Humor me, ATS, do you see a RAISED seal on the back of Obama’s short form birth certificate?

a reply to: amazing

As I stated in my OP, the right is implicated in this. And I quoted Arlen Specter (who was a republican, at the time), and his statement that implicates Factcheck.org in defrauding Congress.

But I don't really believe Congress was defrauded. I believe they were complicit.

Republicans and democrats.

I was reading page 1 and had to send a a link to my son telling him of the consequences of letting the government to lie legally.
I read all pages but no one even touch this.????? Is it so different to be from Norway.?...ok ok my father was in US Army 52 Korea so i was not raised as the others, but this make me wonder why i found this to be a .? Hmmm Let me see: We all know the government lies.
Obama was as good as many american raised in USA in my eyes.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

A direction that doesn't do any harm to the man or Dems necessarily. I'm not posting until a few things are fingered out and discussed.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Having noticed this anomaly and being a graphic designer and familiar with the processes of embossing and debossing, I wrote a series of open records requests to the HDOH, in 2010 & 2011, in an attempt to get at the truth.

The agency was forthcoming.

The HDOH responded that they did NOT maintain the seal photographed by Factcheck when provided with those photos. They further responded that they exclusively use a raised (embossed) seal. They provided me with pencil etchings of two embossed seals they used and neither was a match to Obama’s AND they were both specifically described as embossments by the HDOH.

It seems you might ought to post all those data's.....

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I already posted the images of the two embossed seals that they sent me and their response. If you have doubts, please do contact them with your own open records requests.

That's the really awesome thing about open records law, you can send your own!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I didnt see them in the OP, was just kind a casually checking it out just now. You were doing such a good job I was suprised they werent there for the slam dunk.

a reply to: thesungod

My gut instinct tells me there is something, Hillary first brought this issue up, why if she wasn't aware of something?

Then Trump, Trump and the Clinton's were close, he knows what they know.

Congress knows, but what is it they all know, the sheriff knows, but suddenly everyone gets quiet.

I just want the truth.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Hillary first brought this issue up, why if she wasn't aware of something?

Because Obama was her competitor for the Democratic nominee!

evryone gets quiet.

Because they realise it is a whole lot of crap and made up silly stories, like this thread.

I just want the truth.

The truth is Obama is a natural born US citizen, and was legally elected as POTUS. Twice.

Some people hate that fact, and they become obsessed with it.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I echo everything you wrote.

a reply to: hellobruce

Did anyone say he wasn't, isn't or didn't?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
If Obama has made both his short and long forms public, they are no longer private.

Yes they are, again you show you do not understand the law.
Have a look at HRS 338, Section 18

§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

They then list who can see the records, and funnily enough it does not state:-
"people who make up silly theories about Obama"

There is no law in Hawaii that protects the privacy of public documents.

Birth certificates are NOT public documents, they are private. See HRS 338, Section 18

I have requested the exact documents Obama made public and was told they are still private.

Well, as they are private documents.... see HRS 338, Section 18

In other words, the law indicates whatever he released is NOT what the Hawaii Department of Health has registered and on file.

You really are very confused, what part of Birth Certificates are private do you not understand?

Obama's birth certificate is still private and protected by privacy laws. There's no way around it.

True, Which is why your requests are rightfully ignored, as Birth Certificates are private documents! See HRS 338, Section 18

That's just how the law works and it tells the story.

Yes, it tells the story that Birth Certificates are private documents, no matter how much you whine about them. See HRS 338, Section 18

a reply to: hellobruce

Nice use of only part of the law.

It is evident that, Ms. Okubo's letter notwithstanding, § 338-18 DOES NOT PROHIBIT the State of Hawaii from making Mr. Obama's birth certificate public for three reasons. First, because he is a presidential candidate the public has a vital interest in Mr. Obama's birth certificate. The statute specifically permits divulging birth certificate information to anyone who has a vital interest in the information.

Second, the State of Hawaii Department of Health is granted the authority to fashion its own regulations about providing birth certificate information, and given the national importance of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, the question needs to be asked why the Hawaii Health Department has fashioned rules that contradict its own public law § 338-18 and its own Open Records Law.

Third, although the statute includes a list of persons who are entitled to obtain a copy of the birth certificate, it does not anywhere indicate that the list is exhaustive or exclusive. If the drafters of § 338-18 had meant the list to be exhaustive and exclusive they could have said so, but they did not. Therefore, Ms. Okubo misconstrues the law she claims to enforce.

Source.

You can read the FULL TEXT OF THE LAW HERE.

Honestly, there's an incredible amount of denial displayed in the OP's assessment. I can't believe someone would go to such lengths when the evidence is right in front of them, and yet they keep going attempting to keep a solid story by any lie necessary. Such a shame to see such a level of self-deception.

I don't think she realizes what she's doing. It's... bizarre, but not too uncommon for ATS.

originally posted by: thesungod
The statute specifically permits divulging birth certificate information to anyone who has a vital interest in the information.

Birthers do not have a "vital interest"

, the question needs to be asked why the Hawaii Health Department has fashioned rules that contradict its own public law § 338-18 and its own Open Records Law.

They are simply following their own laws... but that is not good enough for birthers!

Birthers have lost every single court case they have attempted, including trying this crap

Sunahara v. Haw. Dept. of Health, No.1cc12 - 1 - 000006 (Haw. 1st Dist. Ct., Mar. 8, 2012
and
Taitz v. Fuddy , No. 1CC11 - 1 - 001731 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct. Nov. 10, 2011)
and
Wolf v. Fuddy , No. 1CC11 - 1 - 002276 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct. Sept. 30, 2011) (

a reply to: MotherMayEye

and at this point...WHAT DOES IT MATTER? are we going to invent a time machine and take back those 8 years? I'm not sure the reasoning for this post, other than "look what possibly, might be" and have no effect on any reality. It's OVER...he's out in less than 6 months...deal with it.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Honestly, there's an incredible amount of denial displayed in the OP's assessment. I can't believe someone would go to such lengths when the evidence is right in front of them, and yet they keep going attempting to keep a solid story by any lie necessary. Such a shame to see such a level of self-deception.

I don't think she realizes what she's doing. It's... bizarre, but not too uncommon for ATS.

Some people have gotten so twisted up inside that Obama was elected as President - twice, that they have lost all reason. Eg. People like Orly Taitz and poor Sheriff Joe Arpaio

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Is it Black and blue, or is it white and gold...that is the real question.

Oh my God...

This thread is priceless. Any normal person who wanders into this hell hole must say "nope", do a 180, and walk right back out the door. You have all the classic characters in here too.

a reply to: hellobruce

Learn some law. No exclusion clause so FOIA ready. Especially by a watchdog group with a proven record.

a reply to: neOrevolutionist

When did OP ever say anything about him not being eligible or change the last 8 years?