Did Obama attemp to change his vital records?
Jeff M Says:
September 21, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Leo,
You're going to bump uglies with this:
§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
Watch out as the court will attempt to lay a nice veil over the intent of this section.
[Ed. The invasion of privacy has to outweigh the public interest and the public interest is specifically attached to the working of Government... but this case is not technically an issue regarding Obama's personal vital records...but rather the issue she sought pertained to whether he requested to amend them or if he actually amended them. Those requests, even a request to see his records is itself a government record under the UIPA and as such she requested to see it --- NOT the actual vital records themselves.
TerriK was originally interested in whether or not he made a request to amend his records and to inspect them for the purpose of amending. Those requests (not the actual amendments) do not appear to be protected according to the statute and various opinions issued by the state... regardless... TerriK's requests to see the amendments had to be answered in one of three ways according to the statute and the manual:
1. we have the record you requested and will provide them
2. we don't maintain the records you requested (aka we don't have any such records in file)
3. we have the records, but you are not entitled to see them
She was told on two occasions by an OIP staff attorney that if no such records exist, they must notify her of that fact.
Eventually that same staff attorney, acting on advice of the DoH told TerriK that the records were not available as they were protected. Their official response was that she wasn't allowed access to those records... They never told her that they didn't maintain these records she requested. If they didn't have such records, then they would have been required to tell her the records don't exist.
THE ISSUES
Section 92F-12(15) states that the following must be released to the public:
(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;
On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which stated:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i 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."
TerriK requested all information "collected and maintained" for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino as such information must be released according to the statute.
TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records TerriK requested.
I will provide legal research and relevant examples of official correspondence in my follow up report and press release at this blog. TerriK has previously provided details of her investigation and correspondence with the state of Hawaii in comments to this and other blogs. She has also authorized me to speak publicly about her case and to provide the public with all relevant correspondence.
Furthermore, Hawaii officials - upon denying TerriK access to information requested - were required by statute to inform her of a right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance to her. Section 92F-15.5(b) states:
(b)... If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]
The OIP failed to notify TerriK of her right to a judicial appeal. Instead, the OIP simply told her that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help her any further.
We will bring this litigation according to the following statute provision:
§92F-15 Judicial enforcement.
(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.
(b) In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.
(c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.
Please take note of subsection (c) above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.
With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.
If Obama has attempted to amend his vital records, or even if he has asked for access to amend his vital records, isn't that a public record? The law says it is. Why would Obama, if he has attempted to change his virtal records, want to keep this information from the public?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Wow, this is interesting but what's the point, other than a bit of legal wrangling?
September 21, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I can gather, this case will force Hawaiian Health officials (HHO) to fess up as to whether or not Obama has asked to, or attempted to, amend his vital records.
The problem is you can't get to a natural born citizen solely from the information published by Obama "Certificate of Live Birth"(COLB). This lawsuit, if successful, will require HHO to tell the general public if they are relying on any amended vital records of Obama's to form the basis of their claim that he is, in fact, a natural born citizen -- I think.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
But his mother is an American. Nobody is arguing that. My brother-in-law was born in Germany while his mother was living there. He's an American citizen because his mother is an American. That's the way it works. He isn't a naturalized citizen. He's a plain old natural born American citizen, that status of which has never been challenged, nor would it be challenged under any reasonable interpretation of the law.
Proving that Obama amended his birth certificate only proves that he amended it. Big deal. Lots of people do it, because people make mistakes. My mother's birth certificate has a mistake on it - it says she has an older sibling, which she doesn't. You would have to prove that his mother was an illegal alien or renounced her citizenship before he was born.
You may argue that citizenship status of this type has never been argued before a court as it regards eligibility to become president, but no court in this land is going to decide that Obama is disqualified - because his mother was an American citizen. To disqualify him would be to disqualify thousands of other American citizens born on foreign soil.
So my point is, this is a pointless legal exercise. Why bother? What purpose does it serve? None that I can see.
September 22, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not quite sure I follow your reasoning, and I wish I could be more precise, but without Obama's long-form birth certificate to guide me, I can't squarely address you concern.
As I said, and as I think you have pointed out, while Obama may be a U.S. citizen, there is a valid legal question as to his natural-born U.S. citizen status.
Here is what most "birthers" who have seriously gotten into this "mystery" think: While it may be true that Hawiai'ian Health official's vital records for Obama accurately reflect the information as published on Obama "Certificate of Live Birth", that information may be called into question if there are, in fact, no third-party, arm's length witnesses to his birth. In other words, if Barack Obama was born outside of a general hospital setting and his "vital records" were obtained by HHO simply by filling in the application alone, then that information must be authendicated. HHO insist they always verify such information thus obtained, but were unable to enter into specifics as it relates to the Obama case.
Moreover, depending on who Barack Obama's paternal father is, hangs the issue of his natural-born status.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that no court is going to agree with the arguement that "natural born" means born within the borders of the United States. In practice, natural born has always meant that your parents, or at the very least, your birth mother, is an American citizen. Otherwise, the law would disenfranchise thousands of American citizens, and I don't think any court would agree that was the intent of the Constitution. The term "natural born" was merely inserted to distinguish citizens by birth from citizens who immigrate from other countries. And once again, no one is arguing Obama imigrated from anywhere.
It doesn't matter what it says on his long form birth certificate. It could say he was born on Mars. As long as his mother is a citizen, he is a citizen and thus perfectly entitled to be elected president. I can't imagine any court would rule otherwise. So this whole birther movement seems to me rather pointless, from a legal standpoint, and far more likely to be motivated by crass political theater.
As a connoisseur of conspiracy theories, I have to say the birth certificate issue is the weakest one I've ever seen. It doesn't even pass the just-crazy-enough-to-be-true test. If there really were something to be argued, I would support the debate, but there just isn't there there. You might as well actually argue that he is from Mars. He's shown no proof that he wasn't born on Mars.
September 22, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few things: One, if Obama's grandmother filled out his Hawaiian birth certificate application, that information must be looked at as to its veracity.
Secondly, if Obama was born on Mars by a mother who was the age his mother was at the time of his birth, he would not, in fact, be a U.S. citizen.
Thirdly, if Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Barack's birth, there is a legal question as to his natural born status.
Lastly, clearly, Barack Obama has 2012 in his sights if he is now trying to amend his "vital records". It is to this last issue we must also keep in mind.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously suggesting that if my daughter, a US citizen, has a baby while on vacation in Mexico and she isn't 18 at the time, her child isn't a US citizen?
I don't think immigration authorities would agree with you. Nor would the US embassy in Mexico.
Mother is a natural born citizen, child is a natural born citizen. You can take this to the courts, as far as you want, and the courts will support this interpretation.
So it doesn't matter what the father is, because it can't matter who the father is, because not every child born has a known father, therefore status of the male parent cannot be used a rule to define citizenship of the child. The only thing that can be known for sure is the citizenship status of the female birth parent, therefore her citizenship status defines the citizenship status of all her children. The age of the mother doesn't matter, because even if she is a minor, she is still a natural born citizen, as is her own mother, whose citizenship status applies to her children, no matter where they are born.
Nor does it matter who filled out his birth certificate, nor whether he even has a birth certificate, because the citizenship status of the mother is known and not in question. A retroactive birth certificate could be issued and it would be perfectly valid because, again, the child is a natural born US citizen, not a naturalized US citizen.
Therefore, I repeat, this issue has no basis for valid argument. The citizenship status of the mother is known, and that simple fact trumps all other considerations, including any attempts he may make to modify birth records, for whatever reason. Certainly you are free to argue that birth mother status doesn't confer automatic citizenship, you are also free to argue the earth is flat, but no court is going to agree with you. No matter what the original intent of the Consitution may have been*, the bell on this issue was rung long ago and there are now thousands of US citizens whose citizenship status would be revoked, based on a pointlessly strict and never-before-applied interpretation. That isn't going to happen, no matter how hard you wish for it. Certainly no court in this land is going to remove a sitting president based on a such questionable interpretation. They're not going to touch it, which is why these cases have been repeatedly thrown out of court.
There's just no conspiracy there. And believe me, I'm willing to entertain some pretty crazy notions, even if only for the sake of argument.
* As for the original intent, I always find it helpful to remember that the Constitution is, at its heart, a document written by Revolutionaries who still lived with the threat of losing their new nation to the mother country. The natural born citizen clause was probably written to prevent anyone not having at least a generation of familial roots in the country from becoming president, because of the very real possibility that a newer citizen could be a Manchurian candidate (to borrow an anachronism) of the English Crown. So by their own intent, Obama qualifies, as both his mother and grandmother are citizens. I doubt even Alexander Hamilton would argue, were his grandson born during a visit to France, that the child should be considered anything less than a full and natural born citizen of the United States. 'Born' refers not to the geographic place, but to the human source.
September 22, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you are relying almost exclusively on the citizenship status of Obama's mother as that of a natural-born U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, I will address my remarks to this point.
The first point I want to make is the fact that I didn't write the Immigration law as it applied in 1961. I am simply pointing out to you that it is the controlling legal authority in this case, to borrow a phrase. This law was passed in an honest attempt to help protect young American females while out of the U.S. jurisdiction from being taken advantage by foreign males.
Now to your example: Under the existing Immigration law in 1961, if your daughter's father wasn't a U.S citizen, and your daughter was under age and gave birth in a place not under the jurisdiction of the United States, your daughter's child would not automatically be the recipient of U.S. citizenship. Such was the case with Barack Obama's mother if he was not born in Hawaii. This is the issue that lies at the core of why the information contained in Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate must to examined in detail and verified, preferably by having Obama's own attending birth physician's signature on his long-form birth certificate, together with the name of the hospital, and the signatures of any other witnesses present being certified by a notary's signature and seal. This is the way it is normally done.
If Barack Obama would have produced a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate with the above mentioned information, in exactly the same manner as John McCain did, plus other supporting documentation, when his place of birth was questioned by Barack Obama and friends, this matter could have been similarly dispatched.
But what did Barack Obama do? He briefly posted a jpg of a document he purported to be his COLB on an internet website that has since seen fit to take it down, and called it enough to prove he has met the requirements of the Constitution.
As I say, he may well have gotten away with this charade the first time around, but not the second, unless he secretly amends his "vital records" with public knowledge.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean to say..."without public knowledge", for the record.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
if your daughter's father wasn't a U.S citizen, and your daughter was under age and gave birth in a place not under the jurisdiction of the United States, your daughter's child would not automatically be the recipient of U.S. citizenship
You've very carefully danced around the wording of this, so let me clarify - this is true only if my daughter's mother ALSO is not a US citizen. The father's citizenship has no bearing on this case because, again, and from a purely legal standpoint, only the mother can be proven to be the parent of the child. By the very nature of birth and life, a father need not be there, nor even be known, therefore the citizenship of the father cannot be used to determine the citizenship of the child.
Consider it this way - a womb is like a little embassy. When you leave the embassy, you're still a citizen. Citizenship is matriarchal in nature. Perhaps that's what's really bothering people.
September 22, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, this issue is complicated enough without adding extraneous elements to the mix.
Let's confine ourselves to the facts of Obama's case as near as we can establish them, after all, you are questioning my reasoning as it relates to the Obama case.
There is no dispute Obama's father was a Kenyan subject living under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Barack's birth, thus making Barack a dual citizen if he was born in Hawaii, and a British subject alone if he was born in Kenya, since his U.S. citizen mother was too young to confer U.S. citizenship by birth, according to U.S. Immigration laws at the time.
In this case, I believe you are quite wrong when you state the child's father's citizenship has no bearing on his offspring's citizenship. In cases where the father's citizenship is a matter of record, as in the case of Obama's, it does, indeed, matter. In fact, it is the sole determining factor when the age of the U.S. citizen mother is too young to confer U.S. citizenship, according to U.S. Immigration law at the time.
I suppose in cases where the father's citizenship is unknown, the mother's citizenship would prevail. To answer that question with any degree of accuracy would take a complete command of the U.S. Immigration laws as the existed in 1961, and that I can assure you I do not have.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither do I, yet I know that no court is going to remove a sitting president based on an obscure reading of an immigration law that no longer even applies. It's just not going to happen. So what is the point of pursuing this?
September 23, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. But such will not be the case in 2012 when Obama tries to run for re-election. There are procedures already in place in many states, a five-day window, that gives legal standing to the general public, as voters, to challenge the registration of a candidate running for the office of the president and vice-president prior to placing their names on the state ballot.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 23, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. Now I understand the tactics. Still don't agree with them, but at least I understand the motivation.
September 23, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong. If Obama can prove he was born in Hawaii with a notarized long-form birth certificate, identifying the hospital he was born in, his birth doctor and other birth witnesses, to substantiate his claim, he would be welcomed by me on the ballot of my state. But until he acts responsibility, like a president, to address these legitimate questions, much as John McCain did when faced with the exact same challenge, I will not consider him qualified to by my President.
I guess, to me, way down deep, it makes clear to me that Barack Obama doesn't respect the laws of this land we all live by and have sworn to uphold for over 200 years in the same fashion and to the same degree John McCain demonstrated in his response to questions concerning his birthright.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 23, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also if Obama's vital records were not amended than Dr. Chiyome Fukino's original claim that the information contained on Obama's COLB is consistent with what their records reflect is pretty well negated.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once upon a time there was a blogger using the name of David Farrar.
Even though David Is part of a rightwing fringe organization he chose to blog on TPM, a liberal leaning news source.
David chose to spend his time continuously posting blogs based on a fairy tale about the president of the United States Barack Obama.
This fairy tale is a made up story about how the president was not really born in the US.
David liked this fairy tale so much that he chose to believe that it was ‘true’ regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
No one knows why? He won’t tell us.
The mystery is … why does David choose to believe the fairy tale?
Why is the reality so unpalatable to him that he chooses to believe the fairy tale?
The world may never know…
But we do know that David 'pretends' that people ask him questions when in fact they have just presented fact after fact dispelling his fairy tale.
September 21, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody loves a good story and as I recall from kindergarten, even on the days when the story wasn't so hot the cookies and milk afterward were great. So I keep a stash of home made chocolate chip cookies ready in case this gentleman decides to post. Mmmmm. Cookies.
September 22, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The link 'Sept. 21, 2009..." at 'Natural born citizen wordpress' is a bunch of blathering nonsense, a blogger trying to sound important and yet not doing anything but looking up Hawaii legal code.
He seems ready to spend as much on 'the case' as it cost him to write this garbage on his computer. Its fictional fringe poppycock, the guy cannot afford the cost to even file in court. Where is the lawsuit document? There is none.
TerriK (unknown lawyer?) maybe working for free or maybe not working on it at all, sprinkled with legal lingo like 'pro hac vice' blah blah....
davidfarrar
muy loco
September 21, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please either get your teeth fixed, talk behind your hand, or keep your mouth closed.
September 22, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, how long do you need to be told you're not welcome here, before you realize that you're not welcome here? This is now the only interesting question that anyone here cares about, related to you.
September 22, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Legal reseach" tee hee.
Though, seriously, Obama is a zombie. He has no vital records.
Or is that organs?
September 22, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will respond to any serious responses, but not to simple argumentum ad hominem posts.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 22, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
#1 You have demonstrated that you don't understand what ad hominem means.
#2. You are not making any 'serious' points and are simply grasping continuously for ridiculous and unsubstantiated evidence that your fairy tale is real.
#3. As you are fixated on your fairy tale about the president being real... and disregarding all facts and evidence to the contrary your purpose in blogging here is highly suspect and futile.
#4 The President "IS' our legal head of state and you seem to have a real problem accepting that. Why? You won't say.
Bottom line David... it is what is behind your obsession with your birther fairy tale... your motive, drive for needing it to be real that is the real issue here.
Do you hate Barack Obama for some reason? Do you hate black people? Intelligent people? Educated people?
What could possibly drive you to 'want' to believe the nonsense you post?
That is the 'serious' question that you refuse to answer.
September 22, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will respond to any serious responses
I got your ad hominem right here...you are a fucking nut who does not deserve the bandwidth wasted in the jerking off that you call posting.
No one gives a shit what you think, you cretin!
September 22, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't you at least close your mouth while you talk? It's only polite...
September 22, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
September 22, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink