Hawaii and we have all the necessary data to find that President Obama is eligible, just as all the facts show.

    Instead, you now insist that the COLB, which was initially stated to be real and recently requested, is now a forgery since you believe that the usage of the term vital records indicates that there must have been an amendment… Ever since you have rejected the known data to infer something totally unknown, you have abandoned hope to reach the truth.
    Once you admit the possibility that the original disclosure was inadvertent but truthful, all your so called ‘red flags’ disappear.

    Instead you insist on an alternative interpretation of the facts which lead you to a conclusion of some grand form of conspiracy.

  270. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    See the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) at

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

    A secretary of state placing a name on the ballot is effecting a transaction on behalf of the registrant.

    A person could argue about whether the secretary of state was authorized to ask for the certified copy. That would depend on the laws and discretionary leeway in any particular state, and if I remember correctly the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases resulted in the judges saying that the SOS had broad discretion in deciding how to do the required verification of eligibility.

    But if the SOS asked for the certified copy of the original birth certificate the Hawaii DOH would have no legal reason to refuse to send it.

    And no, people should not be treated differently. The secretaries of state should be looking at certified copies of birth certificates for anybody they place on the ballot.

    If Fukino and Okubo had not deceived the public into believing that Obama’s permission was required for disclosure, might any one of all the secretaries of state that concerned citizens inundated with requests have used their discretionary authority to ask for the certified copy?

    We’ll never know that, thanks to Fukino and Okubo.

    Don’t you think they should be held to account for breaking the law requiring the rules to be posted publicly at all times? It certainly has cost this nation deeply. Why do you think they did it? They specifically removed the rules.

  271. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Let’s explain in full detail Nellie’s problem

    To verify we did have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested this month, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get one in April, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.

    Later, Fukino and Okubo realized that Hawaiian law prohibits them from disclosing this kind of information and return to the basic non response that frustrates Nellie so much, while still admitting that the data show President Obama born in Hawaii.

    Based on this Nellie has to ignore the early care free disclosures with the non response after the lawyers got involved.

    Funny. When asked in official UIPA responses, the responses for which she is legally liable, she said she can’t reveal any processing records.

    So which story is true, Janice? Can you reveal when requests are made, or can’t you?

    These Hawaiian officials are legally responsible for any disclosure they make not just UIPA disclosures.

    So let’s assume the simplest interpretation namely that Janice f*cked up initially and disclosed data she should not have.

    Everything else falls nicely in place from then onwards, no need for conspiracy, no need for breaking the law…

    And yet you have decided to ignore the early disclosure for what reason?….

  272. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    butterdezillion: If Fidel Castro came forward and signed a paper saying he was eligible to be president, according to your standards our legal process has to accept that as the final answer.You don’t see that as a compromise of the Constitution?Try telling a cop it’s none of his/her business if you have a driver’s license.Then – quick – run! lol.

    *Sigh* When people spout of such simplistic Canards such as this, it is hard to take them seriously.

    This is as dumb and a false equivalency analogy as Orly Taitz claiming Osama Bin Laden could run for president and as such, they all fall on their face if anyone seriously thinks them through.

    For one thing, Obama is the first candidate in history that I’m aware of who even produced a birth certificate during the campaign to show others.

    That document clearly states HONOLULU, HI as place of birth. The man spent most of his life, outside of a few years of his youth living here and going to school and then working in the US.

    Do people seriously think he never had a driver’s license and didn’t have to show all the same paperwork / documentation during his life that all the rest of us do?

    I mean, get serious. The man is in his late 40’s. That means over 30 years of life here, quite a few of them in public office (at the state level and then the federal), which means he’s had many years of where there would be activity that if anything was out of line, it would have been found a long, long time ago and would have come up as an issue many times…and would be easy for any of his “political enemies” to dig up.

    Plus, because he held political and government position, including sitting on a National Security committee as Senator, he was required to fill out much more detailed paperwork than ANY of us ever have and his entire history and record and his documents had to be scrutinized and vetted at a level that most folks can’t even fathom.

    Now, I think it would be pretty obvious that Castro or Bin Laden were not born here and would not be able to produce any documents claiming such.

    The whole argument is just absurd that anybody that spouts such a dumb analogy deserves to be called a fool.

  273. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    Tell you what, nbc. You find the place where Okubo specifically stated that the Factcheck and/or Fight the Smears COLB’s are authentic, and I will use that information to file charges of forgery against Okubo.

    I’ll quote from a letter I sent to all members of Hawaii’s House and Senate, the Ombudsman, governor, lieutenant governor, etc, which can be found at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/final-letter-to-officials/

    “Knowing the COLB’s were forgeries, Fukino and Okubo both made positive statements about them, inviting public officials in the course of their duties to rely upon them, which is a misdemeanor. If their public statements qualify as an ENDORSEMENT of the online COLB’s (as both my senators and representative concluded), it would constitute the Class B felony of forgery.

    In addition, both Fukino and Okubo made public statements implying that anyone who questioned the online COLB’s was a nut-case who wouldn’t accept ANY evidence offered. Considering what they knew at the time, those statements were defamatory and could perhaps rise to the level of slander.”

    This is the letter to which the Ombudsman responded that they can’t investigate because crimes are involved. They make good watch-bunnies (and no, not the kind with the pointy teeth that cause people to soil their armor. lol)

  274. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    butterdezillion: It certainly has cost this nation deeply

    No it hasn’t. The people who hate Obama would hate him regardless. The people who support him don’t care. It didn’t change a single vote not contribute to the divisions which have been there long before anyone outside Chicago ever heard the name Obama.

    You birthers are drama queens.

  275. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    butterdezillion: The secretaries of state should be looking at certified copies of birth certificates for anybody they place on the ballot.

    But they never have. If you want it to become standard procedure in the future, whether by law or departmental regulation, that is open to discussion. But it can’t be pplied retroactively, nor did they do wrong by failing to follow laws and procedures not yet established.

  276. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    Where is the DOH Director given the authority to certify that Obama was born in Hawaii? I’m serious. Look for the answer to that. As you dig in the actual laws and rules you will begin to understand what’s going on here.

    The DOH Director is the custodian of the documents. Period. Her job is to receive records and distribute them according to law.

    And since the birth certificate was amended the only people who can determine the evidentiary value of the birth certificate are the administrative or judicial persons or bodies to whom the certificate is presented as evidence.

  277. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    If I understand it correctly (and I might not be, so somebody correct me if I’m wrong since this isn’t my area of knowledge), the judges in Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases said that the secretaries of state can exercise discretion in how they do the legally-required job of VERIFYING eligibility to be placed on the ballot.

    The SOS’s argued that they could verify by osmosis – implicitly trusting every politician to tell the truth (cough). But the judge said they could have verified however they thought best – which would HAVE to include the only real way it could actually be legally verified: by looking at the legal documents. I would think the word “verify” when used in a legal sense would require that step.

    But the point is that Fukino hid the fact that this was even a possibility. Why did she do that, and do you think she should be held account for hiding what she was required by law to have posted on her website?

  278. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    BZ –

    In terms of the general issue of should the SOS have standardized procedures for ensuring that candidates are who they say they are and meet the minimum requirements for a position by law – YES, I don’t think anyone disagrees.

    Two quick points on that – with how our Constitutional Republic is set up, realize that each State has the right to have its own procedures. If someone argues that national positions of office should have standardized minimum requirements that all SOS adhere to, I don’t think there would be a problem with that.

    But your argument makes it sound like they currently don’t have any system in place at all, which is not true. The rules may differ and may look lax to you, but all states have established procedures and filings required for all candidate offices, of which the SOS is responsible for.

    If you ever looked at many of these forms, some of them do require a fair amount of information and I haven’t seen a single one that didn’t state what the office requirements were and require the applicant to sign off, attesting that they understand and meet the requirements, which is a legally binding testament. Might certain SOS also require supporting documents, such as a candidate to submit a birth certificate or some other type of documentation as proof – I’m sure that they do. But all that means is that the candidate has to submit and provide their info to that office, not that either the candidate nor that office has to release that info to us.

    I realize that you’ve put a lot of time and energy and emotion into this issue and your battle with the DOH.

    I do think you need to step back and honestly ask yourself where it has gotten you and where, realistically it can go or what it matters in terms of the bigger picture.

    I think you’ve become so invested in driving down into the minutia that you have become trapped and obsessed with battling over small inconsistencies between this and that and therefore keep making mountains out of molehills.

    It is easy to lose sight or perspective when you are down in the details and I think this has happened to you and your spending all of your time and effort on something that has no correlation or impact to the bigger picture.

  279. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    When government agencies break laws, when requests so reasonable that they are embedded in state laws as standard procedures suddenly become “extreme”, and when the head of every major media company is told their FCC license will be revoked if they report on those previously-reasonable requests……. I would say there has been a huge toll.

    Again, most major civilizations have fallen from within. If the people inside had recognized it as a big deal at the time it would never have happened.

  280. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    butterdezillion: And since the birth certificate was amended the only people who can determine the evidentiary value of the birth certificate are the administrative or judicial persons or bodies to whom the certificate is presented as evidence.

    I really take issue with you making authoritative and definitive statements that the birth certificate WAS amended, when there is absolutely NO credible evidence of that.

    Why can’t you be honest and state that you speculate there may have been an amendment and that is what you are looking into, instead of making untrue claims?

    That is where your credibility suffers and you open yourself to not be taken seriously.

    In my opinion, making a declarative off of speculation is the same as bold faced lying.

  281. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    The liar and fool is YOU, BZ. YOU and no one else. The Secretaries did not rely on Fukino or anyone else. They have always been free to ask the candidates to provide documents provided they do so for ALL candidates -EQUALITY UNDER LAW. But, they have not done so, not ever. If you wish them to do so in the future you can work to pass a law requiring that, providing it treats all candidates equally and doesn’t impose unconstitutional requirements.

    Until then, your attempt to say they should all of a sudden have changed established practice in 2008 because one particular candidate had a “funny-sounding name” candidate is a transparent and clear violation of the law and equity.

    Now go ahead and sue me.

  282. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Where is the DOH Director given the authority to certify that Obama was born in Hawaii? I’m serious. Look for the answer to that. As you dig in the actual laws and rules you will begin to understand what’s going on here.

    You seem to be under the false impression that the Director of the DOH needs explicit authority to make declarations. What the Director of the DOH has done is to release the birth index data for President Obama which shows him born in Hawaii.

    Then there is no evidence of any amendment.

    As to the COLB, the DOH of Hawaii has confirmed the only relevant aspect namely the location of birth of President Obama showing him to be eligible, just as the original COLB shows.

    Instead you insist on the false premise that there must be an amendment which ignores the simple factual statements that the COLB is real and was requested earlier that year.

    I ask you, where are the rules that prevent her from making the statements she has made?

    Again, by insisting on carefully picking and chosing the words of the DOH, you avoid reaching the most obvious conclusion.

    That’s the risk of too much emotional involvement as it prohibits one from looking at the data through clear glasses.

    Once you admit that there is no evidence of an amendment, everything falls in place nicely.
    Your insistance otherwise is helpful in understanding your position, and why it fails to make a coherent case.
    Your assumption of an amendment forces you to insist on conspiracy upon conspiracy when they all go away when accepting the simple fact that there is no evidence of an amendment.

    Simple logic really

  283. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    I’ll be gut-level honest. If Americans are willing to accept mob rule then we’re over. All my dreams for my kids’ lives are shot.

    I’ve told myself that the American people are just sleeping, and that if they only knew they would rise up and defeat this threat.

    If I give up the fight to regain law and order from the current corruption it will be because I’m convinced America is not sleeping, but dead.

    Is that what you think I should do?

  284. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    When government agencies break laws, when requests so reasonable that they are embedded in state laws as standard procedures suddenly become “extreme”, and when the head of every major media company is told their FCC license will be revoked if they report on those previously-reasonable requests……. I would say there has been a huge toll.

    See how you have to resort to conspiracy after conspiracy, with NO evidence to further your flawed premise that there exists an amendment.

    Take the amendment out of the picture, as there is no evidence to support such a position, and no conspiracies are needed.

    And yet, you insist on conspiracy after conspiracy rather than a far more obvious interpretation.

    That’s the cost of emotional involvement and the realization of 1000’s of hours of wasted effort for you…

    You have yet to explain why you fail to accept the simple fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii. A fact supported by all the relevant data?

    Instead you insist on conspiracies at all levels.

    That seems somewhat unreasonable to me?

  285. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    If I give up the fight to regain law and order from the current corruption it will be because I’m convinced America is not sleeping, but dead.

    Is that what you think I should do?

    I believe your premise is flawed, hence your conclusion and your question fail to make sense. If you, at all cost and contrary to the evidence insist on conspiracy and corruption at all levels then there is no hope for you and I wish you well in fighting them windmills.

    If you are interested in the truth then it would require you to revisit your basic premises and assumptions. I can understand why this may be difficult a task.

    I wish you well

  286. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    butterdezillion: When government agencies break laws, when requests so reasonable that they are embedded in state laws as standard procedures suddenly become “extreme”, and when the head of every major media company is told their FCC license will be revoked if they report on those previously-reasonable requests……. I would say there has been a huge toll.Again, most major civilizations have fallen from within. If the people inside had recognized it as a big deal at the time it would never have happened.

    Come on now, BZ. What you just said here comes of as hyperbolic hysteria and makes it hard to take you seriously. I fail to see any evidence or situation that matches up with the rhetoric you have used.

    Again, mountains out of molehills. It all just sounds like someone with a paper cut claiming that they are at deaths door.

  287. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    I don’t care what the candidate’s name is. If he/she posts an online COLB with signs of forgery it should be double-checked.

    By the police.

    And a Director of Health who hides Administrative Rules that are required to be posted at all times should also be double-checked.

    By the police.

    If that makes me racist or extreme, then I think your definitions are inconceivable.

  288. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    A bit harsh, Scientist, as Dr C points out, the level of emotional investment will require time to heal.
    Insisting on conspiracies at all level is a reliable indicator that the basic premise is likely flawed.
    Which is why BZ has to ignore the original statements made by DOH, stating that the COLB was real and recently requested.
    It’s downhill from there, not because of the facts, but in spite of them.

  289. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    I don’t care what the candidate’s name is. If he/she posts an online COLB with signs of forgery it should be double-checked.

    No evidence of forgery really existed. The document was initially shown without the document number, however when it was photographed it showed all the required aspects of a valid COLB, including the raised seal which was already visible in the scanned version, and the signature.

    As such the document was verified to be real and recently requested by the DOH, only to have the DOH to resort to a lawyer induced non-response where it could only admit to the existence of the index data showing president Obama born in the US.

    Your statement that the admin rules need to be posted at all times is also ill supported and contradicted by the facts. Did you schedule a visit to the office to visually inspect the relevant documents?

    Just asserting that the COLB is forged or that the DOH of Hawaii violated the law is hardly sufficient for an investigation. Especially when the facts are so clear.

    That you now have to assert the existence of yet another conspiracy, namely that the COLB was obviously forged then I rest my case.

    You are constrained by your conclusion rather than by the facts.

  290. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    butterdezillion: I don’t care what the candidate’s name is. If he/she posts an online COLB with signs of forgery it should be double-checked.

    There are NO “signs of forgery”. None. Zero.

    In fact you are guilty of slander or libel to say there are.

    The COLB is a real document attesting to real facts that you don’t like with no credible evidence otherwise. None. Zero.

  291. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    In fact you are guilty of slander or libel to say there are.

    There is a better explanation than slander or libel. It’s the deep seated belief that the document must be forged based upon a ‘fact’ not in evidence, namely the existence of an amendment.
    Nellie may also have been confused by the so-called ‘experts’ making ill supported claims about the COLB, most of which have all been shown false.

  292. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    What lawlessness is impossible to the power-brokers in politics?

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    What are you relying on to keep the US from becoming Mexico, or Zimbabwe? How have oppressive regimes and mobs taken over both neighborhoods and entire nations?

    On 9-10-01 the members of “Able Danger” were considered drama queens and silenced by the policies of Jamie Gorelick because they had been trying to desperately warn the higher-ups about an Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn headed by Mohammad Atta….

    Wanna know why Able Danger was silenced? Because their methods had already been proven to be effective – when they flagged SecDef William Perry’s dealings at Sanford University and a front company owned by the Chinese military commander’s wife as being suspicious. Perry was hiding behind a lawyer saying he didn’t have to abide by FOIA, but he’s since been forced to comply and Able Danger’s red flags are absolutely vindicated – regarding Perry AND regarding Mohammad Atta.

    In order to keep Perry’s secret, our national security watchdogs destroyed the actionable intelligence that would have prevented 9-11.

    You may think I’m being a drama queen, but I’m telling you that covering some crooked politician’s a$$ is not worth the human life it can cost. If you think I’m too intesnse about this, maybe you should visit with those who lost loved ones on 9-11.

    Red flags.

  293. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    Yes, as I thought, it’s conspiracies all the way down.

    Thanks for playing BZ…

    You have clarified your case where premises overwhelm facts.

  294. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    The “seal” on the fold doesn’t bend when the paper it’s supposedly on bends. I’ve never been able to duplicate what I see on Factcheck’s screen when I try with a real folded piece of paper. The circle on the fold is always distorted when the paper folds so that the left edge of the page matches the left edge on the Factcheck image.

    But the forensic evidence for forgery has already been corroborated by the DOH’s own confirmation that the birth certificate was amended and Factcheck is thus a forgery, so you’ve got the forensic evidence matching what the DOH has actually said in their official legal responses.

    Time for me to play ping pong with my daughter. Nobody here is going to be convinced by anything I show or say. But you’ve had the opportunity at least and that’s the most I could reasonably expect.

    Adios, amigos.

  295. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    The “seal” on the fold doesn’t bend when the paper it’s supposedly on bends. I’ve never been able to duplicate what I see on Factcheck’s screen when I try with a real folded piece of paper. The circle on the fold is always distorted when the paper folds so that the left edge of the page matches the left edge on the Factcheck image.

    The seal is visible on both the scan and the photograph and matches all expectations. Instead you see it necessary to deny its existence to return to your imaginary amendments.

    But the forensic evidence for forgery has already been corroborated by the DOH’s own confirmation that the birth certificate was amended and Factcheck is thus a forgery, so you’ve got the forensic evidence matching what the DOH has actually said in their official legal responses.

    The DOH admitted that the document was real and recently requested, the DOH admitted that the document shows President Obama was born in Hawaii.
    The DOH never claimed that there existed any amendments.

    Garbage In Garbage Out, it’s that simple.

    That you have decided to believe otherwise, is your prerogative, however do not confuse it with reason or fact based.

    So far BZ has been fully debunked as lacking in facts and contradicted by facts. Why she has chosen to ignore some statements made by the DOH in proper context is fascinating to me as a researcher into these conspiracy movements.

    Once accepted that there is a worldwide conspiracy, nothing is going to change the mind, even when pointing out that when the original premise is rejected, everything falls in place nicely and neatly.

    I do thank you Nellie for allowing us an insight into the though process of those who are convinced that there must be an amendment.

  296. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 5:36 pm #

    Thank you nbC, for giving her that breakdown.

    Therein lies the crux of the issue and the breakdown in BZ’s logic.

    I hope she reads this and seriously follows it along step-by-step to understand.

  297. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 5:41 pm #

    Exactly, NbC!

  298. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    butterdezillion: I’ll be gut-level honest. If Americans are willing to accept mob rule then we’re over. All my dreams for my kids’ lives are shot.I’ve told myself that the American people are just sleeping, and that if they only knew they would rise up and defeat this threat.If I give up the fight to regain law and order from the current corruption it will be because I’m convinced America is not sleeping, but dead.Is that what you think I should do?

    What mob rule are you referring to, BZ? T

    he closest thing I’ve seen to angry mobs out there would be the Tea Party movement. But so far, they have just had gatherings and protests and held some crazy signs. That’s the closest thing to “mob” anger out there but I haven’t even see them take any pitchfork village-burning actions yet (nor do I advise anyone doing so), so I’m not sure what mob rule you are seeing, because I sure don’t see any.

  299. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm #

    butterdezillion: I don’t care what the candidate’s name is. If he/she posts an online COLB with signs of forgery it should be double-checked.By the police.

    But therein lies the whole problem with your premise – no legitimate or credible source has EVER claimed signs of forgery or had any problem with what Obama posted.

    The only ones who ever claimed “signs of forgery” were two or three internet posters that were fairly quickly unmasked as having no background in what they were talking about and a very clear biased agenda against Obama the candidate.

    The fact that you start your premise based on the oft-repeated and spread-through-the-rumor-mill claims of a few discredited political hacks and unqualified no-nothings on the internet puts you on very shaky ground to start with.

    You really need to reexamine why you put faith in their preposterous claims without spending the same due diligence in effort to get to the bottom of their credibility or evidence (or lack thereof).

    Your whole premise is based on a sham and you have been misled.

    There are no credible claims or evidence of forgery on the COLB. Without that, your just chasing a rainbow looking for a leprechaun and have doomed yourself to fruitless effort and disappointment.

  300. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 14, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    The documents ARE the official record of birth – so whatever the custodian of the records certifies, is in fact the record that establishes the fact of birth. The OFFICIAL record would take precedence over any unofficial documentation – that is, if someone now produced a hospital record that was inconsistent with the DOH records, the DOH record would be given greater credence.

    And there is NO “amended” birth certificate. That is your fantasy, but the record does not show an amendment. If there was an amendment, it would be reflected on the COLB.

  301. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    butterdezillion: But the forensic evidence for forgery has already been corroborated by the DOH’s own confirmation that the birth certificate was amended and Factcheck is thus a forgery, so you’ve got the forensic evidence matching what the DOH has actually said in their official legal responses.

    You keep saying things that there simply is no evidence to support your assertions. This entire paragraph is simply not true. I suspect, for whatever reason, maybe because of the time you’ve emotionally invested in this, you are stuck on starting with these false conclusions and also stuck in furious desperation trying to twist and contort every minor little detail to fit your square peg in a round hole.

    It just isn’t working and despite your continued insistence on trying to use declarative definitive statements to convince others, it just makes you look really bad to any objective outsider who tries to hear your points and look at your evidence and realize that nothing adds up and in fact, often contradicts what you say.

    One day, you’ll be able to take a break from all of this and hopefully step back and get some perspective and realize that you’re on a wild goose chase of your own making.

    Right now, you are just lying to yourself and too invested in holding onto those lies.

  302. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    butterdezillion: In order to keep Perry’s secret, our national security watchdogs destroyed the actionable intelligence that would have prevented 9-11.You may think I’m being a drama queen, but I’m telling you that covering some crooked politician’s a$$ is not worth the human life it can cost. If you think I’m too intesnse about this, maybe you should visit with those who lost loved ones on 9-11.Red flags.

    If your point is that based on existing and credible evidence, various elements in the government could have taken better action prior to 9-11 that maybe could have prevented or reduced the severity of that attack, then I agree.

    I do not see such failure as a conspiracy at all, just a failure of foresight, communication and other such ineptitude and missed opportunities.

    If your point is that proper vigilance should be maintained for credible threats and we and our government need to be more “on the ball” in order to prevent future such attacks, then I’m with you on that too.

    But where any of that all dovetails to the issue of Obama or his birth certificate? I completely fail to see any connection.

  303. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    So let’s apply BZ’s logic to the actual requests made by Terrik

    On July 30th Terrik posts the following

    Here’s my full Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii Information request, made this morning by me, a liberal/progressive/feminist & Hillary Clinton voter. I wanted to have this on record, here, too:

    Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii, “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.”

    Please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s SUPPLEMENTARY BIRTH CERTIFICATE on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARRY SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARRY DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARACK SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARACK DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARRY H. SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARRY H. DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARACK H. SOETORO’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Also, please send me digital and written confirmation that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, has personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has BARACK H. DUNHAM’S VITAL RECORD(S) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    If you have no confirmation on any or all of the above, please send me that, too.

    Also, please send me an electronic written version of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 117 (Title 11) of the Vital Statistics, Registration & Records Office. If Chapter 117 is STILL under review, please send me an electronic written version of the old Public Health Regulations Chapters 8, 8A, and 8B of the Administrative Rules for the Vital Statistics, Registration & Records Office.

    Also, please send me an electronic copy of the written criteria, that must be satisfied, by which the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health determines that a person, whose vital records she has statutory authority over, is a natural-born American citizen.

    Also, please send me an electronic copy of any written communications between the Hawaii Department of Health and Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent Barack Obama concerning Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, certificate of live birth, certification of live birth, and/or supplementary birth certificate or certification of live birth from Jan. 1, 2008 through July 29, 2009.

    Please consider this request as a Hawaii UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request under section 92F-12.

    Terrik updated her request with the following

    It shows a request titled Third UIPA records request which is followed by a response to a different email titled
    RE: Please add to my UIPA request. It is not clear from this that the DOH was responding to the request for the data.

    From: terri(redacted)
    To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov; janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov; oip@hawaii.gov
    Subject: Third UIPA records request
    Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:17:45 -0400

    Dear Dr. Fukino…
    1.) I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records…
    Which the DOH responded to, referring to “your latest e-mails”:
    Subject: RE: Please add to my UIPA request
    Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:48:54 -1000
    From: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
    To: terri (redacted)
    Subject: RE: Please add to my UIPA request
    Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:48:54 -1000
    From: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
    To: terri (redacted)

    Aloha Terri K,
    I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health. Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.

    Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obamas birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.

    We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obamas birth certificate or any related information.

    A similar request made by “Nellie”

    From: Nellie

    To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov

    Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:28 PM

    Subject: UIPA Request

    12-10-09

    Dear Dr. Fukino:

    Persuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.

    Was met with the following response

    From: Okubo, Janice S.

    To: Nellie

    Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:50 PM

    Subject: RE: UIPA Request

    Aloha Ms. (redacted),

    There are no records responsive to your request.

    When in fact you asked Fukino for clarification it became clear that they never responded to her third request as they claim they never received it

    From:Okubo, Janice S.

    Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:27 PM

    Subject: RE: UIPA Request

    The department does not have a record responsive to your request.

    Here is the copy of Terri K’s UIPA Request that they say they don’t have.

    From: terri(redacted)

    In other words, there is no validity to the claim that they ever admitted the existence of amendments,

    This indicates that the response by the DOH referring to DHS 338-18 should be interpreted, using your logic that there exists records for all variants of Barack Obama’s names, including Dunham and Soetoro.

    Of course a simpler explanation exists namely that the DOH rejected any access to any records existing or not since Terrik lacked sufficient interest to do so.

    If we are forced by BZ to interpret this to mean that there was an amendment, we also should interpret it to mean that there were various filings under any and all names she provided to the DOH.

    Your argument just does not make much sense here.

  304. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    But where any of that all dovetails to the issue of Obama or his birth certificate? I completely fail to see any connection.

    It helps explain and understand BZ’s mindset though

  305. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    butterdezillion: Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn headed by Mohammad Atta

    While in the US, Mohammed Atta lived in Florida where he attended flight school. He never lived in Brooklyn nor has he been linked with anyone there as far as I know. Nor is there any need for conspiracies to explain 9/11. Incompetence and some very lucky breaks for the plotters are quite sufficient.

    The truth is that had the recommendations of Al Gore’s commission in 1998 to re-inforce airplane cockpit doors been heeded, the end result of the attacks would have been a limited number of passengers killed after which the pilots would have landed the planes and SWAT teams taken over. The airlines nixed it over cost concerns. Blame the good old capitalistic bottom line.

  306. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    Some earlier mistakes by Nellie
    Nellie 8 months ago

    Nothing I’ve said contradicts anything they said. The issue is why Obama posted a COLB that had no seal on it (by definition a forgery, since all DOH ones have seals on them) rather than simply ordering an authentic, certified COLB which would certify his name and birthplace only.

    The COLB does have a seal as can be seen on both the scanned version and the photographed version.

    The whole thread helps explain Nellie’s fascination but she is wrong.

  307. avatar
    kupuna February 14, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    Wow! BZ’s fantasies are on steriods today. Mahalo to you folks who tried to reason with this guy but it seems he’s hopeless & clueless. Birthers say they want limited government & limited taxes, yet they are forcing Hawaii taxpayers like myself, to waste my money paying the DOH to deal with them: instead of tracking TB, H1N1, & doing the rest of their daily jobs. I was glad to learn that Janice Okubo & the DOH are aware of the Birther’s plans for 2/17/10. I predict another Epic Fail for the Birthers.

  308. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    William Perry knew that Able Danger (which was sort of the equivalent of Google) was accurate because it accurately identified suspicious connections between his company, a Chinese front company, & contacts at Sanford University including provost Condi Rice.

    Knowing that the technology was deadly accurate AND that the technology had pointed to an AQ cell in Brooklyn, he chose to break up Able Danger, discredit the value of the data, and destroy all their data. Including the data about Mohammad Atta.

    It was a deliberate decision to cover his own behind rather than allow a credible, vital intelligence lead to be pursued. It resulted in 3,000 innocent Americans dying a horrific death.

    CYA is dangerous.

    The Hawaii DOH is relaxing documentation for citizenship as a CYA for Obama. As terrorists are seeking to enter this country and gain legitimacy here so they can blend into the woodwork until they strike us from within, the DOH is messing around with the documentation protocols as CYA for Obama.

    The law of unintended consequences suggests that maybe CYA for Obama is not worth what it could cost to the nation.

    Obama has past connections with Kenya, Britain, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Russia (who detained him earlier, possibly because of a passport anomaly). If any of those countries or rogue elements within those countries have proof that impacts Obama’s eligibility, they have our president by the ear and can take him – and consequently US – wherever they want to take us.

    Everything about this makes America vulnerable.

    Plus, we’ve got whoever has political power using administrative positions in order to control others. For instance, when Obama threatened the Chrysler lawyers with annihilation via tax audits if they didn’t let the secured investors lose everything to the unions who voted Obama in. If tax audits are allowed to be a weapon to destroy political opponents it is serious.

    The White House illegally fired inspector general Gerald Walpin because Walpin had stated the obvious – that there were red flags in how stimulus money was rewarding political cronies who were involved in illegal activities. Then they tried to smear him as being senile. The same kind of process was used on 4 or 5 other inspectors general also. If you get rid of the honest IG’s you can have the fox guard the henhouse.

    Media heads were told they would have their FCC license revoked if they reported on Obama’s eligibility issue. This nation’s very security relies on an independent media. Again, if FCC licenses are used as a weapon to destroy political enemies, there is no way this nation can remain free.

    My senator took a back-room bribe for his healthcare vote. That’s just plain crappy. I don’t want to screw the other states and I don’t want them to be able to screw me either. It’s crooked.

    The idea that all the political power-brokers seem to have is that they can use the process and the powers however they darn well please. And if the truth is told they can – if we have a compliant media that only reports what the power-brokers want to be heard, and if the judiciary insists that none of us has standing to hold our elected officials accountable to the law.

    Which is the case. What’s happened with Obama absolutely shows that. He’s got the Hawaii DOH breaking laws on his behalf as if he owns them. And he probably does own them. But when the evidence piles up the media will never report it on Obama’s behalf as if he owns them. And he probably does own them. When it’s brought to the courts the judges slap punitive fees on the lawyers who brought it up because the case had already been decided on Twitter – covering for Obama, just as if he owned them. And he probably does own them.

    See, when we allow the politicians to own everybody who is supposed to enforce the law, we are screwed. Especially if the guy who owns them can himself be owned by foreign governments or rogue elements.

    I know this sounds surreal. I’ve been telling myself for a long time that it can’t be this bad. But then more and more formerly-inconceivable events start happening.

    I don’t know if you read the “About” page, but there are links in there which show what huge stories have come up just in the first 6 months of Obama’s presidency. They’ve been able to happen because the power-brokers are willing to act like they own everybody, and none of us can do anything about it.

    I don’t know your politics and it really doesn’t matter. But when an administration can bulldoze all the rules we used to play by and nobody can stop them, it’s a problem. Look at the list and whether or not you agree with the conclusions or whether the stories seem like a big deal, look at the way the integrity of the systems is being undermined to come under the control of something besides the rule of law.

  309. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    If Okubo would hit “Yes” instead of “No” when I request a “Read” receipt on my e-mail she could save herself a lot of time reading the 5, 6, or 7 e-mails I have to send before I know she’s gotten it so she can’t say it disappeared into thin air again.

    If she would answer according to her own rules this could have been over a LONG, LONG time ago. Like if she had said she is forbidden to comment on individual birth certificates when she spoke to Politifact, Obama might have realized he had to confirm his bona fides the legal way. The accountable way, like the rest of us little peons have to.

    The reason they are inundated is because they are doing CYA for Obama. It’s a shame.

  310. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    You don’t get it. Sigh.

    Without a Glomar response, a standard denial of access to a record is confirmation that the record exists. This is FOIA 101. Ask a lawyer without telling them the issue involves Obama.

  311. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    If Okubo would hit “Yes” instead of “No” when I request a “Read” receipt on my e-mail she could save herself a lot of time reading the 5, 6, or 7 e-mails I have to send before I know she’s gotten it so she can’t say it disappeared into thin air again.

    Agin, irrelevant to the issue.

    If she would answer according to her own rules this could have been over a LONG, LONG time ago. Like if she had said she is forbidden to comment on individual birth certificates when she spoke to Politifact, Obama might have realized he had to confirm his bona fides the legal way. The accountable way, like the rest of us little peons have to.

    Which is why President Obama presented the prima facie legal self authenticating document known as the Certification of Live Birth which shows him born in the United States.

    The reason they are inundated is because they are doing CYA for Obama. It’s a shame.

    What is a shame is your innuendo which appears to be contradicted by what you have presented so far and what is known.

    It’s a shame indeed my dear Nellie Esquire.

  312. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    So now that the cockpit doors are Gore-compliant we have no terrorism worries, right? That solved it all…

    They called it the Brooklyn cell because the transactions centered around Brooklyn. Able Danger mined publicly-available data to find webs of interconnected travel, training, and financial transactions so they could identify who was connected to who.

    We had actionable intelligence and we flushed it because Able Danger suspected too much about our own Secretary of Defense whose own company was in fact selling our satellite technology to a company he KNEW was owned by the Chinese military leader’s wife. He hid behind court cases over FOIA but eventually FOIA won out and he had to disclose the records which showed these illegal business transactions had been engineered by contacts at Sanford University.

    Congress’ Cox Report had spotlighted the danger of Chinese front companies and after stonewalling by Reno’s DOJ on that investigation the committee had strongly recommended that the DOJ conduct an investigation. Reno refused. End of story. Law enforcement didn’t exist because it was politicized, to protect the power-brokers who were the crooks selling the US interests down the river.

    Good thing China never did anything with the satellite technology our own Secretary of Defense knowingly sold them… (cough) Especially since our entire system of commerce is dependent on satellite communications, as is our missile delivery system and stuff like that.

    When are we gonna get tired of bending over so we can be raped by these people? This is absolutely surreal.

    The only conspiracy I know of regarding 9-11 was the terrorist conspiracy to attack us. But the people who were supposed to be protecting us were instead having fun raping us and then trying to cover it up by getting rid of the information that could have kept us protected.

    CYA will always, always come back and bite the honest, trusting people of the USA in the nether regions.

  313. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    Without a Glomar response, a standard denial of access to a record is confirmation that the record exists. This is FOIA 101. Ask a lawyer without telling them the issue involves Obama.

    So we know that there exist at least 3 different records, one for Barrack Obama, one for Barrack Soetoro and one for Barrack Dunham, not to mention the Barry variants?

    Of course not, while we know that there exists one or more ‘records’ for President Obama, denying bluntly access to any requests for further detail is the appropriate response, as the lawyer in his letter explained.

    Using your own logic, the whole argument has been shown to be ridiculous, thus leading to one possible conclusion, that the premise was flawed.

  314. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    So now that the cockpit doors are Gore-compliant we have no terrorism worries, right? That solved it all…

    This is called a non sequitur

  315. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    I spent time crafting a sheet of paper with the exact folds that was photographed on Factcheck, with circles in the exact same places, and then held the paper up to my computer screen so that the angles of my page matched the angles on the screen. I had to get just the right combination of tilt towards me and upward bend.When I got it all to match up I took a photo of it just like Factcheck did.

    Then I traced the circle that matched where the Factcheck “seal” was, as well as the circle that matched where the pre-printed Hawaii State seal is on the Factcheck images.

    Then I laid my traced circles on a copy of the COLB that I printed out. The Hawaii State seal on the upper fold of Factcheck matched the distortion that was on my comparable traced circle.

    But the authenticating “seal” which was on the bottom fold didn’t match what I had. Mine was distorted in a way similar to the circle that was on the top fold. The Factcheck “seal” was almost perfectly round.

    No matter what I did that was the only result I could ever get.

    Somebody here who likes to call himself “Scientist”, that’s the scientific process. A real result should be able to be reproduced. I have challenged people to reproduce this result for me, using a real piece of paper with a real circle drawn on it that really folds at the angles shown on Factcheck and is photographed and really comes out almost perfectly round . Nobody can do it.

    Why is that?

    While I’m doing the scientific process and analyzing real data in great detail you guys are feeding me the line that I’m just delusional and don’t have any facts to back me up.

    You’re kidding yourself if you think that open-minded people don’t see that.

    What you call “no evidence” includes several OIP Opinion Letters, the OIP booklet, Wikipedia’s definitions for “Glomar Response”, e-mails to me from the OIP, e-mails to Terri K from the OIP, the Response to Requestor Form that the OIP encourages departments to use, and the OIP response to Terri K.

    I freely admit that I don’t have a signed statement from God forged on stone tablets but it was the best I could do on short notice.

    Meanwhile, your rebuttal is, “But you’re wrong and won’t listen to the facts.”

    I’m listening, guys, but nobody’s giving me any facts on what a standard denial without a Glomar response means. Nobody’s giving me documentation. You’re giving me psychoanalysis.

  316. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Fukino referred to “vital records” (plural) even though the DOH has admitted that they have only one vital event for Obama – birth. Fukino said that she could not stray from the given statement at all, so what she said in that announcement was no slip of the tongue. In fact, she sent the announcement to Terri K as a UIPA response before it was ever announced to the general public.

    That set off alarms for Terri K, and when she officially asked for processing records from when Obama amended his birth certificate the DOH denied her access to those records, thus confirming that they had them.

    I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

  317. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    I appreciate your efforts to recreate the factcheck seal. However, you could have saved yourself all this work by looking at the original scanned version of the front of the document which in fact reveals evidence of the seal exactly where Factcheck’s photos reveal it to be.

    That you are unable to recreate the picture is not necessarily evidence of forgery as a far more likely explanation exists.

    Of course, regardless of your speculations, President Obama was born on US soil. You fighting the windmills of bureaucracy with fantastic tales of law breaking, and conspiracies might someday make for an interesting novel but as i have show, it lacks in supporting evidence.

    As to the Glomar response, it is used when a response would reveal the existence of something that is supposed to remain secret for national security or privacy reasons. Since the questions were about the existing vital records of President Obama, stating that Terrik lacked standing is totally appropriate because it does not reveal anything.
    If you disagree then you have to accept the existence of Vital Records for Barack Obama, Barack Soetoro, Barack Dunham, and Barry Obama/Soetoro/Dunham as Terrik received the same response to a request for said data.

    Logic my dear Nellie is something that comes to bite you when consistently applied. Since the extrapolation leads to ridiculous results, the premise has to be rejected. All that the response of the DOH shows is that a record for President Obama exists, that’s not a secret.

    Cheers… Now go play pingpong before you continue to embarrass yourself any further.

  318. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    Just to make sure this horse we are beating is really dead, I’m going to repeat the text of Fukino’s statement again:

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    [/i]

    The only place where she uses the word “records” (plural) is where she is asserting her authority as the overseer of “these type of vital records”. “these type” referring to birth records I assume, but she is also responsible for death records at least. So she is responsible for multiple instances of records (e.g. all births in Hawai’i) and multiple types of records (birth and deaths and possibly marriage, etc).

    She then goes on to confirm that ONE SPECIFIC RECORD – [i]Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate[/i], is on file. The word she uses is “[b]certificate[/b]” – SINGULAR.

    At no time does she indicate that there is more than one document pertaining to Obama on file. Not by specific wording and not by implication.

    How you can translate those words into indicating that there is more than one record relating to Obama (which therefore must be an amendment) on file defies imagination. You clearly have a working understanding of the English language, but your reading comprehension needs a lot of work. A LOT of work.

  319. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 8:55 pm #

    Again you are forcing an interpretation on Vital Records which causes one to draw a conclusion not supported by facts and in fact totally contradicted by the known evidence.
    For this you have to reject anything the DOH has said about the COLB being real, and the existence of the seal on the scanned version just where it showed up on the factcheck photographs. You have to assert conspiracy, and law breaking on an ever increasing part of the government, all because you insist on a reading which is at odds with the reality.

    That set off alarms for Terri K, and when she officially asked for processing records from when Obama amended his birth certificate the DOH denied her access to those records, thus confirming that they had them.

    They denied access to any of the records that existed for Obama, this does not deny nor confirm the existence of said request unless you use the same logic to conclude that in addition to an amendment, there exists records for Barack/Barry Soetoro/Obama/Dunham since a request for all these was met with the same “you have no right to see such data”.
    It’s far more effective to point to state law prohibiting uninterested party’s access to such data, especially when it is already known that President Obama has at least one record. To conclude from this that this thus shows the existence of more than one and that this is evidence of an amendment further leads you down towards conclusions that involve an ever expanding group of conspirators and conspiracies, the breaking of laws at many levels…
    Or you accept a much more straightforward conclusion that there exist no amendment, and all falls nicely into place.

    So explain why you insist on an incredible scenario based on a strained reading of the responses from the DOH?

  320. avatar
    nbC February 14, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    See how others come as well to a far more reasonable interpretation of her statements, not requiring her to have broken state and federal laws, without a need for ever expanding circles of conspirators and conspiracies…

    But such a conclusion can never be acceptable to you? You’d rather conclude that the conspiracies must exist… Even though a simple reading of the statement resolves all your fantastic scenarios in favor of the simple fact that President Obama was born on US soil.

    I notice you continue to ignore this fact?

    I can only attempt to guess as to why

  321. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    butterdezillion: If Okubo would hit “Yes” instead of “No” when I request a “Read” receipt on my e-mail she could save herself a lot of time reading the 5, 6, or 7 e-mails I have to send before I know

    You in fact have no official business with the State of Hawaii. They owe you nothing. If I were her I would send all your EMails to the Spam folder.

  322. avatar
    Whatever4 February 14, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    butterdezillion: Kimba at 1:54 (I include this because my posts haven’t been going to the right place when I click to reply to somebody’s comment. So the discussion is getting lost. I don’t know how other people are able to reply to the comments and have it appear under the comment but mine haven’t been.

    I think that the threading gets lost somehow on very long articles. Seems like a bug to me.

    Anyway, “Public Health Regulations” Chapter 8b, 2.5B2 is where the non-certified abbreviated birth certificate is authorized for release to anyone. You’ll notice that it has to comply with the same requirements for index data – that they can’t release information about illegitimate births, etc. This passage of the rules can be seen at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

    I’m a bit confused, as I’ve only marginally been following along… but the regulation you quote in the above link isn’t current, it’s the 1976 version. It’s been updated since then. My reading is that anyone used to be able to get certain information, but now it’s all subject to the HRS 338-18 limitations as to who can have access.

  323. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    butterdezillion: The Hawaii DOH is relaxing documentation for citizenship as a CYA for Obama. As terrorists are seeking to enter this country and gain legitimacy here so they can blend into the woodwork until they strike us from within, the DOH is messing around with the documentation protocols as CYA for Obama.The law of unintended consequences suggests that maybe CYA for Obama is not worth what it could cost to the nation.

    What?? First of all, I haven’t seen any evidence of the HI DOH treating Obama’s info any different than they would any other person, so I completely don’t see the CYA you are claiming. Again, I think you are starting off with a flawed & biased premise that you’ve bought into that has no basis in fact or evidence. I have no idea how you jump to some link to terrorism here…it just makes no sense.

    Obama has past connections with Kenya, Britain, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Russia (who detained him earlier, possibly because of a passport anomaly). If any of those countries or rogue elements within those countries have proof that impacts Obama’s eligibility, they have our president by the ear and can take him – and consequently US – wherever they want to take us.Everything about this makes America vulnerable.

    I think you are getting panicked over nothing here and seeing boogeymen and shadows where none exist. Ya know, a lot of people in this country travel to other countries or have family from other countries or even study abroad in other countries. That in no way makes them any less American or under some sort of “foreign influence”. Rogue elements, indeed! Hah! Maybe you’ve read too many good spy novels.

    I utterly fail to see how any of this makes America vulnerable. If you are afraid of people who don’t look like you and don’t think like you, well there is not much I can do for you except to say that your fears are overblown and the rest of the world isn’t out to get you.

    Instead of living in fear on a bunch of hypothetical based on paranoid speculation, take a look at what is really happening right now in foreign policy. In summary, America is no less safe than it was before. The only change of significance attributed to Obama’s policies is that we’ve ramped up our efforts in Afghanistan and that the other nations of the world have an overwhelmingly more positive view of America.

    Media heads were told they would have their FCC license revoked if they reported on Obama’s eligibility issue. This nation’s very security relies on an independent media. Again, if FCC licenses are used as a weapon to destroy political enemies, there is no way this nation can remain free.

    Do you have any real proof to support this? I’ve heard this tripe before and have yet to see any evidence to support it. This is just another Birther Myth being spread to cause fear and smear without any basis in reality. It seems you are allowing yourself to gullibly just by into any BS scare tactic that someone tells you, if it supports the pre-conceived worldview you wish to hold and that you don’t base your views in actual fact.

    What’s happened with Obama absolutely shows that. He’s got the Hawaii DOH breaking laws on his behalf as if he owns them. And he probably does own them. But when the evidence piles up the media will never report it on Obama’s behalf as if he owns them. And he probably does own them. When it’s brought to the courts the judges slap punitive fees on the lawyers who brought it up because the case had already been decided on Twitter – covering for Obama, just as if he owned them. And he probably does own them.

    Once again, you are just spouting utter paranoia myths that has no basis in reality. Everything brought to the courts so far was frivolous and did not meet legal standing. Any fines imposed have been on the so-called Birther laywers involved, because they flagrantly disregarded proper conduct and procedure.

    I’ll try to take a look at your “About” page and see what you are talking about, but so far, all I’ve heard sounds like more mountains made out of molehills and nothing but misplaced and overblown paranoia.

  324. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 9:12 pm #

    I’ll try to take a look at your “About” page and see what you are talking about, but so far, all I’ve heard sounds like more mountains made out of molehills and nothing but misplaced and overblown paranoia.

    Very astute observations.

  325. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    butterdezillion: You don’t get it. Sigh.Without a Glomar response, a standard denial of access to a record is confirmation that the record exists. This is FOIA 101. Ask a lawyer without telling them the issue involves Obama.

    No. You are totally wrong. A standard denial of access is just that. It is absolutely NOT a confirmation that the record exists.

    That is preposterous and completely illogical.

    Sadly, you are doomed to continued failure, meaningless wasted effort and barking up the wrong tree, because, for whatever reason, you cling to such a fundamentally unsound and incorrect belief that somehow NO means YES.

  326. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    Remember that we already know that a record of President Obama exists. Denying access to the record does not reveal anything that should be protected by privacy rules.

  327. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    BZ said: “This is a very important concept to get. They cannot deny access to a record that doesn’t exist.”
    —–

    This is a very important concept to get. They most certainly can deny access to a record that does not exist.

    They will check to see if you have the necessary standing to view a record BEFORE they look for the record. If you do not have the necessary standing they will deny the request without checking for existence of the record. This makes sense from any angle you want to view it, but especially from spending taxpayers money chasing their tail looking up records that you don’t have a right to see.

    If you do have the standing to see the record, then, and only then will they research the document itself.

    Furthermore, in the case of archiving, the term ‘records’ is a word that has a special meaning. In the mundane world, ‘records’ means more than one record; in archiving ‘records’ means zero or more. The phrase ‘You are not authorized to see Obama’s records’ does not imply there is more than one record. Because ‘records’ here is understood to mean zero or more, the phrase means only that you aren’t allowed to see any information they have on Obama, whether they have any information or not.

    This is not the only word in the english language that is both plural and singular at the same time.

  328. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    butterdezillion: Somebody here who likes to call himself “Scientist”, that’s the scientific process. A real result should be able to be reproduced

    When a scientist attempts to reproduce another scientist’s work they must follow the same detailed procedure that the original person followed. Unless I know in detail what Factcheck did and what you did, I couldn’t begin to draw any conclusions. I have many times attempted to follow another scientist’s experimental protocols and not gotten the identical results. Yelling fraud at my first failure is quite outrageous.

    As a first step, you should spend $10 and order a copy of a real birth certificate with a real seal (your own is fine, even if you aren’t from Hawaii). A real seal may not photograph the same way as a drawn circle. Then you should photograph it, since comparing a photographic image with a real piece if paper is invalid. And quite frankly, you are a biased experimenter with a strong interest in a particular result. Unless the experiment is done by a neutral party (ideally several neutral parties) with no stake in the outcome, I would give it little or no weight.

    I don’t mean to denigrate your work, but let’s not pretend you’ve even taken the first step towards a real scientific study.

  329. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    You’re just not getting it. This has nothing to do with how people look or act or whether they are like me. You’re buying into the “racism” crap. This is about people who could have INFORMATION that allows them to bribe our president. If you can’t see the national security risk in that, I’m afraid we don’t have much left to talk about.

    I haven’t posted this on my blog yet but discussed it some last night. The DOH has changed so that their standard birth certificate includes 17(?) items. Nowhere does it have a place for signatures or anything to validate any of the information. They changed it to be that way in October of 2008. Let’s say Osama Bin Laden comes to Hawaii and fills out a standard birth certificate. They don’t even ask for signatures, hospital name, witnesses, anything. That’s their standard birth certificate according to what Okubo sent me.

    Bin Laden gets that certificate filed and he can have access to anything that a US citizen gets access to – including the White House.

    They revised that in October of 2008 – which is also when Fukino made the announcement that they have Obama’s “original birth certificate”. Could they call his document a “birth certificate” before they dumbed their birth certificates down to something even Bin Laden could use to qualify as a US citizen? They’ll never tell us that.

    They’re making stupid changes for Obama’s sake. And they’re doing it illegally. HRS 338-11 requires that their birth certificates have at least as much information as is required on the CDC standard birth certificate – which has over 50 items. To change the certificate to not include those items requires an act of the Hawaii legislature. But the DOH made that change on a dime, with no explanation and no accountability to the law. Why?

    I didn’t pursue this on my blog because it’s sort of a side issue and I didn’t want to get the article too bogged down with tangents. There are lots of other points I could make about incompetence and the breaking of rules and protocols, but I just wanted to address the bigger stuff.

    But the issue of their current, illegal standard birth certificates very much belongs in the discussion of how this CYA on Obama’s behalf is screwing us all.

  330. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    I haven’t posted this on my blog yet but discussed it some last night. The DOH has changed so that their standard birth certificate includes 17(?) items. Nowhere does it have a place for signatures or anything to validate any of the information. They changed it to be that way in October of 2008. Let’s say Osama Bin Laden comes to Hawaii and fills out a standard birth certificate. They don’t even ask for signatures, hospital name, witnesses, anything. That’s their standard birth certificate according to what Okubo sent me.

    You are now confusing the birth certificate filled out by the mother and the birthing facility, commonly known as the long form and the short form which provides sufficient information for establishing birth on US soil.

    Your hypothetical scenario again fails to connect to any form of reality.

    Sigh…

  331. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

    Look, BZ,

    I’ve just spent my time reading your About page and its links. For anyone else interested, it is basically your main page:

    http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/

    So, you start off with articles about some reprehensible activity happening in Mexico as a result of the ongoing and out of control drug gang wars there.

    Then you go off, with nothing but your own paranoid speculation and somehow try to relate that situation to Obama, your futile records search efforts and what is happening here in America.

    There is absolutely no connection between the two and to even draw that connection is such a weak and once again overblown hyperbolic stretch that it has me shaking my head again, seriously questioning both your anxiety levels and your logic abilities. You really seem to just be jumping at non-existent shadows.

    Then your “evidence” links to an article from the known kook-rag, The Canadian Free Press, which has even less credibility than WND in journalism (hard to believe that is even possible). I wasted time reading that whole article too.

    Gee – so THEY are your source of this so-called “Obama Media Ban” myth. Well, that explains a lot. Didn’t you notice how all they did is string you along during the entire article, claiming that they have all these “documents” that prove their case, YET they don’t show or link to any of them and just promise that they will release them “any day now”.

    The article was dated 08-04-09. Yeah, still no evidence from them, is there? WHY CAN’T YOU TELL WHEN YOU’VE BEEN HAD? Seriously, BZ, this just makes you look really foolish and utterly gullible. Why don’t you start taking your anger and frustration on all these con artist sources that are stringing you along and feeding you nothing but lies, myths and BS and making your site look bad that you rely on them for your viewpoints?

    The 3 links to Veritas blog that follows represents a litany of half-truths and biased opinions, put together by a blogger that obviously gets all their talking points from watching Glenn Beck. Wading through all 46 bullet points there, there is probably about 10% that is valid concern and the rest is nothing but smoke and mirror spin or even utter BS. Again, you should try to link to actual evidence or sources, not some random political hack blogger.

    I do like the movie reference to “The Dark Knight”, which I thought was the best movie of 2008, although I will concede that it is probably too scary for young children. (Sorry to hear your kids had nightmares).

    But again, that is just a movie, not reality and the world we actually live in is NOWHERE CLOSE to such fiction.

    In summary, as I said, I think you have great taste in movies, but I think you tend to let primal fears and your imagination drive too much of your actual life and that the real world we live in is a lot less scary, a lot less extreme and a lot less “conspiracy based” than you seem to believe.

    If anything, you About page just reinforces my opinion based on everything else I’ve seen from you – that you exaggerate situations way beyond the pale (mountains out of mole hills), allow yourself to get very worked up over very little things, to the point where you take some grains of actual legitimate concerns or problems and blow them up into vast far-reaching conspiracies with implausible connections that stretch the bounds of even fiction. In fact, if written as a work of fiction, the intensity and drama would be great, but the plot would be so full of holes and contradictions that it probably wouldn’t sell well and would suffer a lot of derision too.

  332. avatar
    Whatever4 February 14, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    I doubt that the first place a Secretary of State would go is to the web — they’d call Hawaii directly for how to get a copy of a candidate’s birth certificate. And they’d have an authorization signed from the candidate. If they felt a need to verify, that is. Obviously a number of states didn’t allow Roger Calero on their ballots as he wasn’t born in the USA, but they allowed Obama.

  333. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 9:56 pm #

    You are once again wrong Nellie… Does that not worry you?

    Research the difference between the copy of the vital records and the actually birth certificate data filled out by the woman and the birthing facility (long form).
    The DOH does no longer provides copies of the latter one.

    This is not rocket science, just sloppy research

  334. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    It isn’t going through a court. The case was dismissed before hearing due to lack of standing.

    And who’s spending millions on it? You? No wonder you want to be right so badly.

  335. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    NBC, you are not being honest. I’ve already posted the e-mail from the DOH showing that they knew exactly what they were responding to.

    Somehow you failed to mention the earlier email by Terrik where she asked for records regarding amendments, and Barack/Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama.

    It was a simple: YOu do not have rights to see the record of President Obama that you somehow interpret as admitting to an amendment.

    That does not compute… At least not without arguing that in addition to an amendment that they verified the existence of records in the name of 4-5 different variants of Obama’s first and last name.

  336. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 10:00 pm #

    butterdezillion: Let’s say Osama Bin Laden comes to Hawaii and fills out a standard birth certificate.

    Well, since Bin Laden has evaded the worldwide manhunt and is now walking around in Hawaii, it would seem that a birth certificate is the least of our worries.

    But now he files a birth record and gets a b.c. Problem is it would show him born in 2010 and he would be a baby. So how does he explain the fact that he is 53 years old and 6’6″?

    Look, if anyone wants a fake b.c, it’s quite simple in Hawaii or anywhere else. You don’t have to file anything. Just pick a person around your age of the same gender and engage them in a casual conversation to find out where and when they were born. Some people will tell you their entire life story if you’re friendly. Buy them a couple of drinks if necessary. Get a fake driver’s licence and enclose a photocopy along with an application to the state they were born in. In about 2 weeks, you’ll have it.

    By the way, in the interests of science, in order to even begin to speculate on whether there is something nefarious in Honolulu, you need to research the other 49 states. Is Hawaii unique? Of course, I’m sure you will tell us that all the other states changed their policies to give cover to Hawaii, right?

  337. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    Hawaii’s changes coincide with it moving to an electronic reporting system.

    Anyone with a computer could have verified these simple facts.

  338. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    Butterdezillion: I haven’t posted this on my blog yet but discussed it some last night. The DOH has changed so that their standard birth certificate includes 17(?) items.

    Oh, take a deep breath and read the following material carefully.

    All states collect the same basic information about a birth. They do this because the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) contracts with the States to collect this information set, and pays them for this statistical information when it meets their standards. States may collect additional information and this varies from state to state. The national standard birth certificate (which is actually a model) is revised every few years. The latest revision is 2003. Some states are just now adopting the 2003 standard. The standard is detailed on the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System page. This site includes an image of how such a standard birth certificate might be laid out. NCHS encourages states to make their forms look like the national standard, adding state-specific information at the end of the sections so as to promote uniform data collection across the country.

    You may be sure that Hawaii’s birth certificate looks more or less like this, and that the information collected contains all of these items.

    This is not to be confused with a “Certified Copy” which is the birth certificate private individuals gets. In paperless states like Hawaii, certain data items are abstracted from the birth registration database and printed on security paper, and this is the COLB. The content of the COLB is just the legal portion of the record, corresponding to the Child, Father, Mother parts of the national certificate. The hospital collects the full certificate data set, but the birth certificate the state issues is only a small part and what it includes may vary from state to state. In many states, there is no paper form at all; the hospital’s electronic medical records system transmits the certificate information directly to the state’s system. In states where paper is still used, when a birth certificate is issued for someone, they visually crop the paper form, giving only the top portion to the requester. In every state, a signature (either paper or electronic) of the one attesting to the facts of the birth accompanies every certificate submitted. For hospital births, the signature is that of the attending physician.

    You have gotten yourself so worked up over this issue that you’re not seeing straight. Hawaiian officials, are not changing the birth registration process to protect Obama. In the real world Obama’s birth certificate is a non-issue. Hawaii is doing exactly what all the other states do in collecting birth registrations. You are confusing what the hospital reports to the health department with what the health department prints on a certificate for private individuals.

    I do this for a living, and I know what I’m talking about. Go back and read your material. You will nowhere find that those 17 (?) items are what the hospital reports, because it isn’t so.

    Notes: Birth registrations and certificate contents have been discussed in several articles on this blog including:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/a-certification-is-not-a-certificate/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/birth-certificates-101-part-1/

  339. avatar
    G February 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    BZ –

    I’m with NBC on this.

    For one, I didn’t call you a racist. I said that you seem to have a suspicion of foreigners or anyone from this country that has been to a foreign country. So, I did ask if you are xenophobic, which is quite different from being a racist, even though many racists are xenophobic too. Still, they are different things.

    Second, your claim that this is about other countries somehow having “information” that they could use to bribe our country. Again, all this is is paranoid crazy talk to me.

    Based on what, pray tell? Just “Birther” myth? Of which there is no credibility and no serious supporting evidence behind it?

    So, your entire “fears” of foreign influence is based on Obama not being an NBC and somehow other countries knowing that, yet this country, with the greatest technology, intelligence gathering and communication capabilities on the planet can’t uncover it?

    LMAO! That is so implausible! So tell me, then without the “birther” myth as your basis, do all the fears of foreign influence just dissipate into nothing as well?

    See, that is the whole problem – everything you say and do is based in a foundation in assuming – perhaps even requiring the “birther” myths to be true.

    Then you struggle and waste countless hours in fear and trying to find any possible little tangential thread or rumor or inconsistency in order to try to support that world view and also have to jump through tons of logical hoops to ignore and dispel all evidence and actions which dispute the birther myths.

    So, it sounds like you intentionally are trying to force fear on yourself and you yourself are the one causing your own fears, because once you stop buying into the highly implausible and ridiculous birther myths, all the real basis for your hyped up fears seem to go away.

    I’m not even going to bother commenting on that completely absurd and impossible Osama Bin Laden scenario you gave. No offense, but it is so stupid, over-the-top, not realistic and not even remotely possible that is all that needs to be said. NBC did address that statement in further detail and I fully agree with what he wrote.

  340. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Apparently, Doc, BZ believes that the birth certificate you use to get a passport should show your APGAR score and whether your mother smoked.

  341. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    Thanks Doc, you are much more clearer in why Nellie is confusing apples and oranges.

    PS: The Hawaii electronic program to move birth and death information to electronic format is EVVE, and is spearheaded by 7 participants. Nellie is aware of the program but seems to be ‘concerned’ about a void flag.

  342. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    So we now know that there is a crazy person on the internet who is incompetent at tasks involving folding paper and photography, as well as simple logical thinking. ?

  343. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    Close

    NAPHSIS piloted the EVVE system with the Social Security Administration (SSA). The pilot commenced in August 2002 and ended in December 2003. At the peak of the pilot phase, users at SSA offices located in 26 states across the country were sending birth and death verification and certification query requests to eight participating vital records offices. These eight pilot states were Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, California, and Oklahoma.

  344. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    I agree. I see the same behavior on ATS in a “discussion” of the plane that hit the Pentagon. This guy keeps asking how could the 757 get through that small 16 foot hole?.

    When it is pointed out that the 16 foot hole is on the second floor and 90 foot hole on the first floor is hidden by the firefighting foam in his favorite photo but is clearly visible in other photos from the same location obviously just minutes, maybe seconds apart, he just covers his eyes, plugs up his ears, and starts yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!

    Totally weird and incomprehensible. But if you spend 1000’s of hours chasing shadows I guess you just have a visceral need to be right.

  345. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    Your idea is a good one. But my birth certificate doesn’t have the seal on the fold. I’m not sure how you would get one that would have the exact same variables as the Factcheck COLB.

    What kind of circumstances would result in a circle on a fold showing no distortion? The top fold had very nearly the same angle of fold as the bottom one and the circle on it showed obvious distortion.

  346. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    They’re not playing Mastermind. Certainly not according to your rules.

    They don’t check for the record, then check to see if you are eligible to see them.

    When handling archival requests you NEED to eliminate the maximum number of requests at the earliest possible point.

    In this case the maximum number of possible rejections is most likely to be from people who have no right to the information. So that is the first thing to be checked.

    The records might very well be stored in a non-computerized archival facility (possibly not even in Hawai’i due to its obvious volcanic activity that could threaten the long term storage facilities there). Why bother digging them out if the requester isn’t even allowed access. It would be a ludicrous waste of taxpayer money.

    So no peg means you don’t have a right to the information. End of story. The white peg would mean they don’t exist. And that is not a denial of access, its “Sorry we don’t have that info on record, Mr. Obama”.

  347. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    To be fair, they could have gotten the index data.

    Which shows location of birth and date. Which is all the SOS needs to verify eligibility.

  348. avatar
    aarrgghh February 14, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    Expelliarmus, stopping the presses:

    “So we now know that there is a crazy person on the internet who is incompetent at tasks involving folding paper and photography, as well as simple logical thinking. ?”

    film at eleven …

    meanwhile, bill maher offers some words of sympathy to the birfers …

  349. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    I am afraid that you description does not help. One fold had a raised seal, the other a printed seal.

  350. avatar
    Miss M February 14, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    Where was “she” when Bush and his team were taking away our civil liberties?

    BZ, you are a little late in your crusade for America.

  351. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    butterdezillion: But my birth certificate doesn’t have the seal on the fold. I’m not sure how you would get one that would have the exact same variables as the Factcheck COLB

    If I’m trying to reproduce someone else’s work, the first step is to use the identical starting materials. If they purified their enzyme from cow’s liver and I start with sheep brain and get a different result, I would be way off base to accuse them of fraud. If for some reason I was unable to obtain the same starting material as them, then I would keep my mouth shut so as not to embarass myself.

  352. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    That is a fatuous comment.

    The DOH is the statutory body that is custodian of the vital record documents. It is the department that, by statute, issues the Certified copies of those vital records. The DOH director is specifically the individual personally responsible for approval of the certified copies of said vital records.

    Who else do you claim is the authority?

    There is no evidence that the certificate was amended. And even if it was, it could not have affected the claimed location and date as they are confirmed by independent means (the newspaper notices). So it could not affect his eligibility in any way.

    Going after any other information about the birth certificate is simply an invasion of privacy, that if allowed to succeed, would destroy the rights of everyone, you, me, and Glen Beck, to privacy of personal information.

  353. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    I asked Okubo to send me a voided form for the standard birth certificate. What she sent me looks almost exactly like a blank version of the COLB on Factcheck.

    I asked her to send me the voided form for the abbreviated birth certificate. It was almost identical to what she called the standard birth certificate.

    “Public Health Regulations” refers to the confidential medical portion of the standard birth certificate, saying that a person may get a copy of that part of their own certificate as well if they ask for it specifically.

    PHR also allows a local registrar and the parents to fill out a birth certificate. As long as that is allowed there is no way a state could go entirely paperless.

    The DOH says they converted to electronic records over 20 years ago. They said that to explain why they have no instructional materials used by the people who keyed in the information from the paper certificates to convert them to electronic. But long-form birth certificates were available to the public and actually REQUIRED for the DHHL Office until June? July? of 2009. The long-form (“standard certificate” in the terminology of PHR) had the title “Certificate of Live Birth”. The abbreviated birth certificate had the title “Certification of Live Birth”. The Certification of Live Birth was an electronic print-out.

    If their electronic system has been in place for over 20 years it seems odd to me that in October 2008, in the thick of this controversy, the DOH suddenly changed their terminology, procedures, and rules that had been already been converted to an electronic system more than 20 years earlier.

    But maybe I need to ask for the birth data entry list for hospitals, for local registrars, and for parents reporting an unattended birth. Do you think that would result in me seeing what really is on the birth certificate form?

  354. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    As J. Jonah Jameson said, “Slander is verbal, Libel is print” :-)

  355. avatar
    Miss M February 14, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Yeah, NBC. This chick is out there.

    She is gone.

  356. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    NBC, you keep saying this stuff. I have given 17 different records which say or imply that if a record doesn’t exist they have to say so and/or that a denial of access to a record is confirmation of the record’s existence unless it contains a Glomar response.

    I have looked over your answers and all I can find are your assertions and statements that I am so stupid and non-factual.

    Where are your sources? Show me where it says that a non-glomarized denial of access to a record is really a denial of its existence or means “None of your business. I don’t have to answer you”.

    I’ve got 17 records all agreeing that a Glomar response is necessary if a department wants to get out of saying whether or not the record exists. How many sources do you have supporting your assertion? Show them.

  357. avatar
    butterdezillion February 14, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    So you’re saying that the only way I can say a peep is if I get the document from the Factcheck office and run tests on it?

    Well, I guess crooks are guaranteed a free pass if that’s the standard for forensic research.

    I wonder how much forensic research Okubo did when she declared that the Factcheck COLB was a real Hawaiian COLB. I’m sure she could not make that statement unless she had the document in her hand so she could run tests on it.

    Right?

    That’s why internet images have no legal veracity.

  358. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    NBC, you keep saying this stuff. I have given 17 different records which say or imply that if a record doesn’t exist they have to say so and/or that a denial of access to a record is confirmation of the record’s existence unless it contains a Glomar response.

    Thus you are arguing that there exist 5 or 6 records for Barack Obama, Barack Dunham, Barack Soetoro and the Barry equivalents because Terrik received the same HRS 338 response to this request.

    Of course we know a record exists, that was not the issue, we just do not know what is in it.

    Simple logic which makes disappear all these nasty conspiracy claims etc…
    So why do you insist on such an unlikely explanation when the alternative is far more credible?

  359. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Well, I guess crooks are guaranteed a free pass if that’s the standard for forensic research.

    Huh? Are you suggesting we should rely on someone’s attempts to recreate the situation, while failing to recreate many of the relevant parameters?

    I am glad that we now agree that internet images have no legal value. You went further though to claim that these documents were forged.

    The document which was photographed which was real according to the DOH, showed President Obama born in Hawaii, just as the DOH has confirmed.

    What else do you need?
    Why do you refuse to accept these facts?

    I know, because deep down you are unwilling to even accept the location of birth, as you so clearly expressed on another forum.

    And thus we see the moving goalposts… and continued statements of ignorance of fact.

  360. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    Unlikely, I know her motivation and I know she cannot stay away without ‘defending’ herself with more silly claims such as about the Birth Certificate versus the Copy/Certification of live birth.

    Apples and oranges and to BZ a major conspiracy…
    Or when explained, just another nail in the coffin of the Birthers’ claims

  361. avatar
    misha February 14, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    “Do you think that would result in me seeing what really is on the birth certificate form?”

    I think you need a hobby.

  362. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    butterdezillion: So you’re saying that the only way I can say a peep is if I get the document from the Factcheck office and run tests on it?

    You certainly can’t compare an internet image of a COLB with a piece of paper you drew on. Another COLB would be OK. If I want to repeat someone’s work on cow’s liver, I have to get cow’s liver. It doesn’t have to be from the same cow, but sheep’s brain is useless.

    butterdezillion: Well, I guess crooks are guaranteed a free pass if that’s the standard for forensic research.

    That’s life in the big leagues. You may have spent “1000s of hours” pretending to do science. I’ve spent many more doing the real thing.

    butterdezillion: I wonder how much forensic research Okubo did when she declared that the Factcheck COLB was a real Hawaiian COLB

    She never commented on the Factcheck document. She said Obama was born in Hawaii. Forget about the other nonsense and see if you can disprove that simple fact. $100 says you can’t.

  363. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    If their electronic system has been in place for over 20 years it seems odd to me that in October 2008, in the thick of this controversy, the DOH suddenly changed their terminology, procedures, and rules that had been already been converted to an electronic system more than 20 years earlier.

    As I explained, they moved to an electronic reporting system in 2001, I am not sure where you get the 20 years number from.
    I have seen a variety of COLBs from Hawaii preceding October 2008.

    I fail to see what you are trying to argue here?

    I cannot understand why you have not visited the office clerk to see the original index data… I am sure there is a logical explanation for that, just like there is one for the DOH’s actions.

    Once convinced of their malfeasance, anything in your mind has to have a nefarious purpose.
    And yet, when attempting to understand the progression here, combined with some research, I am sure that you can find the answers. But you may not like them.

  364. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Okubo did claim that the COLB which was emailed to her, was real, based on the fact that they could see the raised seal on the scanned version and the fact that a similar COLB had been ordered recently.
    Few remember that part and BZ has no intention on pursuing the impact of this in any meaningful manner.

    She may have regretted her statement but she is on the record…

  365. avatar
    Whatever4 February 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    butterdezillion: Obama has past connections with Kenya, Britain, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Russia (who detained him earlier, possibly because of a passport anomaly).

    Senator Lugar and Obama were detained on a CODEL trip to Russia in 2005, but it had nothing to do with passports. It was Putin posturing over nuclear disarmaments. The delegation was held for 3 hours when the Russians insisted on inspecting the plane. Lugar (sans Obama) had been similarly detained at the same airport two years prior. There’s no need to make up connections to Obama’s passport. http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke_industry/co-operation/39511

  366. avatar
    NbC February 14, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    Facts can be so boring when we have the right to believe in fairy tales.

  367. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    butterdezillion: NBC, you keep saying this stuff. I have given 17 different records which say or imply that if a record doesn’t exist they have to say so and/or that a denial of access to a record is confirmation of the record’s existence unless it contains a Glomar response.I have looked over your answers and all I can find are your assertions and statements that I am so stupid and non-factual.Where are your sources? Show me where it says that a non-glomarized denial of access to a record is really a denial of its existence or means “None of your business. I don’t have to answer you”.I’ve got 17 records all agreeing that a Glomar response is necessary if a department wants to get out of saying whether or not the record exists. How many sources do you have supporting your assertion? Show them.

    BZ – Remember, I too have looked at the records you’ve offered which you claim “say or imply that if a record doesn’t exist they have to say so and/or that a denial of access to a record is confirmation of the record’s existence unless it contains a Glomar response”

    Let’s be absolutely clear here – You need to STOP using a definitive tense in your claims, because NONE of those records stated what you keep saying in the definitive. To keep saying over and over again that any of your references proof of indicate that “a denial of access to a record is confirmation of the record’s existence” is a BOLD FACED LIE!

    The closest thing to the truth you’ve just said is when you used the word “imply” – although even that is misleading, but I’ll take is as YOU interpret such a response as “implying” something. I however fully disagree, after exhaustive review of everything you’ve shown, that any such implication is there.

    AT BEST, there was a RECOMMENDATION on how to properly phrase denials, to be more encompassing or add clarity.

    None of the many references in those documents to the practice known as a Glomar Response prohibited that from being a valid government response, NOR did they REQUIRE any certain verbiage within that response to IMPLY or MEAN anything other than a GENERAL DENIAL. In fact, most of the Glomar Response references either just helped define the practice or even outright sanctioned it.

    None of us have to SHOW you where a denial of access means anything OTHER THAN a denial of access, because by DEFINITION, that is the DEFAULT meaning!

    You are the one trying repeatedly to claim that somehow a DENIAL of access means that YES they have a particular document. You are the one seeing a NO and insisting it must mean YES. You are the one claiming to look at a denial as somehow AFFIRMATION, which is a contrary position to basic logic. ONLY YOU are making that claim.

    The base definition is always default in logic and anyone trying to claim a contrary position holds all responsibility to prove their case.

    I’ll give you credit to the extent that you have made a number of references to documents and phrases to support your position. HOWEVER, what I find extremely and maddeningly frustrating is that EVERY SINGLE reference you’ve provided to back up your claim DOES NOT SUPPORT your claim at all! In fact, as stated in previous posts where either I or NBC went over those claimed references in detail, quite a few of them completely CONTRADICT your position.

    The closest anything came to supporting your assertions was that one RECOMMENDATION with a SUGGESTION to use the term “IF ANY” to both broaden covering bases in the denial response and to add some slight clarity in the response. However, I cannot repeat enough that a SUGGESTION is not the same as an ORDER and therefore, you cannot logically come to any conclusion of interpreting further meaning into any response that does not include the use of IF ANY, beyond the simple fact that the request itself has been denied.

    The only other thing you can conclude from the text of the actual denials you have shown is that the DOH’s reason for denial were always because the requestor does not have the rights to seek the requested information.

    Geez. I’m really starting to feel like I’m living in the movie “Groundhog Day” here!

  368. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    butterdezillion: So you’re saying that the only way I can say a peep is if I get the document from the Factcheck office and run tests on it?Well, I guess crooks are guaranteed a free pass if that’s the standard for forensic research.I wonder how much forensic research Okubo did when she declared that the Factcheck COLB was a real Hawaiian COLB. I’m sure she could not make that statement unless she had the document in her hand so she could run tests on it.Right?That’s why internet images have no legal veracity.

    BZ, nobody is saying that. Although, actually what you just said made me think of something that might help you. Why don’t you track down a phone number and reach out to the folks at the Fact Check website and see if they can tell you where the public copy of the document they looked at is currently stored? Because during the campaign, it was kept in Obama’s Chicago, IL headquarters and when released, there was an open invitation for anyone to come down there and check it out for themselves (or at least for qualified press to do so).

    Who knows, maybe that document is still somewhere available on display for press or others to look at, I don’t know. But it would probably be a better use of your time to pursue that angle and see if there is still possible public access to that same document. Of course, you’ll have to travel to wherever the document is being kept.

    Of course, as others have suggested, you could also travel to the DOH in HI as per their procedures for requesting information too. I think someone even suggested that if you can’t make the trip yourself, you should be able to inexpensively post a request on Craigslist for someone in those locations to help you out and be your feet on the ground to do this for you.

    Just trying to be helpful here.

    Obviously, you must not have been obsessed with this issue during the campaign, because neither you nor any other birther bothered to go see the actual document in Chicago when it was there for months. (Of course, that in itself speaks volumes about the birther cause).

    But if you really, really are serious about getting to the bottom of something, instead of just posturing about it like a lot of other birthers, than why don’t you take us up on the helpful suggestions we’ve offered you and then report back? I mean, the suggestions we’ve given should be a lot more direct and less time consuming than the 1000s of hours you claim to have wasted away on this so far.

  369. avatar
    chufho February 15, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    sickening

  370. avatar
    NbC February 15, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    You should talk…

  371. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    butterdezillion: I don’t know what you’re talking about.Fukino referred to “vital records” (plural) even though the DOH has admitted that they have only one vital event for Obama – birth.

    I’m not sure who you are responding to here, but on the possibility you are refering to my comment, I’ll answer it.

    Fukino asserted authority over “these kind of vital records” as the Director of the DOH. In other words, she is the ‘independent’ (that is: a political appointee by a Republican Governor) exact authority your side has been clamoring for to examine the source documents.

    She then went on to confirm the existence of exactly one Birth Certificate.

    At no time did she indicate that there was more than one record of any kind for Obama.

    There is no other way to interpret her statement. Period. It is not ambiguous in any way. It says exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less.

  372. avatar
    misha February 15, 2010 at 12:59 am #

    “sickening”

    This from someone semi-literate.

  373. avatar
    myson February 15, 2010 at 6:42 am #

    BZ, just sue already. I would like to see u prove ur assertion in a crt of law & not on d interweb !!!
    Sue them all & smile to d bank wen u do wat terrible lawyers like Taitz, Mario, Don etc cdnt do ? All ur facts seem to make sense to u so they must be true defender of the old American way (or want my country back person) !!!!

    Let us know the result of the suit (i however predict u will lose)

  374. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    Keith: It says exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less.

    That is not the way it is with conspiracy theorists.

  375. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    How’s your piano playing coming along?

  376. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    butterdezillion: I have given 17 different records which say or imply that if a record doesn’t exist they have to say so and/or that a denial of access to a record is confirmation of the record’s existence unless it contains a Glomar response.

    That sentence encapsulates your error. Your argument is of this form:

    If a Glomar response is given – then no information is provided about the existence of the record.
    A Glomar response was not given
    Therefore, the record exists

    That is the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. It’s just like you had argued:

    If someone is Bill Gates – then they would be wealthy indeed.
    Warren Buffet is not Bill Gates
    Therefore, Warren Buffet is not wealthy.

    That is the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent. It underlies birtherism, for example:

    If someone shares all their record, then they do not have anything to hide.
    Obama doesn’t share all his records
    Therefore he has something to hide.

    or

    If a person is born in the United States to two citizen parents, then they are a natural born citizen (Minor v. Happersett)
    Obama was not born to two US citizen parents.
    Therefore he is not a natural born citizen.

  377. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    NbC: As I explained, they moved to an electronic reporting system in 2001, I am not sure where you get the 20 years number from.
    I have seen a variety of COLBs from Hawaii preceding October 2008.

    I suspect they moved their DB off paper and on to computers long ago. I think 2001 was just electronic reporting from HI DOH to US CDC wasn’t it? Two different jobs.

    I would assume that every time the Security Paper and Print supply contract expired there were minor changes introduced into the wording of the preprinted forms for the new contract, like “Accepted Date” changed to “Filed Date” or whatever it was.

  378. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    butterdezillion: I asked Okubo to send me a voided form for the standard birth certificate. What she sent me looks almost exactly like a blank version of the COLB on Factcheck.

    This is just a misunderstanding. Ask Okubo for the data set/form the hospital submits to the health department. When the health department talks about birth certificates with the public, they naturally think of the documents that they give the public.

    butterdezillion If their electronic system has been in place for over 20 years it seems odd to me that in October 2008, in the thick of this controversy, the DOH suddenly changed their terminology, procedures, and rules that had been already been converted to an electronic system more than 20 years earlier.

    I wrote my first database driven birth certificate printing software in 1977.

  379. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 8:18 am #

    G: Obviously, you must not have been obsessed with this issue during the campaign, because neither you nor any other birther bothered to go see the actual document in Chicago when it was there for months. (Of course, that in itself speaks volumes about the birther cause).

    G-In fact, nothing says more about the birthers than the fact that (with the possible exception of Berg) they were absent until the election was over or at least until Obama was a virtually certain winner.
    People with a serious case don’t wait until the matter is legally moot, then file, then claim a conspiracy when the courts tell them their case is moot.

  380. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    Scientist, Of course, I’m sure you will tell us that all the other states changed their policies to give cover to Hawaii, right?

    I wouldn’t be surprised to hear just such a thing.

  381. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 8:43 am #

    One would expect that NCHS reporting was electronic long before 2001.

  382. avatar
    kimba February 15, 2010 at 9:12 am #

    Come on yourself. Hawaii has a vital record of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama because it was a vital event that occurred in Hawaii. Not “a piece of paper somewhere”, like someone jotted something down on a post-it note. Who do you think you’re kidding?

    “I could send them a piece of paper saying I’m Bazooka Joe, I’m male, and I was born, and they would have an index for me too ”

    No, Nellie, they would not.That is just silly.

  383. avatar
    kimba February 15, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    Why would anything be pre-printed on the paper used? I would expect on an electronic form that the formatting comes completely from the database program and the titles of the data fields are printed along with the data. Looking at Obama’s COLB, it doesn’t appear to me that anything was pre-printed. It’s an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper with the COLB printed on it.

  384. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    Thanks Doc- I didn’t have a framework regarding the subject- your examples made it all much clearer for me.

  385. avatar
    butterdezillion February 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    Sue me for libel then. Or have Factcheck or Obama sue me. Obama could sue any of us at any time. He won’t, because as soon as he charges me with a crime I can get whatever documents I need in order to defend myself.

    He will never risk that.

  386. avatar
    butterdezillion February 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    IOW, you have zero documents to support your claim but think I’m crazy and gullible because I’m trusting my 17 corroborating documents.

  387. avatar
    butterdezillion February 15, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    Name me one person other than the Factcheck people who was ever allowed to see the “certificate”.

    And at least one court case included a request to see the document which Obama’s lawyers actually asked the judge to take note of. Denied. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose Obama’s lawyers will only ever refer to an online image rather than letting a judge see the actual paper document?

  388. avatar
    misha February 15, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    “He won’t”

    He won’t because he and his staff are ignoring clinically insane malcontents, like you.

    Keep it up. You don’t know how much entertainment your crowd is providing us. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

    I am enjoying watching people like you squirm. Happy relapse.

  389. avatar
    NbC February 15, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    IOW, you have zero documents to support your claim but think I’m crazy and gullible because I’m trusting my 17 corroborating documents.

    As I have shown, there is no logic to your argument, in spite of your so called 17 documents.
    You are gullible because you fail to read and comprehend.

  390. avatar
    NbC February 15, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Why sue you? That’s just plain silly. Ignorance is hardly a crime

  391. avatar
    butterdezillion February 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    Yeah, that’s why he revoked Major Cook’s deployment orders too.

    When a Commander-in-Chief gives up his ability to make orders rather than provide proof of his eligibility to be commander-in-chief it tells you something. A commander-in-chief who can’t make orders puts the nation at risk. This is not piddles that he can simply ignore.

    Right now his only ability to make orders comes from hiding behind a judge who says it’s not a soldier’s business whether he/she is following lawful orders and keeping the vow they made before God and men when they became an officer.

    IOW, every soldier is supposed to be just as willing to break their vows as Obama and current judges are. A soldier’s job is to be a tool of any unconstitutional usurper that makes it into office, because a soldier is not ALLOWED to keep their vow to defend the Constitution from usurpers from within.

    Sad.

  392. avatar
    butterdezillion February 15, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    And you still have zero documents to support your claims.

  393. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    butterdezillion: And you still have zero documents to support your claims.

    Given our nesting problems, I’m not sure exactly what the claim is. If you are referring to my assertion about the NCHS standard birth data set, I refer you to the Hawaii state web site, where the law says:

    §338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health.

  394. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    butterdezillion: Name me one person other than the Factcheck people who was ever allowed to see the “certificate”…

    What’s wrong with the FactCheck people? That’s like saying: “besides all the evidence, what evidence do you have?”

  395. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    To say that Obama revoked Cook’s orders is a gross mischaracterization. Cook was a reservist who volunteered and was legally able to change his mind up until the day he was to leave. His unit commanders, justifiably, didn’t want a mal-content in thier unit and told him “Thanks, but no thanks”. If you believe that the White House was involved, show one of your 17 documents to support that.

    As for a C-I-C “giving up his ability to make orders” that would come as news to the 30,000 additional troops sent to Afghanistan and currently engaged in a major combat operation.

    You truly must live on another planet.

  396. avatar
    kimba February 15, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Here are the only two documents that matter:
    1. Barack Obama’s COLB
    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
    2. The Statement by Dr Fukino that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
    BZ, most of what you’ve presented actually supports 1 & 2 above. You have interpreted things to support the conclusion you reached before you even started writing. And now you’re just talking in circles.

  397. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    “Name me one person other than the Factcheck people who was ever allowed to see the “certificate”.”

    Actually what you should be asking is “Name one person who was denied the opportunity to see the certificate”

    Because there is no evidence anyone was denied the ability- only Factcheck made the effort to actually go and see it.

    And if they hadn’t, you same people would be saying that nobody had actually looked at the same document.

  398. avatar
    Boomer February 15, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    “I’d give anything to be able to give to my kids what they gave to theirs – including a free world where there’s a community with a general sense of fairness and the rule of law.”

    I’ve been lurking on the site for a while but I had to make one comment: I doubt that Southern blacks born in th 1930s thought that they had a free and fair world or the access to rule of law.

  399. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    A soldier of course can choose to refuse orders that the soldier believes are unlawful. That soldier however must face the consequences.

    Think this through. If we allow soldiers to refuse duty because they believe the commander in chief not actually the President, then the same could have happened after Bush’s original victory.

    Beyond that, a soldier could make a very compelling, though losing argument- that the President does not have the authority to send him to battle unless Congress declares War- you do remember that only Congress has the authority to declare war right?

    But that whole line of thought is the road to anarchy. Soldiers are doing their duty and following their orders because that is what they vowed to do.

  400. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Yeah, that’s why he revoked Major Cook’s deployment orders too.

    Maybe we should go over this again, slowly, so you can understand.

    Major Cook had the option of requesting to be activated. He volunteered to go to Afghanistan. He could have, at any time, requested not to be sent to Afghanistan.

    Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.

    “A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” Quon said.

    It doesn’t take an idiot to realize that suing the government to force them to let you stay is kind of similar to requesting not to go to Afghanistan.

    Real soldiers realize that you have to follow orders from a de facto officer. Real soldiers understand that you follow orders unless they are facially illegal. Real soldiers know that if we allowed any and all fighting men to question the validity of any and all orders because of the ineligibility of one or more of their superior officers would make the military into a debating society and not a fighting force.

    There has been litigation on this subject, which you’d know if you spent as much time learning the law as you spent cherry-picking it.

  401. avatar
    nbC February 15, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Can BZ present to us the efforts she has undertaken to visit the campaign office and inspect the COLB?

    Or did she never attempt to inform herself?

  402. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    “I’d give anything to be able to give to my kids what they gave to theirs – including a free world where there’s a community with a general sense of fairness and the rule of law.”

    Shall I name examples of U.S. Government agencies that didn’t follow the rule of law in the 1920’s and 1930’s?

    Do you know about what happened to the Bonus Army that marched on Washington?

    The Japanese American Citizens ripped from their homes for no greater sin than being born of families originally from Japan?

    J. Edgar Hoover’s flagrent disregard for the rule of law?

    FDR’s attempt to stack the Supreme Court?

    America is a great place, but government is if anything more transparent than it was then.

    My parents are children of the Depression to, and I tell you, they don’t spend their days mooning about the good old days. They are too busy enjoying the freedoms that they do have in this country.

  403. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    butterdezillion: February 15
    Sue me for libel then. Or have Factcheck or Obama sue me. Obama could sue any of us at any time. He won’t, because as soon as he charges me with a crime I can get whatever documents I need in order to defend myself.

    He will never risk that.

    BZ – Now you are just being cranky and silly! Obama himself has shown no sign at all of even paying any attention to any of the silly birther claims, nor should he waste his time.

    Let’s turn the argument around to something that is realistic – Why don’t you actually put your money where your mouth is and SUE the DOH if you think you have a case? Or are you just huffing and puffing and blowing smoke – all much ado about nothing?

    Take real legal action or admit you are just playing games as an excuse to want to have an angry rant.

  404. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    nbC- Are you suggesting that BZ should examine the original document before declaring it a forgery? Next thing you know, you’ll be demanding that doctors examine patients before treating them.

  405. avatar
    NbC February 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    She also stated that the COLB is real. But somehow you have chosen to ignore that part.

    Why?

  406. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    butterdezillion: February 15
    IOW, you have zero documents to support your claim but think I’m crazy and gullible because I’m trusting my 17 corroborating documents.

    No. IOW, I think you are crazy and gullible because you keep pointing to 17 documents which DO NOT corroborate anything you say, and in fact often contradict it.

    I’ll put it as plainly as I can. You can look up at the sun all day and claim it is the moon, but that does not make it true. You can tell me all day that the object in the sky is round and therefore that proves your assertion that it is the moon, but that doesn’t change the reality that it is sunny and light outside and that bright, burning object stinging your eyes is really the sun.

  407. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    butterdezillion: February 15

    Yeah, that’s why he revoked Major Cook’s deployment orders too.

    When a Commander-in-Chief gives up his ability to make orders rather than provide proof of his eligibility to be commander-in-chief it tells you something. A commander-in-chief who can’t make orders puts the nation at risk. This is not piddles that he can simply ignore.

    Right now his only ability to make orders comes from hiding behind a judge who says it’s not a soldier’s business whether he/she is following lawful orders and keeping the vow they made before God and men when they became an officer.

    IOW, every soldier is supposed to be just as willing to break their vows as Obama and current judges are. A soldier’s job is to be a tool of any unconstitutional usurper that makes it into office, because a soldier is not ALLOWED to keep their vow to defend the Constitution from usurpers from within.

    Sad.

    No, what is sad is once again you demonstrate you have no idea of what the actual facts of the case were and why the military revoked his orders.

    First of all, what is extremely laughable is that again, you think that Obama himself somehow spent any time involved with this decision. Yes, he is the CIC. However, his job as CIC is at a much higher strategic level and is not involved with anyone’s actual deployment orders. Just like a CEO at an insurance firm has no involvement in handling your claim and the CEO of McDonalds has no idea about your order and did not handle serving you breakfast.

    Second, you miss the whole KEY to the case:

    Major Cook’s deployment was a completely VOLUNTARY assignment, which he himself took it upon himself to request and sign up for.

    After he signed up for deployment, he then filed this bogus lawsuit with Orly.

    His own volunteer deployment situation allowed him to voluntarily RESCIND his offer for deployment at any time, up to just a short time before actually being called up with his unit and sent out.

    Since the how crux of his case was claiming that he “didn’t want to be deployed”, the military simply realized that he was pulling nothing but a stunt and rescinded his voluntary deployment form him.

    That simple. Nothing but a fool, volunteering under false premises who tried to pull a con stunt and be a Blue Falcon to the unit, which the military has little tolerance for. End of story.

  408. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    butterdezillion: February 15
    And you still have zero documents to support your claims.

    *sigh* I feel like I’m dealing with a broken record here.

    The irony here is that YOU have ZERO documents that ACTUALLY support your claims! You have a number of documents you point to, but NONE of them back up what you say.

    You keep coming back that we have nothing to support what we’re trying to tell you, which is a total bold-faced LIE!

    Do you actually read the posts we reply to you? Or do you simply ignore them, because you really, really don’t want to hear what we say. B

    ecause anyone reading through the voluminous posts on this site will quickly realize that we’ve answered your questions in quite significant detail over and over again and you just keep ignoring it and posting the exact same bogus claims! The proof is right here on this site – either you are an intentional liar or intentionally ignoring whenever anyone replies or rebuts you!

    In fact, many of our posts take YOUR own statements and YOUR own supporting documents and re-paste them here along with a point-by-point detailed analysis showing where you are mistaken.

    The fact that you’ve stopped quoting any of our responses at all and just keep saying the same lies over and over again or trying to change the subject and move the goal posts to some other issue I think reveals your true intent – you have no serious interest in dialog or trying to get to the bottom of anything. You are just trying to spread false propaganda for your own purposes over and over again and you care NOTHING about the truth!

    If you are even serious at all about your little crusade, which you claim is so important to you that you’ve spent thousands of hours on it, then WHY DON’T YOU TRY TO ACTUALLY PROVE YOUR POINT AND TAKE THE DOH TO COURT???

    I think deep down really do know the truth and won’t admit it – you only want to “rant” to spread propoganda. You won’t take any real legal action because you KNOW that you are wrong and full of BS and will lose!

  409. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    SFJeff: February 15
    Because there is no evidence anyone was denied the ability- only Factcheck made the effort to actually go and see it.

    You are correct that there is no evidence anyone was denied the ability to check it. In fact, during the campaign, once they put the document online, the Obama campaign at least several public challenges, inviting anyone to come down the the Chicago, IL HQ and see it for themselves.

    The only incorrect statement in what you said is when you say that FactCheck.org was the ONLY ones who took them up on it.

    If I remember correctly, several other organizations also took up that offer and examined it directly, but everyone always refers to FactCheck.org’s reporting on it, because they are the most well known, have a strong reputation for being unbiased and fact-based, as well as their report was the most detailed and included all those great photos.

    Also, no organization reached a conclusion different from that of FactCheck.org, so why quote them when you get the same answer with more details from FactCheck.

  410. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    butterdezillion: Obama could sue any of us at any time.

    Neither FactCheck nor Obama could sue you (NY Times v Sullivan). Well, they could sue, but it would be pointless.

  411. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm #

    G,

    Frankly, I haven’t been able to find those other accounts, and had gone back and looked for them a week or two. If you have the links to any other news services or anyone else who wrote about reviewing the actual certificate I would love to see them.

    Of course, none of that matters to a true birther. To a birther anyone who examines it and finds it real is obviously in the pocket of Obama

  412. avatar
    NbC February 15, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    Just like the 60+ birther lawsuits?

  413. avatar
    kimba February 16, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    Even Fox News says their legal department can find no evidence to suggest Obama was born anywhere but Honolulu Hawaii and that because he was born in Hawaii he is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

  414. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    “Fox News says their legal department can find no evidence”

    That’s because Obama is paying them off. Orly says so.

  415. avatar
    Black Lion February 16, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Out of curiosity which ones on your list do you think would be admissible in a court of law under the FRE (Federal rules of evidence)?

    For instance #12, how is that evidence? If I had a couple of people come forward that stated that you killed a woman in 1990, should that be evidence?

    #11, do you think that a document from a convicted forger would be admissible? Really?

    #10, Evasive? You mean when the HI DOH stated that “Barack Obama was born in HI”? That is not evasive….

    And your other numbers are filled with total fabrications and opinion…It is amazing how people will hate enough to believe in total lies…

  416. avatar
    Black Lion February 16, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    No he didn’t. He STATED that she had resigned because she had violated some sort of imaginary law because of his e-mail. He did not imply. Get you facts straight. I read the article. That was why he posted the amendment to his piece of trash article. And he did not apologize…He blamed disorder in the state of HI for why he came up with the wrong conclusion…

  417. avatar
    Greg February 16, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    Numbers 1-4 are hearsay. Number 1 is hearsay about hearsay.

    5 is stupid – COLBs never list those things, and the COLB does say that Obama was born in Hawaii. It does have a state seal and the signature of the registrar. It is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    6 is stupid. One need only apply a few brain cells to realize that nurses and doctors aren’t going to remember a routine birth almost 50 years ago, if there are any even alive. Is there even any evidence that someone has made an effort to locate these folks? (Oh, and there is one woman who claims to have been told about the Obama birth within a few weeks of it happening by the doctor who performed the birth. She, apparently, doesn’t count, even though the doctor is dead.)

    7 – Anyone want to point me to the law that says someone can consent to making their records available for public inspection?

    8 – This is a lie.

    9 – This is incorrect – the law in question was written after Obama was born. Further, no law has ever allowed foreign born children to have a birth registered as Hawaiian.

    10 – The statements speak for themselves. They unequivocally assert that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    11 – A birth certificate produced by a known, and convicted, forger? Yeah. That’s rich.

    12 – Hearsay about hearsay.

  418. avatar
    milspec February 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    No commander wants a “Blue Falcon” in their unit.

  419. avatar
    butterdezillion February 16, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    Orly Taitz

  420. avatar
    butterdezillion February 16, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    Fox News has been threatened into being a tool of Obama on this issue. You did read the CFP article about the threats, didn’t you? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373

    But I’d love to see a link to where Fox says that so I can try to inform their “legal department”. Would you happen to have a link for that?

  421. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    butterdezillion: “Would you happen to have a link for that?”

    The link you want is right here.

  422. avatar
    NBC February 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    See there you go again with your silly conspiracies… All because you refuse to apply reason and logic.

    Hilarious

  423. avatar
    NBC February 16, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    What about Orly ? She lost all her lawsuits so far, managed to earn herself sanctions in Georgia Court and is now facing California Bar investigations for her reelings and dealings

  424. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Hey BZ, you claim to be a woman who gave birth to children, right? Let me ask you, did you have them where you live (and your parents live also) or did you troop halfway round the world to a third world country in the middle of a struggle for independence to have them surrounded by people you never met?

  425. avatar
    G February 16, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    BZ –

    Quoting such discredited hack rags such as The Canadian Free Press aren’t going to give your arguments much credibility as their believability lies somewhere beneath articles on two-headed Elvis babies on the moon from other tabloid trash rags.

  426. avatar
    G February 16, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    butterdezillion: Fox News has been threatened into being a tool of Obama on this issue. You did read the CFP article about the threats, didn’t you? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373But I’d love to see a link to where Fox says that so I can try to inform their “legal department”. Would you happen to have a link for that?

    BZ – Once again, you come off as totally disingenuous by blatantly trying to reintroduce here the same hack tabloid trash article I already ripped to shreds last time you tried this.

    As I said before, the crap article, dated in August of 2009 makes claims of having all these documents of some “media conspiracy”, yet they *somehow* cannot cite, quote, or show ANY of those documents or their anonymous (read: completely made up) sources, except to tell their readers that the full information will be released “any day now”.

    …Gee…how many “any days now” since that August 2009 article has it been now, BZ, without anything materializing to support their crazy made-up claims?

    If you bought into this crap, why aren’t you flaming mad at them for stringing you along and not producing the evidence? Why aren’t you mad at them for conning you and their other readers? Where is your outrage there?

    Either you are one of the most gullible people I have ever met or you yourself are an intentional con artist, knowingly making stuff up and spreading lies to foment faux outrage.

    Which is it?

  427. avatar
    Black Lion February 16, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    Two things….Quoting the so called CFP is like quoting WND or the Post and Fail website…They are not real news sites and have written articles that border on slander….Can you find us something from maybe the NY Times, Washington Post, or even the Wall Street Journal? Secondly if you are confident in your research, do you allow people that don’t agree with you to post? Or do you moderate? I noticed that your commenters are the same usual suspects of Obama haters that recycle the same debunked nonsense…Or is that your intent?

  428. avatar
    SFJeff February 16, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    “Fox News has been threatened into being a tool of Obama on this issue.”

    I just love it. As I said before- if anyone reaches a conclusion other than what the birthers have decided is the right conclusion it is then certain they were paid/threatened/extorted etc into being part of the conspiracy.

    Apparently those threats were enough for Fox to drop the Birther issue, but not enough to prevent Fox from spending most of every evening telling America why Obama is the Anti-Christ, and selling us down the road to socialism. Fox has Glenn Beck weepily telling the country that Obama is ruining America and apparently that is fine, but he has been silenced on the Birth Certificate issue.

    Such nonsense. If Fox had anything they thought was real evidence they would be running it 24/7 hoping to hound Obama out of office(and make money off of it)

  429. avatar
    kimba February 16, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    It isn’t at a Link. It was in an on-air interview of Fox Chief Judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano by Shepard Smith on Studio B the Friday before the election, Oct 31, the day Dr Fukino issued her statement that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. In that interview Judge Napolitano said the Fox News legal department had obtained a copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and had investigated it themselves. Here is the email address for Andrew Napolitano, contact him yourself and confirm he did indeed say this, and please report back:
    yourcomments@foxnews.com – write “Attn Andrew Napolitano” in the Subject line.
    – Andy’s facebook page
    http://www.facebook.com/JudgeNapolitano
    Andy’s a big teapartier supporter too.
    I bet Fox has had a lot of people like you try to “inform” them. Even they don’t buy birtherism.

  430. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Minor correction. Obstetrician Rodney T. West was not recalled as saying that he delivered Obama, only that he was aware of it, noting the unusual name.

  431. avatar
    Bob Weber February 16, 2010 at 7:03 pm #

    Me, too. Too much facts & logic for them.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve was banned at Free Republic.

  432. avatar
    Bob Weber February 16, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Minor correction. Obstetrician Rodney T. West was not recalled as saying that he delivered Obama, only that he was aware of it, noting the unusual name.

    My mother was a nurse and often entertained us at the dinner table with hospital scuttlebutt such as that.

  433. avatar
    Bob Weber February 16, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    aarrgghh @ 2:44pm,

    It’s usually called data-mining, or cherry-picking.

  434. avatar
    Bob Weber February 16, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    It’s like taking “In applying to the university, I sent them my high-school transcripts” to mean that I went to more than one high-school.

  435. avatar
    Bob Weber February 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    G:

    That is preposterous and completely illogical.
    Sadly, you are doomed to continued failure, meaningless wasted effort and barking up the wrong tree, because, for whatever reason, you cling to such a fundamentally unsound and incorrect belief that somehow NO means YES.

    That pretty much sums up birferism.

  436. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    “That pretty much sums up birferism.”

    Why is anyone treating their comments seriously? That crowd deserves derision. They are not interested in a rational debate. Why treat them as such?

  437. avatar
    Cae February 17, 2010 at 4:26 am #

    Democrat Barack Hussein Obama

    ILLEGAL ALIEN

  438. avatar
    Cae February 17, 2010 at 4:28 am #

    DE@TH to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ‘alias’ BARRY SOETORO |||||||

  439. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 5:06 am #

    Time to forward the IP address to the authorities.

    Knock Knock
    Who’s There
    Please
    Please Who
    The police who would please like to talk to you.

    Loser

  440. avatar
    kimba February 17, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    BZ, In an interview on Fox News on Oct 31, 2008, Andrew Napolitano, Fox News chief judicial analyst told Shepard Smith that Fox News had investigated and had found no evidence Barack Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. In Post #216 I gave you the information how to contact Mr Napolitano. Please contact him to verify what he said and report back to us.

  441. avatar
    kimba February 17, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    BZ in post #240 is the contact information for Andrew Napolitano of Fox News. He stated on Oct 31, 2008 that Fox News had investigated and could find nothing to support the suggestion that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. Contact him yourself to confirm.

  442. avatar
    Chris May 8, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    I was banned quickly after stating that the DOH has only issued COLB since 2001.

  443. avatar
    Simple Wisdom May 11, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    Forgive me, I dozed off after about the 17th rehashing rebuttal, why won’t Obama just show the’long form’ again if it indeed exists? It seems to be that would end all of the suspense and speculation. It’s a pointless debate, because even if you could find undeniable proof on his lack of US citizenship, by the time that case crawled and meandered through the legal system, his one, uneventful, and unproductive 4 year term would be over. He’ll be placed on the former Presidential scrap heap with the other inconsequentials such as Ford, Bush Sr. and Carter. Great banter, that’s 30 minutes of my life I’ll never get back, but I felt thoroughly entertained and am now fully overloaded with hyperlinks, Hawaiian civil service policies, and bureaucratic gobbledygook! Now 18 months later and the crowning Obama achievement is “cash for clunkers” and fixing the Medicare ‘donut hole’ by 2014, November 2012 rapidly approaches…tick…tick…tick..tick..

  444. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    *yawn*

    Forgive me, but I dozed off in reading your boorish false-meme of “why won’t he just release the “long form”..blah, blah, blah.

    Maybe if you didn’t dose off so much yourself, you could see that weak argument has been brought up here endlessly since the beginning of the site.

    It has been answered many times is sufficient detail. So if you actually care for an answer, wake up and get back to reading.

    However, I bet you are just another lame “concern troll” who has nothing new to add to the argument, so you’re trying to go back to the beginning and trot out the same old, tired and long debunked arguments.

  445. avatar
    SFJeff May 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    Time will tell. I am quite satisfied with comparing Obama’s first 18 months with Bush Jr.’s first 18 months or Reagan’s first 18 months.

    If President Obama turns out to be an inconsequential President then thats what he turns out to be.

    Unlike Birthers, I am no zealot about the President, I just am against the lies and innuendo about his eligibility.

  446. avatar
    G May 11, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    SFJeff: Time will tell. I am quite satisfied with comparing Obama’s first 18 months with Bush Jr.’s first 18 months or Reagan’s first 18 months.
    If President Obama turns out to be an inconsequential President then thats what he turns out to be.
    Unlike Birthers, I am no zealot about the President, I just am against the lies and innuendo about his eligibility.

    Same here. I will add that with any president, regardless of if I voted for them, I wish to see them not screw things up and to make things better.

    I want to see this country succeed and that is ultimately always more important to me than who is in office.

    I didn’t vote for GWB and thought that he turned out to be a complete debacle of bungling disappointment. However, as much as I didn’t care for him and his decisions, I always got upset at the folks who wanted to see him fail. I never want this country to fail. I’d rather see an incompetent idiot get finally get something right than continuously screw things up.

  447. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    Simple Wisdom: It seems to be that would end all of the suspense and speculation.

    Do you really believe that? Have you not seen the extremes of speculation on the Internet? Have you seen the passion and hatred of Obama from some quarters? I’ll even grant you that if the long form were published, and the media made a big deal of it, 1/3 of the birthers would be convinced (I’m being generous). That leave just a few million fanatics to keep the conspiracy theories alive.