It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hawaii governor announces 'exact' place of Obama birth. No wonder there is confusion!

page: 11
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
States don't issue long forms, hospitals & doctors do... although some counties & many hospitals retain copies on microfiche.. if an original is lost contact the county or hospital... I needed one to get a city job, ordered it from the county, no fuss.. like $20.00:

Colorado has a vital records dept where they can be ordered on-line
www.cdphe.state.co.us...



HA!!!!

You are either a liar or so very very wrong that someone let you do your job in spite of how bad you were at it. If you just asserted the above, I would think mistaken but since you went on about how it was your job to verify them and you needed to provide on to get a job - I can only conclude you are a liar. I really do hope you will come back and clarify.


What is a legal birth certificate?

To be used for legal purposes, a birth certificate must be a certified copy, the kind that is issued at a health department. A hospital issued birth certificate cannot be used for legal purposes.



Where did I find this little tidbit?

COLORADO vital statistics.

Of course if we just follow your link we will find out the same information. You linked to a place to order HEIRLOOM birth certificates. If you do not know what that means then you are lying about your job verifying anything.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by GovtFlu
States don't issue long forms, hospitals & doctors do... although some counties & many hospitals retain copies on microfiche.. if an original is lost contact the county or hospital... I needed one to get a city job, ordered it from the county, no fuss.. like $20.00:

Colorado has a vital records dept where they can be ordered on-line
www.cdphe.state.co.us...



HA!!!!

You are either a liar or so very very wrong that someone let you do your job in spite of how bad you were at it. If you just asserted the above, I would think mistaken but since you went on about how it was your job to verify them and you needed to provide on to get a job - I can only conclude you are a liar. I really do hope you will come back and clarify.


What is a legal birth certificate?

To be used for legal purposes, a birth certificate must be a certified copy, the kind that is issued at a health department. A hospital issued birth certificate cannot be used for legal purposes.



Where did I find this little tidbit?

COLORADO vital statistics.

Of course if we just follow your link we will find out the same information. You linked to a place to order HEIRLOOM birth certificates. If you do not know what that means then you are lying about your job verifying anything.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]


Hmm self appointed truth decider. Please, for the sake of decorum, could you not assume everyone that shares an opinion that is different than yours is a liar? It really takes away from what could be a very enjoyable and informative debate. Not everyone it seems shares your unique viewpoint on how the world works.

Take it for what it's worth, and this is not meant as an attack, rather an observation.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Hmm self appointed truth decider. Please, for the sake of decorum, could you not assume everyone that shares an opinion that is different than yours is a liar?


It has nothing to do with opinion. It is all about verifiable facts. The hosptital issued birth certificate is not legal ID according to Colorado, not me. I did not decide that, they did. For that, this person may have just been wrong.

Going on to say they used to verify them for a living and needed one to get a job makes me ASK IF THEY ARE A LIAR. They can still come back and answer. I did not say hey you are a liar.

What is it you do not get about facts being facts?


It really takes away from what could be a very enjoyable and informative debate. Not everyone it seems shares your unique viewpoint on how the world works.


I could care less if anyone shares my view of how the world works. Can you tell me that there is another way to interpret what that website says about what is consider legit ID?

Seriously, are you trying to say it is my opinion that hospital BCs are not legit? LOOK AT MY LINKS.

THESE ARE FACTS.

Facts are not opinions and if you do not like the way I see things, fine but you cannot dismiss facts because of who presents them to you.


Take it for what it's worth, and this is not meant as an attack, rather an observation.


I do not understand your observation. Someone told a little story. I checked THEIR FACTS and found them lacking. Explain to me how it has anything to do with my opinion.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by GovtFlu
States don't issue long forms, hospitals & doctors do... although some counties & many hospitals retain copies on microfiche.. if an original is lost contact the county or hospital... I needed one to get a city job, ordered it from the county, no fuss.. like $20.00:

Colorado has a vital records dept where they can be ordered on-line
www.cdphe.state.co.us...



HA!!!!

You are either a liar or so very very wrong that someone let you do your job in spite of how bad you were at it. If you just asserted the above, I would think mistaken but since you went on about how it was your job to verify them and you needed to provide on to get a job - I can only conclude you are a liar. I really do hope you will come back and clarify.


What is a legal birth certificate?

To be used for legal purposes, a birth certificate must be a certified copy, the kind that is issued at a health department. A hospital issued birth certificate cannot be used for legal purposes.



Where did I find this little tidbit?

COLORADO vital statistics.

Of course if we just follow your link we will find out the same information. You linked to a place to order HEIRLOOM birth certificates. If you do not know what that means then you are lying about your job verifying anything.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]


Actually my long form was supplied to verify I was being truthful about my background, I signed waivers surrendering away many "rights" which authorized the dept to use the information in any way they decided.

Maybe a fry cook, or president, can get away with an un-checked certification.. but when it comes to carrying a gun, the rules change. And BTW in addition to the copy of a long form I obtained (20 years ago at this point from the county), I had to allow the city to order a duplicate on my behalf.. which they did.

I welcome you to contact the police background investigator of your choosing, chat about vital records, fakes and waivers.. then get back to me...



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Actually my long form was supplied to verify I was being truthful about my background, I signed waivers surrendering away many "rights" which authorized the dept to use the information in any way they decided.


Actually, you are still wrong about everything you posted. States DO issue them and the only legal ones are issued by the state. Your state says so.


Maybe a fry cook, or president, can get away with an un-checked certification.. but when it comes to carrying a gun, the rules change. And BTW in addition to the copy of a long form I obtained (20 years ago at this point from the county), I had to allow the city to order a duplicate on my behalf.. which they did.


Issued by the hospital? You said that they are issued by doctors and hospitals so what is this county junk? Having a hard time keeping this straight, huh?


I welcome you to contact the police background investigator of your choosing, chat about vital records, fakes and waivers.. then get back to me...


LOL. What for? Go look at the state website. It clearly shows that your state along with many others do not consider hospital issued birth certificates legal ID. So what would I call the cops about?

Look, you can tell all the tales you want to backtrack from what you said now but that only makes it worse. Anything short of admitting you were wrong makes you look like a liar who is more interested in passing of a falsehood than learning anything at all.

The proof is here. You are wrong. When you have something you can refute your own state with, SHOW ME!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by GovtFlu
States don't issue long forms, hospitals & doctors do... although some counties & many hospitals retain copies on microfiche.. if an original is lost contact the county or hospital... I needed one to get a city job, ordered it from the county, no fuss.. like $20.00:

Colorado has a vital records dept where they can be ordered on-line
www.cdphe.state.co.us...



HA!!!!

You are either a liar or so very very wrong that someone let you do your job in spite of how bad you were at it. If you just asserted the above, I would think mistaken but since you went on about how it was your job to verify them and you needed to provide on to get a job - I can only conclude you are a liar. I really do hope you will come back and clarify.


What is a legal birth certificate?

To be used for legal purposes, a birth certificate must be a certified copy, the kind that is issued at a health department. A hospital issued birth certificate cannot be used for legal purposes.



Where did I find this little tidbit?

COLORADO vital statistics.

Of course if we just follow your link we will find out the same information. You linked to a place to order HEIRLOOM birth certificates. If you do not know what that means then you are lying about your job verifying anything.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]


Actually my long form was supplied to verify I was being truthful about my background, I signed waivers surrendering away many "rights" which authorized the dept to use the information in any way they decided.

Maybe a fry cook, or president, can get away with an un-checked certification.. but when it comes to carrying a gun, the rules change. And BTW in addition to the copy of a long form I obtained (20 years ago at this point from the county), I had to allow the city to order a duplicate on my behalf.. which they did.

I welcome you to contact the police background investigator of your choosing, chat about vital records, fakes and waivers.. then get back to me...


Edit: by "issue", meaning originally.. the state doesn't wait at the vagina ready to "issue" a long form birth certificate the instant you're born.. a doctor "issues" it via the hospital, which is then submitted to the dept of health where "copies" can later be obtained.. and yes, some hospitals do retain copies.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu


Edit: by "issue", meaning originally.. the state doesn't wait at the vagina ready to "issue" a long form birth certificate the instant you're born.. a doctor "issues" it via the hospital, which is then submitted to the dept of health where "copies" can later be obtained.. and yes, some hospitals do retain copies.


So no, you have nothing but your story and the lies or mistakes contained therein? Gotcha.

See, I just went and looked up the um...the FACTS. I posted them with links so you can go look at them yourself. Now I am waiting for you to refute them or retract your lie about hospital issued birth certificates.

Run in circles all you like but the facts and links will not change no matter how many more times you post nonsense and try to shift your original claim.

Why are you not just telling me about how you know from your job I am wrong and then proving it so? Why keep walking to the side and changing the topic? What is up with that?

Well, refute my facts or move along I guess.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracydude
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986." Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents,

Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia.


You left out the part about Obama being born in Hawaii and spending his first 6 years there before going to Indonesia for 4 years.

His mother's age would only have mattered if Obama was born in Kenya, but all 5 of the "Kenyan birth certificates" shown to date have been proven false.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
Hmm self appointed truth decider.


As far as I see it he gave a link and proved Govtflu's argument to be false.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost



Considerations
For a certification of live birth document to be legal, it must be from a State Registrar with a stamp, seal and signed by a person commissioned by the government, preferably the registrar. While having a certificate of live birth is important, it is not proof alone of a person's identity. For identification purposes, a person must also have a government issued ID, social security number and a birth certificate.


Certificate of Live Birth Vs. Certification of Live Birth


Thanks for posting this. It shows why Obama hasn't produced his hospital certificate.

The certificate of live birth is what birthers refer to as "the long form", and your quote is correct; that is not legal ID and cannot be used to get a car licence or passport. At least the Hawaiian ones can't, I'm not certain if this applies to all states.

The certificate Obama has shown on the net is the certification of live birth, this is what is known as the "birth certificate". The Hawaiian certification of live birth is legal ID for getting a driver's license or passport in any state in America.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by vkey08
Hmm self appointed truth decider.


As far as I see it he gave a link and proved Govtflu's argument to be false.


It was the tone of it, sounded like an attack not just a simple, ok, your facts are incorrect, here is the correct, and unfortunately, and this is my bigger point, this issue brings out attacks and not civility 90% of the time.

I think I said it earlier, if I didn't here it is again.

I do not believe that Mr Obama is telling the truth, I cannot put my finger on it, I have no verifiable info to back up my feeling, it's just that, a feeling. I may be very wrong in that feeling, I admit it, but up until now neither side has given 100% proof positive either way and that's fine, we as a nation have seriously bigger issues facing us now than where Obama is from, if it's that big a deal let it be hashed out in 2012 and for now, let's get on with the more important issues, fixing this health care debacle, the rising unemployment figures, Europe economically collapsing which will have an effect on us eventually, the oil spill that's polluting thousands of miles of coastline, the North Koreans that are showing force all of a sudden, Iran and Isreal about to go at it.. All of which in my opinion are more important than someone's interpretation of a statement on a website from Colorado..

Yes I was very much involved in debate on this issue early on, and I did feel passionately about it, but that was until things in my life took their toll on what I consider important, and this issue is dead for now in my book, it's been hashed and rehashed to the point of being almost funny. Lets move on... we can change this in 2012 if it is that important, and to me, I will be voting, the legal way, for change.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by vkey08]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

I googled also and perhaps my sources were wrong. It means nothing to my argument that all of the presidents I listed have gone by names other than those on their birth certificates, and if someone really cannot understand why someone named Barack would call himself Barry, then there is no hope for them since nicknames are not at all uncommon in the anglophone world, especially when they have some resemblance to the real name, in this case the first three letters of both.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 



by Libertygal:
And he also signed an affidavit that swore he never used any aliases.

Another lie that will be obfuscated in one of the greatest coverups in

history.

The thing is, people always cry, "If this is a cover up, how come no

one is talking? Surely not everyone involved would remain silent!"

Of course they are talking, and no one is listening.

No one in Hawaii has the legal right to say *anything* about his "place

of birth" unless he gave specific written permission, *or* he allows it

to be said and doesn't confront the person speaking. Either way, since

it has been publicized, legally they are indebted to show the real

certificate, not the COLB, as it is no longer private. It has been stated

to the press, not denied by the president and therefore no longer a

private matter.

You cannot have it both ways. When a person makes a statement that

is supposed to be "factual", they can be sued to prove it. Pretty

simple.


Then you said:



I read you post carefully.

There is not a single sentence that is accurate.


Then we shall pick my post apart, one sentence at a time. Let's go.



Your claim of "Aliases" would imply that anyone named "Richard" should be prosecuted for using the name "Dick"...Sarah/Sally, Mary/Molly, Thoedore/Teddy plus any woman who changed her name when married, any adopted child that took the name of thier parents....ad infinitum.


This is a direct attempt to draw attention from the facts. He did not simply shorten Barrack to "Barry". The aliases used are many.

Barry Dunham
Barack Dunham
Barack Obama
Barry Obama
Barry Soetoro
Barry Soetelo
Barak Obama
Barak Soetelo

When answering to a legal affidavit, one must include their natural name given at birth, and any aliases used since. This would include married name changes, divorced name changes, or adopted name changes, or assumed names.

According to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, under the name Barack Obama, he stated he did not have any former names.

www.iardc.org... (database last updated as of May 7,

2010 at 1:16:55 PM: for the following terms: Last Name: obama, First

Name: b, status: All, Country: all)

Name
Barack Hussein Obama
Date Admitted
December 17, 1991
City
N/A
State
N/A
Authorized to Practice?
No
Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court:
December 17, 1991

In the following link: www.daylife.com...
he was clealry registered as Barry Soetoro. In the picture, Obama is registered under the name Barry Soetoro by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. The school card lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii.

So, based on the available evidence we have so far, he was alleged to
have been born "Barack Hussein Obama II". His mother divorced and
married Lolo Soetoro, who then appears to have adopted him, and he
then became known as "Barry Soetoro". There is a divorce record to
prove the two were legally married. More on that in a moment.

Upon divorcing, there is no evidence whatsoever that he legally, at the age of 18 or any time thereafter, changed his name. There is a biography of Barry Soetoro ’s Occidental College days. It states that when Barry Soetoro was 18-19 he attended school as "Barry Soetoro".

www.oxy.edu...

It was at Occidental where he stopped being called “Barry” and became Barack Obama, Newsweek pointed out in its account of Obama’s formative years that featured his black-and-white freshman photo on the cover. “It was when I made a conscious decision: I want to grow up,” he told the magazine.



While at Occidental College, Barack went from being called Barry to being called Barack. This happened after he met a black student named regina. He had seen her around campus, usually in the library or organizing black student events. At their first meeting, he was introduced by a mutual friend as Barack. “I thought your name was Barry,” she said. “Barack’s my given name. My father’s name . . . it means ‘blessed.’ In Arabic. My grandfather was a Muslim.” regina repeated the name a few times and told him it was a beautiful name and asked why everyone called him Barry. He responded that it was habit, that his father had used it when he came to the States, and that it likely was easier to pronounce and helped his father fit in


www.scribd.com...

Mallek-AbdeRRAHMANE page 51


Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his
adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court.

It said "the parties" (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child - he'd have been only Ann Dunham's child.

www.cbsnews.com...


So far, strike one.


Libertygal:Another lie that will be obfuscated in one of the greatest coverups in history.


See above. An opinion based on the facts just outlined, and the
perceived effect upon our country. An opinion based on facts given cannot be counted as "There is not a single sentence that is accurate." A strawman argument.



Libertygal:The thing is, people always cry, "If this is a cover up,
how come no one is talking? Surely not everyone involved would remain silent!"

Of course they are talking, and no one is listening.




The claim that no one is listening to those "talking"...my God, on this thread alone anonymous posters on right wing web-sites are touted as credible testimony...that claim shows a serious disconnect with reality.


Surely you understood when I said that "people are talking and no one
is listening" was a reference to challenges. What do anonymous posters on right-wing websites have to do with anything? Where did I cite any anonymous user as credible?

When someone states "people are talking and no one is listening" it inferrs, whether you like it or not, people of power or import, not anonymous people on right-wing websites. This is a straw man argument, and meaningless.

Regardless, the inference was, in reference to legal challenges, by people who's talking is of import, as in noteable to the record.

Lets see who is talking, shall we?

(continued)



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
(continued)

Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the
United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district,
has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of
President of the United States of America.

www.thepostemail.com...


Deal speaks out on Obama Eligibility Letter
SAYS REQUEST “DESERVES HIS RESPONSE”

According to a January 8, 2010 report from the Political Insider, “The
White House…confirmed receipt of a letter from U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal that formally asks Barack Obama to address questions about his place of birth – and thus, whether he is qualified to be president.”

www.thepostemail.com...


"They have a point," he said of the birthers last week. "I don't
discourage it. ... But I'm going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things
that I think are very destructive to America."

Inhofe put out a statement Monday clarifying his comment:

"The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S.
president be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done
a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens," he said.

"My focus is on issues where I can make a difference to stop the liberal agenda being pushed by President Obama."

www.politico.com...


Counting the Facebook friends, that's 17 Republican elected officials who either seem doubtful that Obama is a legal head of state or are more than willing to indulge and even fan the unfounded doubts of their constituents. Nearly one in 10 members of the House

Republican Caucus can fairly be said to have Birther sympathies, and
those are just the ones we know about. The evasiveness doesn't really
look great either.

www.salon.com...

So far at least 5 states have written eligibility bills.

So, I stand by my statement, "People are talking, and no one is listening."


Libertygal: No one in Hawaii has the legal right to say *anything* about his "place of birth" unless he gave specific written permission, *or* he allows it to be said and doesn't confront the person speaking.




People in Hawaii have the legal right to say whatever they like about his place of birth. they don't have the legal right to release private documents without that persons written permission.


I will make the argument that this is incorrect.

When I said "no one in Hawaii", I meant as a legal standing, no
representative of Hawaii has the legal right to disclose or speak of the
merits of the details enclosed in the sealed document on Hawaii's
records, allegedly the long form certified copy of Barack Huseein
Obama's birth certificate. This is *not* in regards to the COLB that
has been posted on the internet.


State law prohibits the DOH 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. See HRS
§338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).

hawaii.gov...


§338-18 Disclosure of records. (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:

(1) The registrant;

(2) The spouse of the registrant;

(3) A parent of the registrant;

(4) A descendant of the registrant;

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;

(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;

(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and

who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective

adopted child’s natural or legal parents;

(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a

former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated

co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement;

and

(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination

of payments under a credit insurance policy.

(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in

public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no

identifying use thereof shall be made.

(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.

(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy

projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events

that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local

agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death

certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state,

territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies

for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

(g) 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:


(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record

but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate

government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of

persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s

activities;

(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;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm

information about a vital event relating to any such record which was

acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(continued)



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
(continued)
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a

governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization

who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any

such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or

organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327,

§22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30,

§2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L

1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The

department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten,

photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in

its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such

condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used

without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify

to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or

microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of

the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327,

§23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19;

HRS §338-19]




The statements heretofore released by the Hawaii officials do *not* fall under any of these statutes. The release of his personal information would have had to have been made in writing, stating what information could be released specifically.


All past statements by the Health Director are available at:
hawaii.gov...
hawaii.gov...

The statements speak for themselves and there are no other public records maintained by the department related to these statements that are available to the public

hawaii.gov...

Since this disclosure was not made, which it should have been at the time of the statement from Hawaii, the Hawaii officials both viewing and speaking about the long form certificate are speaking out of turn, and can be legally challenged.


If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else,
you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you.

hawaii.gov...

As per their website, quoted above, they "no other public records
maintained by the department related to these statements that are available to the public."

Therefore, there is no signed release.

The Hawaii officials can then be deemed as violating his privacy according to their own laws.


In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information
relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the
DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality
provisions of HRS Chapter 338.

Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information
listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information
related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President

Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to
those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law.

The Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records
in the form that they are available to the public.

hawaii.gov...


The index data regarding President Obama is:

Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male



So there you have it. Anything else stated, printed, or otherwise, by the Hawaii officials is illegal, and according to their own laws a breach and should be considered as such. The mere fact that the president has not denied any claims by Hawaiian officials constitutes inferred consent.




As it stands President Obama has chosen not to release his "long form"..assuming there is one rahter than just a digital record.

Why?...my personal opinion is because he is a man of principle.

The easy thing to do would be to authorize the release of the long form...

But principles only mean something if you stick by them when they

are inconvenient.


I agree with your first statement, in part. "As it stands President Obama has chosen not to release his "long form". This is in part and parcel to my claim the Hawaii officials did *not* have the right to make statements about his vital records.

"..assuming there is one rahter than just a digital record."


Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including
birth records, moved to electronic formats.

"Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department," she insisted. "We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have."

www.wnd.com...

The official then goes on to further discredit herself when she stated,


Hawaii's Okubu refused to say whether the DOH has Obama's
original long-form birth certificate, explaining state law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.



Which is exactly what Hawaii did. (commenting on the birth records of
any specific person)


“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, 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 Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen.
Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state
policies and procedures.“

hawaii.gov...

This statement leads a reasonable person to the conclusion they are
holding the original certificate he wrote about in his book that he found in his mothers personal belongings.

This also inadvertantly does two things. It discloses that they viewed
the certificate illegally, as they had no right nor reason to, according to their own laws, unless directed to do so - and to make a public statement with regards to - which they themselves state again:


The statements speak for themselves and there are no other public records maintained by the department related to these statements that are available to the public.


If there had been any letter, which is required by Hawaii law, to disseminate any vital statistics concerning Barack Hussein Obama, it
will have been kept on record. NO such release exists, or they would
have been required to include said statement in defense of releasing
vital records in support of justifying breaking their own laws.
It also reveals that any further statements made by Hawaii officials
are illegal if they release anything more than the index data, and
cannot be trusted. They have NO authority to speak. I will continue to
stand by that statement, and have supplied far more than enough
evidence to back up why.



At this stage the birther movement has manufactured repeated false
documents and letters, offered multiple false articles and claims,
smear emails etc, often with strong racial overtones and have made
no secret of thier feelings that he should not be in office regardless
of evidence.


I will say this only once. Do not lump me in with "birthers". What I say,
I stand by and will back with evidentiary statements and proof. Your
comments have nothing, zero, to do with my post and your claim that
"There is not a single sentence that is accurate." I am not a "movement", I have made no smears, or met any of your other allegations. In fact, I have done the opposite.

(continued)



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
(continued)
This is a strawman argument, and has nothing to do with my post.If you are going to allege that "There is not a single sentence that is accurate.", you had best be ready to defend that accusation with substantial evidence of your own.



Responding to those tactics would mean that it was OK for them to use those tactics in the first place and would legimitize a form of political slander and attack that deserves no place in American politics....lies and slander is not OK.


The only slander I see going on is your own. In an attempt to color me as someone lacking credibility because I post anonymously on a website, and that I am a part of a birther "movement", and at the same time you play the race card - you are the only one I see losing credibility.

You are correct, lies and slander are not OK, yet, I just outted you for
using false arguments against me in an attempt to discredit the facts I bring forth.



Of course it would be easy to release the long form, but again...principles only mean something if you stick to them when they are inconvenient and he is thinking about the future and feels the onus of being the first man of color to hold the office.


Again with the race card. This has nothing to do with race. It is an assumption on your part that this is based on his principals. An opinion to which you are entitled, but you then go on to speak as if this is fact? See below.



He does not intend to set a precedent that this form of dishonest and hateful opposition is legitimate.


He does not intend? You are certainly presuming a *lot*, aren't you? And what gives you the right to presume what he intends or not? It is no different than someone who states he is doing this because he has something to hide. Hypocritical. Again, you speak of this as if it were a fact, and only you have special knowledge of said fact.



We all know if he had been born with his mothers skin tone rather than his fathers...this "turd" would have flushed long ago.

just my two cents.


Again with the race card?

Seriosuly, can you foment an argument without resorting to all of these tactics? Especially when you open a post to me with "There is not a single sentence that is accurate."?

You play the race card as a closing statement in your accusation, then
use a vulgar term to disgust. I will claim this is another attempt to discredit me, which you have failed to do. What a disgusting perjorative you have used.

The rest of my post:

Libertygal: Either way, since it has been publicized, legally they
are indebted to show the real certificate, not the COLB, as it is no longer private.



A public figure is one who, by his accomplishments, fame, or
mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the
public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his character,
has become a public personage. He is a celebrity. This would include,
of course, those who have achieved a reputation by appearing before
the public, as in the case of the baseball player, actor, fighter or
entertainer. Also included are public officers, inventors, explorers,
war heroes, soldiers or anyone who has arrived at a position where
public attention is focused upon him as a person.

These people have been held to have lost, to some degree, their right
to privacy. In most of the cases, courts have given three reasons for
this forfeiture of a portion of the right of privacy: (1) that they had
sought publicity and consented to it; (2) that their personalities and
affairs had already become public, and could not be regarded as their
own private business anymore; and (3) that the press has a privilege
under the Constitution to inform the public about those who have
become legitimate figures of public interest.

Whether a person is a public official or public figure, the fact is that
he has lost, at least to a degree, the right of privacy that most people
enjoy. Such a concession, the courts have ruled, is necessary to
insure that open discussion, as promised under the free speech and
free press provisions of the First Amendment, continues without
hindrance.

members.mobar.org...


If the story is false, public officials and a public persons can
win a libel suit only if they prove the story is false; and was published
with malice and/or reckless disregard for the truth

www.winning-newsmedia.com...


The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place
that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home,
hotel room, telephone booth). There is no protection for
information that either is a matter of public record or the victim
voluntarily disclosed in a public place.
People should be protected
by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can
not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner."
Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209 (1974).
www.rbs2.com...

And the final word:

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the confidentiality or
privacy of information is destroyed by disclosure to a third party.

www.rbs2.com...


Under the plain view doctrine, “objects, activities, or statements
that [one] exposes to the ‘plain view’of outsiders are not ‘protected’ because no intention to keep them to [oneself] has been exhibited.”
Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring).

www.law.siu.edu...



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Where are your sources for certain details like

This is a direct attempt to draw attention from the facts. He did not simply shorten Barrack to "Barry". The aliases used are many.

Barry Dunham
Barack Dunham
Barack Obama
Barry Obama
Barry Soetoro
Barry Soetelo
Barak Obama
Barak Soetelo
?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

So he's occasionally used his mother's maiden name and his stepfather's name. So what? Some people do that. Especially when daddy bailed out when he was two. I have also. As far as former names, if his name was never legally changed then it never was legally a former name. If his stepfather wanted him to go to school and pay the local rate, instead of the foreigner's rate, or even perhaps to be able, as a foreigner, to go to school at all, I can well see why he would lie to the school admissions people. And I don't think he could have been what we call legally adopted, because in Islam, and often in predominately muslim countries, there is no such thing as adoption. There is only guardianship. Your birth name never changes. You are legally your birth father's child all your life. And no, I don't know if there is the european concept of adoption under indonesian law or not.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by christianpatrick
reply to post by Libertygal
 

So he's occasionally used his mother's maiden name and his stepfather's name. So what? Some people do that. Especially when daddy bailed out when he was two. I have also.


I agree. So what?

No big deal. So why *lie* about it? That would be lies by omission, mind you.

And if you fail to claim said names on an affidavit, it is illegal. You must disclose this information by law if signing a sworn statement.


Affidavit
A statement which before being signed, the person signing takes an oath that the contents are, to the best of their knowledge, true.

In R v Nichols, Justice Wachowich of the Alberta Supreme Court adopted these words:

"An affidavit is defined as an oath in writing signed by the party deposing, sworn before and attested by him who hath authority to administer the same."

The statement is intended to become evidence before a Court.

It is also certified by a notary or lawyer or some other judicial officer that can administer oaths, to the effect that the person signing the affidavit was under oath when doing so (as is shown on the bottom of the sample affidavit form pictured below).

These documents carry great weight in Courts to the extent that judges have been known to (albeit rarely) accept an affidavit instead of the testimony of the witness.

www.duhaime.org...



As far as former names, if his name was never legally changed then it never was legally a former name. If his stepfather wanted him to go to school and pay the local rate, instead of the foreigner's rate, or even perhaps to be able, as a foreigner, to go to school at all, I can well see why he would lie to the school admissions people.


I disagree with the first part of your statement. You do not have to legally change your name to assume an alias. This does not discount the fact that the alias was legally a former name. When an alias is used on documents, it then becomes attached to you in a term AKA, Also Known As, and in a very real sense, a legally used name.


Most state courts have held that a legally assumed name (i.e., for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name and usable as their true name, though assumed names are often not considered the person's technically true name.[2]
^ Stuart v. Board of Supervisors, 295 A.2d 223 (Md. Ct. App. 1972); In re Hauptly, 312 N.E.2d 857 (Ind. 1974); United States v. Cox, 593 F.2d 46 (6th Cir. 1979). See also 10 U.S.C. § 1551 (2006).

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, he went by an elleged assumed name. Regardless of whether it was a legal adopted name, it was an assumed name, which is what the partial definition of "alias" is.



And I don't think he could have been what we call legally adopted, because in Islam, and often in predominately muslim countries, there is no such thing as adoption. There is only guardianship. Your birth name never changes. You are legally your birth father's child all your life. And no, I don't know if there is the european concept of adoption under indonesian law or not.


According to the divorce decree, he was listed as the 19 year old son of the couple. Had he not been legally adopted, there would have been no legal reason to name him as the son of the couple who was 19 at the filing of the divorce. He would have been her son alone, hence, no reason to include him in the decree at all.

Legally, even if his birth name never changed, he still went by an assumed name. He was legally required to disclose this information on the sworn affidavit.

The argument holds no water as to what may or may not have happened in Indonesia regarding adoption, because the divorce was filed in Hawaii, and the affidavit in Illinois. The only thing that matters was, in Indonesia, he went by an alleged assumed name, adoption notwithstanding.



- In general, as a noun, an alias (pronounced AY-lee-uhs) is an alternate name for someone or something. In literature, a "pen name" is an alias for the author's real name. The noun is derived from the Latin adverb alias, meaning "otherwise" and by extension "otherwise known as" and the latter meaning is still used in English, as in: Clark Kent, alias Superman. In information technology, the noun has at least two different usages.

searchsoa.techtarget.com...



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


WOW, you nailed it-again. I se no one responded.

Good job. No, awesome job.

Have a great weekend.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join