RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT

© 2012 jbjd

In the first 3 articles in this series, 1) WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE; 2) WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG; and 3) SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE we distinguished between the public versus private aspects of the 2011 launch of President Obama’s long form birth certificate advertising campaign, including peeking at the roles played by the various actors identified as participating in the rollout, recognizing when these ‘officials’ wore their public (official) versus private hats.

We left off with the press gaggle that was hastily convened in the WH Briefing Room early on the morning of April 27, 2011, to discuss the release of the image Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explained at that time was a/the long form birth certificate. (This is not say, the gaggle was hastily planned. As I pointed out previously, Pfeiffer handed out these documents on the 27th as part of the official press launch of the long-form ad campaign, which was followed this same day with an interview on Oprah, in Chicago, with security laid out well in advance by the Secret Service; and culminating with evening fundraisers, by invitation only, in NY. ) (Notice I said, Pfeiffer referred to the document as a long form birth certificate. If you review the gaggle exchange, you will see, he never explicitly said this long form birth certificate was “the President’s long form birth certificate” or “his long form birth certificate.” On the other hand, he once refered to that COLB posted in 2008 as “his birth certificate.” Does this mean that certification posted on FTS in June 2008 really began as an actual vital record received by the campaign (in 2007) from the issuing authority, that is, the HI DoH, which was then doctored appropriately so as to conceal from the public the information they – the campaign – wanted to hide? Or did Pfeiffer just misspeak?)

Some aspects of this public/private dichotomy seemed more obvious than others. For example, recall that we were informed the (alleged) trip to HI to retrieve the document was made by Ms. Corley, the President’s private attorney, and not WH Counsel Bauer; and was paid for not by public funds (meaning, it was paid for by the campaign). Based on conduct on display at the gaggle, it was easy to see that Mr. Pfeiffer was ‘officially’ speaking on behalf of the President’s campaign, and not as a member of the staff of the Executive office. That is, when the conversation concerned questions directed specifically to the long form document purported to reflect the vital record of the President’s birth; it was deliberately steered to him, as opposed to Mr. Bauer or Mr. Carney. (Plus, as I further pointed out; the campaign communications person is often brought in-house to manage his client’s political message after the election. And I noted that his job required no Senate confirmation, implying he didn’t ‘owe’ the government anything, like fealty to the Constitution; rather, he served at the pleasure of the President.) On the other hand; as I noted, Mr. Bauer’s job as WH Counsel was to protect the (Office of the) President as well as members of the Executive staff, from legal liability, Otherwise, his presence at the press gaggle could not be rationally explained. (Spelling out to reporters the difference between a long form birth certificate and a certification does not require the expertise of a WH Counsel who wrote the book, literally, on campaign finance laws.)

But our previous analysis didn’t do justice to either Loretta Fuddy, Director, HI Department of Health; or President Barack Obama, without whose complicity the campaign never could have pulled this off. In this 4th article in the series, we will examine this public/private dichotomy focusing on Ms. Fuddy (and her immediate predecessor at the HI DoH, Ms. Fukino), honing in on when the conduct of a public official is ‘officially’ part of the job.

The correspondence between Mr. Obama and Ms. Fuddy was intended to add credibility to the sham that the President had really released his long form birth certificate. (Did you know that Ms. Fuddy’s nomination by Governor Abercrombie to the position of Director had only been confirmed on March 27, 2011, less than 2 weeks before Obama officially (publicly) announced his 2012 re-election campaign?) On April 27, 2011 Pfeiffer distributed copies of what he said were those letters, to the press; and he posted a link to these documents on WhiteHouse.gov. (But recall that the image of the long form birth certificate was fully displayed directly on the page.)

But even assuming the original version of Ms. Fuddy’s correspondence was ‘real’; did her statements therein constitute an official state proclamation of the President’s place of birth? For example, would her seal of approval posted on the internet per se mean to a court of law, for example, (or a state election official) he is who he says he is? Not hardly.

One way to determine whether an utterance by someone holding public office is ‘official,’ is to examine whether the statement is made pursuant to an official function of the job. For example, do Hawaii Revised Statutes authorize the Director of the HI DoH to personally inspect the contents of vital documents of an identified individual contained in files that office is required to maintain? Do they authorize her to publicly pronounce her opinion as to the authenticity of the information contained in a personal record preserved in her care? The answer emphatically is, no. And you can get to this result in any number of ways, including these: find the law that specifically authorizes her to carry out the act; or, in the alternative, the law that prohibits it.

First, here is the law establishing the Office of the DoH (enabling statute), headed by a single executive, the Director. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0026/HRS_0026-0013.htm Generally, this requires the department to “administer programs designed to protect, preserve, care for, and improve the physical and mental health of the people of the State.”  Nothing there about personally verifying those records as authentic or, publicizing that verification. But the privacy and confidentiality rights of the subjects of records kept by the Department, are covered by Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18  Disclosure of records. Know where I got this link? On the HI DoH web site, in a page entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II. (Well, technically, I found only the citation to the law, which was not linked to the actual law.)

Yes, I linked to the HI DoH web site, to the section above and another entitled “About Vital Records.” All the information needed to establish that statements such as the ones attributed to Director Fuddy (and Fukino before her), mean absolutely nothing when it comes to confirming the facts of Mr. Obama’s place of birth, is right there in front of your eyes, like a neon sign flashing, FRAUD. Because even assuming those statements attributed to Ms. Fuddy were actually made by her; under HI law, only Mr. Obama, the supposed subject of those records, has the right to reveal those statements publicly. Ms. Fuddy not only isn’t authorized to make statements with respect to the accuracy of Obama’s personal records; but, she isn’t authorized to breach his privacy rights. And that’s probably why, if you look closely, you will see, she did not. Rather, Mr. Obama did. She only referenced his prior remarks.

Did you catch that opening line?

On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.

And, this is the truth. The ‘bullets’ underneath the main heading on the HI DoH site link to documents which, while stored on the HI DoH server; per the lead, were first posted by the Obama campaign, with the exception of the bullet linking to Mr. Obama’s purported long form birth certificate, which is linked directly to the WH.gov server. (This only makes sense, because under the HI UIPA, an image like that long form birth certificate appearing on the HI.gov site would be subject to mandatory disclosure under a public records request.) If you click on the links from either the HI.gov or the WH.gov web sites, this opens the actual PDF files into your browser window. If you then right-click your mouse within the PDF file (environment) and select “document properties” from the pull-down menu, you will see the time that these documents were created and subsequently posted to their respective websites. You will see, the documents were posted on WH.gov a little after noon, EDT, beating the HI links to those documents, posted at around 8:30 AM HST, by about 4 hours. (For those keeping track, D.C. on EDT is 6 hours ahead of HI on HST. http://www.pia.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/pia_timezone_standard_chart.html )

In other words, even assuming Director Fuddy wrote her letter to Obama on April 22; she didn’t post links to that letter (or to any other documents associated with that letter) on April 22, April 23, April 24, April 25, or April 26. Instead, she waited until April 27, after Pfeiffer handed out copies of that letter to the press; and after he posted links to those documents on the WH.gov web site, before she posted that letter on the HI DoH web site. And that only made sense, since she couldn’t have provided links to these documents on her web site before they were created on the WH.gov site.*

*Here’s something else funny I noticed. The letter from Judy Corley which is posted on the HI DoH site and appears on the HI DoH server; displays a code ostensibly reflecting the document billing and retrieval system of Perkins Coie. (It’s on the bottom left side.) Presumably, that code links to a file marked “Obama Campaign 2012.”

But here’s the thing. While this code can be seen quite clearly on the HI DoH site; the same letter posted on WH.gov, which appears on the WH.gov server, shows a code so fuzzy it cannot be deciphered. Notwithstanding my general reluctance to speculate absent any evidence; I did think about the underlying rationale for this distinction, and came up with this.

The Obama campaign provided the HI DoH with the PDF of Ms. Corley’s letter to be stored on the HI DoH site and linked directly back to their blog, so as to provide the documents posted on the HI DoH web site with the ‘appearance’ of official HI pronouncements on the subject. Then, at some point after these documents were sent to HI; I imagine someone on this end, that is, in D.C., figured the log code for Perkins Coie was too easily traced by, say, an over-zealous filing clerk or, even a hacker! So, on the WH.gov blog, they made sure to post an obliterated log code. But for some reason, the PDF which had already been uploaded onto the HI server, was not replaced.

In addition to visual clarity, there is also this difference in those Corley letters: the PDF of that letter stored on the HI server, shows no hole-punch at the top, whereas the PDF stored on the WH server contains the 2-hole horizontal marks indicative of stored legal correspondence. I couldn’t help thinking, when the WH team determined to obliterate the legal code at the bottom; in an attempt to maintain the ruse that this was a legal letter from Corley to Fuddy, they copied the legal correspondence physically fastened in the file. In this way, it retained the ‘look’ of a real legal document which it was, part of the Obama 2012 campaign; while maintaining the element of untraceability.

But if these facts don’t convince you that, except for certifying Obama posted statements attributed to the HI DoH with respect to his long form birth certificate, the HI DoH has certified nothing; just read the Disclaimer at the bottom of their web page!

Let me repeat part of the “Disclaimer of Warranties”:

This WEB SITE is provided “AS IS” and without warranties of any kind. To the fullest extent of the law, the State of Hawai‘i, including each agency, officer, or employee of the State of Hawai‘i, disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied…with respect to this WEB SITE…In addition, neither the State of Hawai‘i nor any agency, officer, or employee of the State of Hawai‘i makes any representations, guarantees, or warranties as to: (1) the accuracy, completeness, currency, or suitability of the information provided via this WEB SITE; (2) the use of or the results of the use of this WEB SITE; and (3) the accuracy, reliability, availability or completeness or usefulness of the content of web sites created and maintained by persons other than the State of Hawai‘i and linked to or from this WEB SITE.

In sum, just because something is posted or linked to on the HI DoH.gov web site does not mean, it is the truth.

And now, a note about Ms. Fuddy’s immediate predecessor, Ms. Fukino.  The present HI DoH web site also contains 2 links to “all past statements by the Health Director.” Both of these links lead to statements made by Ms. Fukino. Here is the statement she made in October 2008.

Again, I want to call your attention to 2 items. First, notice this release originates with the HI DoH and not the office of the Governor, notwithstanding Ms. Lingle’s name and title are mentioned in the header. Second, pay attention to Ms. Fukino’s disclaimer at the bottom:

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

In other words, she is assuming all legal liability for ‘talking out of school,’ that is, making a public statement about Mr. Obama’s records not otherwise allowed by law. So, why would she put herself in what might appear on its face to be a legally untenable position? Who knows. Paraphrasing the words attributed to her successor, maybe it’s because “inquiries [to the HI DoH for Obama's birth documents] have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.” Or maybe it’s because, the only person with standing to contest her apparent breach of privacy is the subject of the record, Barack Obama. And, surely, he is not about to attack the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, least of all one month before the 2008 general election.

(I have to stop here. But try this exercise yourself. As I said, Governor Abercrombie issued a press release on April 27 accompanying the press launch, announcing Ms. Fuddy had done the deed of authenticating HI’s native son, repeating the party line. Does this mean, he is officially verifying Ms. Fuddy’s prior verification? I will post the best responses.)

(I also want to thank kjcanon for her editing assistance, without which this article was too bogged down to post.)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.

About these ads

9 Responses to RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT

  1. Ray says:

    jbjd, God Speed.

    Can you tell me where to find the outcome of the case that was sent to Greg Abbot in Texas? Also, if you could direct me to any ongoing cases in Texas, I would love to try and catch up.

    • jbjd says:

      Ray: By ‘case,’ are you referring to those citizen complaints of election fraud with respect to the 2008 election cycle, submitted en masse in 2009-2010? Mr. Abbott ignored those. But these are not ‘cases’; citizens are not legally authorized to initiate criminal investigations or prosecutions, which are carried out at the discretion of elected officials. These citizen complaints are more accurately likened to victim/witness reports of a crime.

      I have posted no citizen complaints of election fraud specifically geared to the 2012 election cycle. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Ray says:

        Good morning jbjd,

        I guess I was first referring to your Memorandum of Complaint to Greg Abbot. Secondly, I thought there had been at least one ballot challange here in Texas.

        What do you make of the Georgia Supreme Court tossing Hatfield and Irion, while putting Taitz on the June docket? Any words of wisdom for Taitz v Mississippi SoS set for April 16th?

        How about Mario Apuzzo’s hearing in Admin Court on April 10th?

        When you say “I think Obama was duely elected” does that mean that he can’t be frog-marched out the door?

        If I mention the M v H natural born Citizen “Holding” clause to my wife one more time, I fear she may kick me out. She is in your camp on this one. She tells me she got the book award in her Constitutional Law class. Sadly, she in not engaged in this battle.

        I couldn’t find where you were posted on Free Republic yesterday. Still looking.

        • jbjd says:

          Ray: Alas, I was banned from FR some time ago, for comparing the like qualities of Barack Obama and Allen West. Yesterday, Hotlanta Mike posted a link to my article, under another banner. But unlike the past, there is no headline to my blog. (Feel free to post links over there! Those readers will love what’s about to happen…)

          As for those other cases you mention, well, I am not keeping up on their work. I only weighed in when the hyperbole got so out of hand, people who otherwise seemed level headed began getting sucked in to the hype. But nothing they attempt through these means will have the result they claim they desire.

          I agree with your wife about that other case; but my opinion, and hers, mean nothing, when it comes to establishing a legal definition of NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    It just amazes me that state officials are even allowed to wear the two hats, a public hat and especially a private hat while on the job, but of course they are familiar enough with their laws and regulations to know how to do it.

    “And, surely, he is not about to attack the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, least of all one month before the 2008 general election.”

    But that was only 3 days until election. Fukino’s statement was released on October 31, 2008 on a Friday, so Obama, even if he wanted to file a complaint regarding a breach of his private record, it was only three days until the general election and two days were non business days, the weekend, so in essence, there was only one business day until the election to undo Fukino’s influence on the general election. I figure the non official statement made at the time was moot to BO, he could not do anything about it and was in final campaign mode (LOL!).

    “Does this mean, he is officially verifying Ms. Fuddy’s prior verification?”

    Or is he verifying Fukino’s 2008 non official statement?

    Governor Abercrombie press release says this,
    “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai’i.”

    Director Fukino’s non official statement basically says this,
    “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health”.

    Director Fuddy’s non official statement only says,
    “I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.”

    The quote in Governor Abercrombie press release is a mix of the two statements by Fukino and Fuddy plus he adds more. Maybe that statement is Governor Abercrombie’s own statement which means he has also breached Obama’s private record too. (LOL!)

    “prior verification?” How about a bunch of political enhanced speech and theater amounting to nothing verified, only assistance in, the advertisement image is what you see and is what you get. (wysiwyg)

    In reference to the First Amendment, Justice Kennedy…
    “But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.” (Edenfield v. Fane, 123 L. Ed. 2d 543, 113 S. Ct. 1792, 1798 (1993).)

    • jbjd says:

      azgo: You are so funny! I thought of another iteration. Instead of saying, ‘Verifying the prior verification’; you could say, ‘verifying there was a prior verification…’! And, for the benefit of my readers; I want to point out, the SCOTUS case you cite deals with commercial speech, like advertising, as protected under the 1st Amendment. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. (All links omitted by jbjd.)

    If you want to get up-to-speed on Obama’s identity fraud.

    Also this will fill you in on how all of the birth certificates were fabricated:

    • jbjd says:

      Dr. Ron Polland: Under both your present iteration and your past – Dr. Ron Pollard, or Polarik – you presented the same tripe you are now pedaling as a book. ‘Getting up to speed on identity fraud related to President Obama’ must be independent of examining pixels on an on-line document, or chasing provenance of those electronic images.

      Rather, this ‘getting up to speed’ requires an understanding of the difference between paid political advertising / free speech; and bona fide identification documents generated by the “issuing authority.” And, writing a book memorializing your so-called physical analysis of Mr. Obama’s ‘birth’ images notwithstanding; you still are not up to speed on that. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. [...] Also see, for example,  TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11) and RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BI…) [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: