Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.
I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)
Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.
I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).
Any legal assistance provided by me to TerriK will be pro bono. I will seek to be admitted pro hac vice in Hawaii for purposes of filing the case and conducting the trial. If such admission is not forthcoming, other counsel may be retained or TerriK may represent herself pro se. In any case, I will be drafting the pleadings. The only issue will be related to who files them and conducts the trial de novo.
While correspondence sent to TerriK confirms that President Obama’s vital records have been amended, the DoH has refused to make the documents requested available. One count of the litigation will attempt to have those documents released. The other counts concern various information denied to her which – according to Hawaii law – she is entitled to.
Before I get to the facts of the ongoing investigation in my follow up report, I will ask readers to study the UIPA manual and the UIPA statute.
Hawaii has been caught blatantly circumventing their own laws; laws specifically created to foster open government practices.
STANDING
TerriK has standing to pursue this action under the statute. The UIPA manual states:
“Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.
Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.
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.
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney
Copyright 2009 Leo C. Donofrio
September 21, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Please be careful, Leo, and please convey that to TerriK too; we need you. May God place His ever-vigilant angels over you and all who are working toward making our constitution a viable and genuine document by which our country make take comfort.
September 21, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Can’t wait to see the correspondence.
If you need it, I have email correspondence between Janice Okubo and myself in which she states that Ms. Fukino’s statement was “reviewed and approved” by HI’s Attorney General. Let me know if you would like me to forward it on to you.
[Ed. Excellent. E mail that over to me Justin, your research has been very helpful.]
September 21, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Great to see you back in the saddle again my friend. Looking forward to see you in action in the court room. Dam the toperados and full speed ahead.
September 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Leo…is this similar to what Andy Martin was trying to do when he went to Hawaii a couple of times……maybe he didn’t have the correct statues to pursue the information???
[ed. This is not the same thing. It involves information that TerriK figured out for herself...then she went with her analysis, requested the amendments as if she knew they existed and by doing this she put the DoH between a rock and a hard place. Instead of answering her request honestly (which the OIP originally did) the DoH attempted to confuse her and in doing so they revealed their hand. I'm very impressed with TerriK and how she went about this. It was a work of genius deduction... on more than one issue. She also studied the statutes and realized that Fukino's statements were covered by the statue. Very impressed. It's an honor to work with her on this.]
September 21, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Wow just Wow! Great work!
September 21, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Maybe you can’t comment on this yet…but what would be needed to “amend” vital records, what would be some of the reasons for “amending” vital records & finally would the original, unamended records still be maintained with the state of Hawaii? This is very interesting…
September 21, 2009 at 6:51 PM
So this is why you started up with the BC issue?
Are we going to see something like the ACORN videos where each day something new appears that damns those involved in the cover up?
September 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM
I hope you guys have a golden arrow stashed in your quiver for situations like this.
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 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.
More to come in the days ahead.]
September 21, 2009 at 7:03 PM
This should be good! I would certainly like to know how she determined Obama was a “natural born citizen” and by what authority she has to make that claim? Perhaps what she meant to say was Obama is a natural born citizen in the State of HI? He certainly is not a natural born citizen of the United States regardless of where he was born!
September 21, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Hawaii Five Uh-Oh……
Leo Donofrio is on the case helping Hawaii’s newest PI fighting crime, Ms Tickly aka TerriK who has caught the Hawaiian officials in covering up vital facts of Obama’s birth records and his possible citizsenship status:
Pending Litigation: …
[Ed. No bold print please. That's reserved for my comments.
]
September 21, 2009 at 7:07 PM
MissTickly aka TerriK,
Good job. We all appreciate your perseverance.
Thank you!!!
September 21, 2009 at 7:14 PM
All I can say is WOW! I’m curious about what they sent to indicate Obama’s vital records have been amended and most of all, when were they amended?
I hope you’re able to represent TerriK. Awesome job Terri and good luck to both of you.
September 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Leo,
Please crack each can in this case of worms for the sake of our country….
and without meaning to be more than curious too soon…since you sent us to read the UIPA…what does this of section 92f-14 paragraph 5 really mean ???? RE Privacy Interests; Examples
(5) Information relating to an individual’s nongovernmental employment history except as necessary to demonstrate compliance with requirements for a particular government position;
Is this strictly limited to a persons “employment history” or all records maintained by the State or is this a flat out exception where a persons “records” held by Hawaii are to be made available to “demonstrate compliance with requirements for a particular government position;”
[ed. that section is not relevant to any of this...]
As I read it it named examples BUT there is no mention of this list being exclusive……and opening records to demonstrate Compliance for a particular government position is a dog on four legs…ain’t it????
Thank God you are hanging in there…..if and when you travel please go with friends, as many as you will allow…because you have many more friends than you could possibly know….and most of of will pay our own way to assure your saftey…..march on, Patriot.
September 21, 2009 at 7:24 PM
How can we help defray the expenses?
[Ed. TerriK will set up a blog and you will be able to donate to her. I am not accepting donations but I will direct people to her blog. That will be set up by the next post.]
September 21, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Amended records would include if Barrack was adopted by Leo Sottero. His original Birth Certificate would be replaced by an ammended Birth Certificate. That would lead to another set of issues involving adoption and becomming an Indonesian citizen.
[Ed. This was not originally an action to reveal his actual BC and personal vital records info...the original requests were for records pertaining to whether he requested his file for the purpose of amending and whether he did amend... the actual contents of his personal vital records are protected, she wasnt asking to see those. She was asking whether he paid any fees to amend them and whether they had been amended... not the contents of the amendments.
However, I am going to raise the issue that since Fukino made a public statement about his place of birth, then all records viewed by her for the purposes of making that statement are supposed to be made public under 92F-12(15), information required to be made public. Regardless, the other statement she made about him being a natural born citizen involves a whole other can of worms concerning the advice of the Attorney General and it is the AG opinion letter that we are really after and which was denied to TerriK. The statutory and case law indicates that this information MUST be made public. That means we should get an answer as to what definition of nbc Fukino used to make that statement.]
September 21, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Dear Leo Donofrio and Ms. Terrik:
If anyone other than the two of you had posted the above I would have been extremely skeptical, at the very least. However, having followed and lived with Leo for nearly a year and in recent weeks closely followed the tenacious and meticulous work of Terrik — I know differently. I know the two of you have already built a Rock Solid case, and your public, lo global, post demonstrates just how confident you are of it. I am Elated!!
I could go on and on, but permit me to close with a quote by Sir Winston Churchill. At the depths of the darkest hours of World War II, November 10, 1942, Sir Winston said,
“This is not the end.
This is not even the beginning of the end.
But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
On behalf of all Americans and people the world over,
may I say we are humbly and deeply in your debt.
Most respectfully yours,
Robare
September 21, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Awesome!
Per Angela’s question, I have a follow up. If the vitals before amending are maintained, can you get them?
September 21, 2009 at 7:33 PM
WHAAAAAAAAAA-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
That is the BEST NEWS I’ve heard or read all day, Leo!
The best to you & TerriK!!!!
Kat
September 21, 2009 at 7:34 PM
September 21, 2009 at 7:36 PM
[Ed. No bold print please. That's reserved for my comments. ]
LOL, sorry about Leo however, you’ll have to take this one up with the trackback utility as the bold print must have been auto shipped from my website.
Great Job Ms Tickly & best wishes to you & Leo in the coming days & weeks!
God Bless & God Speed, Linda
September 21, 2009 at 7:36 PM
May you both be given all that you need to stay safe and help our country find its way to truth and light in this terrible darkness.
September 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM
TY Tickly and Leo..
God Bless you both!
For the very first time, I see light at the end of a dark tunnel…
September 21, 2009 at 7:42 PM
to MissTickly: “What we do in life… echoes in eternity” …. from the movie “Gladiator”. May the Gods be with you… anybody’s Gods… I’m not not going to be particular in this situation!!!
September 21, 2009 at 7:49 PM
“Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth?
provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:
* A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and
1. has become legally adopted, or
2. has undergone a sex change operation, or
3. a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
4. previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.
* A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.
How to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and has become legally adopted
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree or an abstract of the decree, and after payment of any fees.
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and has undergone a sex change operation:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the individual and determined that the individual has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the individual’s birth certificate is no longer correct, subject to further investigation and submission of additional information if deemed necessary, and payment of fees.”
“For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the person, and payment of any fees.
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, and payment of any fees.
For a person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a certified copy of the adoption decree or the certificate of adoption, and payment of fees.
Note: Any additional application forms that may be required will be provided by the Department of Health after receipt of the necessary documents in support of the establishment of an amended certificate of birth.”
“Any person to whom a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth has been issued may submit a request to amend an entry, including a legal change of name, on an existing Certificate. A request to amend a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth will, however, be considered to be and treated as an application with the Department of Health for registration of a late certificate of birth in current use, unless a standard birth certificate for that person already exists in the vital records of the Department of Health. Should there be a situation of dual registration, the requested amendment will be made to the standard birth certificate on file if the required documentary evidence in support of the amendment has been submitted and evaluated to be adequate. If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health.
How to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
Upon receiving a request to amend an entry on an existing Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, the Registration Unit of the Office of Health Status Monitoring will send:
1. notification to the requestor that the amendment request is treated as an application for registration of a late certificate of birth, and
2. instructions on procedures for and submission of required documentary evidence in support of registration of a late certificate of birth.
If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy. If the application is approved, a late birth certificate will be issued and the original Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to the applicant must be surrendered to, for cancellation by, the Department of Health. No filing fee is charged for the late birth certificate.
Further Information and Assistance
For information, call (808) 586-4540 during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. HST).
Counter service is available Monday – Friday, except holidays, from 7:45 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. Appointments are preferred.”
“Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) on file with the Department of Health may be amended (i.e., changes, corrections, additions, deletions, or substitutions) upon submission of the required documentation.”
“Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amendment?
An original entry on a birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate may be amended by either the private request of an individual or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. An amendment includes changes, corrections, additions, deletions, or substitutions.
How to Apply for an Amendment
An amendment may be made upon application, but only with the submission of required documentary evidence in support of the amendment. The evidentiary requirements can differ, depending on whether the amendment is court-ordered or, if requested by an individual, whether it materially affects the validity and integrity of the record.
In most cases, a fee of $3 is charged for each request for amendment of an item or group of items on a given certificate.
When information originally entered on a certificate is amended:, 1) a line is drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data is inserted, 2) what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer are entered on the certificate, and 3) the notation “altered” is written or stamped on the certificate.
Once an amendment of an item is made, that item will not be amended again without a court order or, if a person’s name is to be changed, without a change of name decree.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
Knowing patho-liar Bama, prolly changed paternity to make the NBC issue go away, then will claim embarrassment even as he committed multiple crimes and defrauded the world.
September 21, 2009 at 7:52 PM
We shall see what we shall see!
September 21, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Leo, I hope that Hawaii will allow you to try this case….You’re definitely the right lawyer for the job….Thanks and good luck!!!
Also, as you know from previous comments of mine, I’m so GLAD to finally see someone hold Dr. Fukino’s feet to the fire….I was beginning to think that it was never going to happen…..This is a great start!!!
Thanks again!
September 21, 2009 at 7:56 PM
TerriK you walk the walk! Let us know if there is anything we can do!
September 21, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Great Job, TerriK & Leo !!!
Thank You
September 21, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Leo,
Please, please please, both you and TerriK be conscious of your safety & security. We need you both and remember, the other side is corrupt and morally bankrupt. Don’t trust them and don’t let down your guard. Safety First.
God bless you both.
LoCicero
September 21, 2009 at 8:08 PM
You mentioned a trial. I’m hoping this means that a jury(?) will decide the case and not just a judge having the opportunity to blow the whole thing off?
[Ed. I believe it is before a Judge or panel of Judges. Not sure yet...but fairly certain we can't get a jury for this. Prior judicial decisions favor release of info.]
September 21, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Go, Leo!
September 21, 2009 at 8:16 PM
You guys are whang dang doodle bat shit crazy.
The only way to remove a sitting president is through impeachment by the House followed by conviction by the Senate.
[Ed. This isn't about removing the President. It's about shedding light on the situation. But you are wrong. Go read the position of the DOJ adopted in their motion to dismiss in the Barnett suit. As I reported months ago, the POTUS eligibility and removal can be handled by the DC DIstrict Court under the Quo warranto statute. The DOJ is on record in the Barnett case having argued that Orly's case is improperly venued and that a Quo Warranto must be brought in the DC District Court. The DOJ agrees that the POTUS can be removed via Quo Warranto and they are representing him.]
If congress didn’t do it to a president who lost the popular vote and only won the electoral vote through a rigged count in Florida they certainly won’t impeach a guy who actually won and whose party is in the majority.
Tough[Ed. Snip - No cussing.]
September 21, 2009 at 8:22 PM
As recommended I’m reviewing the UIPA manual and statute. I have only read the manual and my findings:
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf
(§92F-13(1)) – Obama’s privacy interest do not seem to fall within items (1)…(9). Other than the date of his birth… “OIP has further recognized that an individual has a significant privacy interest in his or her home contact information, date of birth, and ethnicity.”
Public interest is described as “The public interest to be considered is the public’s interest in the disclosure of official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory purpose and the conduct of government officials, or which otherwise promotes governmental accountability.” Seems like public interest to me.
(§92F-13(2)) – Does this exemption apply if an attorney reviewed the documents and crafted the statement used by her?
(§92F-13(3)) – Any documents used to determine Natural Born Citizen statement should be released as… “A record protected by this privilege may lose this protection where the agency later expressly adopts or incorporates the record into its final decision or policy.” Final decision was made when she made the press release.
(§92F-13(4)) – Although not specifically mentioned, I’m assuming that Presidential Executive Orders do not fall within this exemption either.
(§92F-13(5)) – Does not seem to apply as nothing was “legislated” in this case.
PART III. PERSONAL RECORDS – In your 3 part question about Big Foot, seems to me that the attending physician would not be accessible under this section… “However, a portion of the record that is clearly “about” someone else and not “about” the requester may be segregated from the record because it would not be the requester’s “personal record.”
(§92F-22(5)) – I’m not sure, but this section seems to be a problem.
(§§92F-15 and 15.5) – This section seems to apply only to “his or her personal record” not an for an individual whom the record is not about… “An individual who has been denied access to his or her personal record may appeal that denial in two ways.”
September 21, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Leo, this is a stroke of genius indeed! Since Barry Soetoro was the legal name in 1980–according to his mother’s divorce pleading, and Barry entered Occidental college in 1979, we might guess that an amendment of the vital records would have occurred after Barry was already nineteen years old or later. … I’m gonna need more popcorn, boviously.
P-k4
September 21, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Thank you patriots for your dedication and perseverance. Armed with the Constitution and the truth, they marched forward. The nation is counting on you.
September 21, 2009 at 8:28 PM
I have a feeling that there is a cat that is about to get skinned.
September 21, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Total ass kick!
September 21, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Somtimes the path to the light is not straight, this is light through a open window that found its target
September 21, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Leo, I went to the Hawaii DoH website and read the “How to apply for amendment” section. Interesting that it says if a BC were amended, it would be stamped or written on the certificate to indicate it was in fact amended. Now I’m wondering why the certificate Obama put on his website doesn’t have anything stamped or written on it to indicate it was amended….just another mystery.
[Ed. That's not the original BC.]
September 21, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Our thoughts and prayers are with both of you. We all will be following this closely.
September 21, 2009 at 8:42 PM
MissTickly!!!! You rock girl!
I am so glad you did not give up on this! Ask Leo for my email address, I would love to stay in touch with you! I am still pissed the FR banned you. I felt you were on to something and I am so glad you didn’t give up! That had to have been a slap in the face, and I for one was pretty dang unhappy about it. I had no way to contact you, and so I could never tell you so myself.
Mr. Donofrio, would you kindly see that Terry gets this message! I would love for her to know that I am really happy for her and proud of her tenacity and intelligence!
Thank you both!
Danae
September 21, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Godspeed both of you , and best wishes for your success and safety. You are up against a very large, illegal and foreboding entity.
September 21, 2009 at 8:54 PM
[...] Now, Leo Donofrio is adding his legal expertise and joining forces with her in pending litigation! [...]
September 21, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Leo and Terrik , thank you !!!! thank you!!!!! for your excellent research!!!!! I cannot wait to hear more!!!! You have me sitting on the edge of my seat all the time. You two could be the new Washington and Jefferson. thanks again!!!!
September 21, 2009 at 8:57 PM
God Bless You MissTickly and Leo!!!
September 21, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Great work and an inspiration to continue to unravel who is this president?
September 21, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Leo.
Would information gathered include emails or electronic info exchanged between the parties you’ve spelled out here?
Always liked the name Terri! Great job. I knew there had to be some changes made to his records along the line..
[ed. Many documents coming...you will have your hands full.]
September 21, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Leo, can you use the legal theory of waiver at all? As in, Obama has made available a digital image of his alleged COLB, as a result, he was waived his right to privacy on the certificate of live birth. Exactly what privacy interest of Obama’s is being protected by not releasing Obama’s certificate of live birth (the long form) if Obama has already made his certification of live birth (the short form) public?
Good luck to you and MissTickly!
[Ed. You've nailed an important argument.]
September 21, 2009 at 9:11 PM
I pray that the truth will be exposed to the light: and that the constitution of the Untied States will be defended sucessfully and upheld.
If there are agents or agencies that have violated the Law, may they be held to account for their actions by due process of Law.
No-one is above the Law, not even the members of the US Senate, or the Defacto President of the United States, Barack Obama.
September 21, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Best of luck to you both! Thank you for keeping us informed..
September 21, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Repeating something I said yesterday in the prior thread:
Now, thanks to MissTickly, we have evidence that Obama/Soetoro’s Vital Records (i.e. Birth Certificate) have been ammended.
Thank you, Jesus, that MissTickly and Leo are all over this! I pray a hedge of protection over both of them. Lord, continue to give them wisdom, knowledge, and understanding as they fight to expose the truth.
September 21, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Leo:
It will be interesting to see if the dates of amendments will match with Obama’s trips to Hawaii in 2008.
September 21, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Leo,
I look forward to your coming posts on this lawsuit. Following you over the last few months, Leo, I know this isn’t some half-baked shotgun approach but a well-thought out action.
Seriously consider your personal safety and security during this venture. A professional security detail will not be wasted money. The creeps will be circling.
September 21, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Leo,
Before I get into the weeds of the AIPA statute linked at:
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/uipa.html#92F14
This document states… “This is an up-to-date, but “unofficial,” copy of the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“UIPA”).”
If its “unofficial,” can any information or guidance in this document be used as a reliable source?
[Ed. It's the same statute the OIP mailed to TerriK... you can rely on that statute. I would not have provided it otherwise. The manual also provides legal info thereto.]
Unofficial to me means there could be further changes not yet incorporated. Where can one find an up-to-date “official” copy?
Also, under [§92F-3] General definitions… “Individual” means a natural person. Is a natural person someone born in Hawaii? Is there a Hawaii statute or document which defines who/what a “natural” person is, or am I just being ignorant about this? They seem to toss it in there like they know exactly what it means.
September 21, 2009 at 9:27 PM
So others can see, this is what Hawaii’s site says:
“When information originally entered on a certificate is amended:, 1) a line is drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data is inserted, 2) what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer are entered on the certificate, and 3) the notation “altered” is written or stamped on the certificate.”
September 21, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Thank you for the wonderful news of this action by TerriK, and your involvement, Leo!
And a friendly reminder that you are always welcomed to be my guest on my internet program, which is only one day a week. And Ms. TerriK is also welcomed. Kindly determine if/when.
Thanks,
Ken
Meantime, I am glued to my computer monitor!
September 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM
While I do not live in Hawaii nor do I believe I could take an official record of any legal proceeding there, Mr. Donofrio, I will tell you that I am a court reporter and Notary Public in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and commissioned for Rhode Island. If there is anything that I may be of assistance on with this or other matters you’re involved in, please do contact me and I will do my best to accommodate your needs.
I follow your blog with great interest because your stand has nothing to do with partisan politics but rather protecting this country that I love, and I have come to respect you greatly. May God be with you and all who work with you.
[ed. Thank you...]
September 21, 2009 at 9:41 PM
As all are aware, it is absolutely pathetic that it requires a bunch of disenfranchised die-hards to pluck at every loose thread in order to unravel the mystery of who the prezo really is.
That said, reading over the assignment I find this particular passage to be fodder for an interesting motion frenzy……..
“An agency must balance the significant privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure of the information.
If the public interest is found to outweigh the individual privacy interest, the agency must disclose the information.
Where an agency cannot identify a significant privacy interest, the slightest public interest in disclosure will require the agency to disclose the record.”
Regardless, it will be fun to watch all the pep’s that have covered the ‘0s’ back be thrown under the bus, one after another…….. the AG needs to get his resume’ updated……..Kudo’s to you both!
September 21, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Miss Tickly & Leo …
Sic ‘em, troops!!! (Ear to the ground here).
September 21, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Okay, so let’s suppose you win and receive official confirmation that he made unspecified amendments to unspecified vital records and that he paid for said amendments, so what? How is that significant?
[Ed. The cover up of that fact is probably very relevant.]
September 21, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Leo,
Sounds like you play a mean game of chess. It looks like the Hawaii officials have backed themselves into a corner with their statements from which there is little chance of escape. Checkmate!
September 21, 2009 at 9:56 PM
[...] 21, 2009) — Attorney Leo Donofrio announced this evening at his blog, that a citizen journalist, who goes by the name TerryK, has, in communication with various Hawaii [...]
September 21, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Leo, you and Terri will be in my prayers. Not that I am worried about you or the outcome of this. Just that my faith tells me that God is in control and that He will allow the TRUTH to prevail. God bless you both and all of us now and in the future that are in your debt. Bill, a natural born citizen of the USA.
September 21, 2009 at 9:59 PM
[...] just checked Leo’s blog, I am very happy to see that he is back in action. According to this post, he is helping a woman with a new case against the State of Hawaii, based on their refusal to turn [...]
September 21, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Patriots, please, please spread the word so that we can be sure to maximize donations toward this effort as soon as the opportunity is there!!
September 21, 2009 at 10:06 PM
LS- is your name associated with your blog? I didn’t find it on the site. Have a reason for asking.
September 21, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Leo,
Thank you so very much for your thoughtful and steadfast efforts!
Although you included considerable amounts of the statutes in your blog, I did find sections “d” and “f’ under §92F-15, Judicial enforcement, to be supportive of your efforts, however I included all sections after “c” which was in your blog:
(d) If the complainant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall assess against the agency reasonable attorney’s fees and all other expenses reasonably incurred in the litigation.
(e) The circuit court in the judicial circuit in which the request for the record is made, where the requested record is maintained, or where the agency’s headquarters are located shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under this section.
(f) Except as to cases the circuit court considers of greater importance, proceedings before the court, as authorized by this section, and appeals therefrom, take precedence on the docket over all cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.
Again, Leo, thank you so very much!
[Ed. Thanks for bringing subsection (f) up... I forgot to mention that. Yes, it appears we are entitled to a fast court date. As to subsection (d), TerriK and I discussed the fact that she might be entitled to attorneys fees if she prevailed, but I told her I did not want any for this case. It's just easier that way. There are cases I would be interested in a fee from, but not this one.]
September 21, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Leo,
No need to post this but you are incurring expenses. If you post a link on your site to offset your expenses, I am sure many would respond accordingly. You may not want to do that because I believe you are an honest, honorable, and humble guy. I don’t think in the slightest you are trying to get rich off this issue. I believe you put justice ahead of everything. As such, if were to place a donate link along with the amount you need, and show how much you currently have received, I think people will view that as showing total transparency and wouldn’t liken it Berg and his questionable fund raising. And when you hit how much you need you take down the link. And after you incur the expense make a copy of your receipts (travel, court costs, etc) and post them for all to see (btw that would be a first!). This way people see where the money went. Yes, a little bit of administrative work but again it shows you aren’t trying to get rich or take advantage of anyone. Also, it may allow you to get assistance with this if say you need another lawyer, admin help, etc. The reason I suggest this to you is because I honestly believe people want to see you actually in the court room.
I can only speculate on your financial situation so maybe you don’t need any financial assitance at all.
I really like what you stand for and have read up on you a bit too. We are both golfers (former scratch golfer here) so you can’t be all that bad of a guy. My liberal roommate is a poker player so he has taken a liking to you as well and as a result of that he has opened his eyes to Obama’s eligibilty. In our eyes you are a good guy.
This was just a thought. You may not want to go there even if you may need to go there. If you have a question about whether this is the right thing, put up a posting and lay out what I said here and leave it up to people to decide. Show your cards and let people give you feedback.
Again, just a thought.
John
Marin County, California (northern california)
[Ed. No. I'm not accepting donations. But TerriK will be.]
September 21, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Once the case is filed, I wonder how long it will take for the Hawaii court to rule on it? It sounds like a cut-and-dried case, but of course because it has to do with the Usurper, they will make all kinds of ridiculous delays and rulings. No one there wants to be found guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice, or even treason, even though that’s what we seem to be looking at!
How did TerriK ever get them to admit that Obama has recently revised his birth record? It sounds as if that is the information she is seeking: what was added, changed or deleted at his request. For him to be doing any of those things at this time is suspect, because he knows more than half the country suspects he’s not eligible to be president. Maybe he had his minions photoshop another COLB which looked more convincing this time, or perhaps he expunged the adoption papers from Lolo Soetoro/Indonesia. I also read that he had himself adopted by an Indian couple during the campaign, which would make him an automatic U.S. citizen; perhaps he added that to the record. But that still wouldn’t make him an NBC.
[Ed. We don't know when the amendments happened, but if you look at the two statements by Fukino, they appear to provide context.]
September 21, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Leo I have A foia Complaint against Barry Soetoro filed in the US Federal District court of Arizona in Tucson, for those pof you who want to read it is liosted as Allen v Soetoro or Allen v DHS, 09-CV-00373-TUC-FRZ if you have pacer its easy to find or see: Allen v. Soetoro assured standing in FOIA claim
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2009/090715/FrntPgFOIAclaim.html
By Linda Bentley | July 15, 2009
Today I received a letter from DHS, they explained that they would be releasing requested docs for Lolo Soetoro but not for Barack Obama, I asked for records for Barry Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro. Your thoughts?
[ed. What did you specifically request?]
September 21, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Reading your posts are like a party for my mind!
When I think of righteousness, I see a right angle, and that is how I see your arguments – they square up. You are in right standing with the truth, Leo, and we’re praying for you.
Be strong and of good courage!
September 21, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Way to go Leo and TerryK
More power to yah!
September 21, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Orly has taken an unusualy course to argue against Motion to Dismiss
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/taitz-replies-to-motion-to-dismiss-in-barnett-vs-obama/
September 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Greatest hopes for success on seeking this information. I am elated that you are once again in the battle for the truth. We need unorthodox thinkers like you — who can sort the wheat from the chaff and find that needle in the haystack. I have followed your words from the beginning because they simply made sense. Where the others like Orly Taitz and Philip Berg get irrational — though I also support them as well as they are atleast in the fight for whatever their reasons — you have always attempted to be rational and logical in your arguments. Well, maybe one time you lost it, but that was justified. Bottom line: Thank you for assisting in trying to ferret out the truth. Again, my heartfelt thanks.
September 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Dear Leo:
Thank you for this information!
If you are successful in getting the information about the amendment, what will this then lead to further?
[Ed. Don't know.[
September 21, 2009 at 11:39 PM
I add that it is my unprofessional opinion that Dr. Edwin Viera, constitutinal scholar, wrote that opposition brief, or at least large sections of it were based on his writings…
September 22, 2009 at 12:26 AM
The Hawaii statute states: “The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record”. How about Verification ?
Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (g)-(4), It appears that an attorney “for the purposes of legal proceeding” can obtain “verification” of records.
(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:
(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
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
§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
(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]
September 22, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Leo,
I have been admiring Miss Tickly’s steely tenacity and sense of purpose over the last few months and I became convinced that she was really onto something with her assessments of the Fukino charade. The problem has always been, how to ‘prove it’. Well, now we are seeing that exquisite reality unfold using The Law – OUR LAW. We are going to win this using The Law. Wonderful. Wonderful.
September 22, 2009 at 12:47 AM
As mentioned above, Obama relinquished his right to privacy by displaying the COLB, which says on it that it is a prima facie document, meaning backed up by another document, I believe. He has waived his rights, and anybody shown the COLB has a right to verify it, by requesting the long form. If Hawaii has laws only for the long form certificate, and not two sets of rules, one for access to COLB and one for access of long form, you can legally request the long form and if denied take them to court. I think obama might have already surrendered his right to privacy, even if it is a “phony” COLB. I hope you and Terri print out the COLB and submit it for the long form backing it up.
Best wishes in your case hearings.
September 22, 2009 at 12:53 AM
It looks as though someone in Orly’s office has been reading this blog and paying attention:
“Plaintiffs assert an inalienable, reserved right to sue for Constitutional conformity in this case even though they concede that the Defendants have shown that primary, first line actions could and should have been taken by members of Congress or the Electoral College, pursuant to the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments for instance.”
“Case :09cv00082DOCAN,Document 56, Filed 09/04/2009, Page 2o of 32: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll. 114. Of course, what Congress must do in the case of obvious electoral deadlocks or recognized and admitted problems with qualification for office is not at all the point raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence.”
“Plaintiffs’complaint and evidence allege and confirm that the Presidency in 2008 was taken by fraud, and not even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in the traditional common law sense of a material
misrepresentation of an important fact upon which Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to their detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional government. The Constitution’s textual commitment of
this responsibility is a responsibility that Congress has embraced. Both the House and the Sentate have standing committees with jurisdiction to decide questions relating to Presidential elections. Idem:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently, Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office. Idem: Motion to Dismiss at 1314.”
Note the comment, “…stony silence even by the Vice-President…”? They are zeroing in on specifics, it seems.
September 22, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Thank you Leo.
I knew you wouldn’t be able to let this go any more than I’ve been able to.
God Bless You and God Bless America
September 22, 2009 at 1:29 AM
[...] Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended. « Natural Born … naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/pending-litigation-hawaii-confirms-that-obamas-vital-records-have-been-amended – view page – cached I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.) — From the page [...]
September 22, 2009 at 1:37 AM
I will notify the team. We will stay tuned and do what we can to assist.
September 22, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Could there be a camel’s nose under the tent?
Take precautions … it’s a churlish crowd you’re dealing with.
September 22, 2009 at 1:51 AM
thanks
Your information is very helpful
September 22, 2009 at 1:52 AM
OMG! Great news! Hope this all pans out! WTG!
September 22, 2009 at 2:17 AM
The Soetoro divorce case did not terminate until 11/26/1988. Check the dates and you will discover that this was on Saturday of the Thanksgiving weekend. courts aren’t open on Sat. As there are no court fees I have to assume someone visited the judge at home and he signed and dated something that terminated the case. Someone needed that divorce finalized ASAP. Also, according to his sister Maya, “on Thanksgiving in 1988,”Obama told them “no more Barry.” If I were a betting person, I would wager that any request for amending his bc would be in 1988.
Case Title: STANLEY ANN SOETORO VS LOLO SOETORO
Initiation Date: 08-20-1980 Initiation Type: P Confidential Code: N
Initiator I.D.: A1530 Division: Court: F
Cause of Action: DIVORCE Nature of Action: 01018
Section Code:
Trial Type: Trial Judge: Court Costs: 0000000000
Consolidation Code:
Case Disposition: Case Termination: Case Termination Date: 11-26-1988
Orig. Agency: Lower Court Case:
Taxation Dist.: Tax Appeal Source:
Gen. Ex. Tax Amt.: 0000000000 Gen. Ex. Tax No.: Tax Key:
Property Location:
Comments:
Non-Criminal
[Ed. Nice find...]
September 22, 2009 at 2:19 AM
[...] post: Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama's Vital Records … Tags: Barry Soetoro, being-protected, birthplace, Hawaii, Honolulu, Kenya, live birth, [...]
September 22, 2009 at 3:16 AM
You can find answers to some of the questions about AMENDED birth certificates on Hawaii’s Dept. of Vital Statistics website. They describe how to do it, why, cost, etc. (Unless they’ve scrubbed the webpages recently.) We saw that info many months ago and assumed that various documents are on file and available, despite some reports that Hawaii “destroyed” the original documents when they digitalized the records. (They did not destroy the originals, they retained them; no dept. of vital statistics destroys original documents unless they are idiots or criminals!)
By the way, Hawaii also requires the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE in order to get a Driver License. Did B.O. ever have a driver license in Hawaii? If so, his B.C. should be on file at the Hawaiian DMV. This stuff is NOT rocket science.
One last thing: Are people aware that Frank Marshall Davis’s daughter, Beth Charlton, 56, works as a Medical Technician in Honolulu, Hawaii? Wonder if THAT might be relevant?!
GOOD LUCK!
September 22, 2009 at 3:33 AM
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
Quote: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.”
See also:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/amendment.html
September 22, 2009 at 4:23 AM
Yo Leo, you the man. My wife lived in a suite at the Taj from 04 to 07 till they finally kicked her out. She had that place beat big time before she even set foot on the casino floor. I spent a lot of time there myself. Don’t remember seeing you as I am not a poker player, but we may have some aquaintances in common. You’re my hero buddy, please keep up the good work.
September 22, 2009 at 5:35 AM
“Sail on, Oh Ship of State!
Sail on, Oh Union strong and great.
Humanity with all its fears
With all the hope of future years
Is hanging breathless on thy fate.”
September 22, 2009 at 6:07 AM
Leo did Kenneth Allen answer back?
did i misread his post? “Lolo Soetoro but not for Barack Obama, I asked for records for Barry Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro.”
why would they refuse to send info for someone he never asked for? but didnt refuse for Barry Soetoro, just omitted. Are they in some way legally connected where refusing for obama is same as soetoro?
[ed. In Hawaii, according to TerriK, they treat it as a request for the same person.]
September 22, 2009 at 6:34 AM
Simple logic takes you here: If Obama had something to hide, it would be hidden. If Obama had nothing to hide, it would be revealed. Ergo, Obama has something to hide. Anything hidden will eventually be revealed. My best wishes to all the patriots that are unlocking the mystery.
September 22, 2009 at 6:42 AM
Leo:
Please excuse this off-topic question. I saw it on another site. Can the president of the United States and U.S. commander in chief hold the office of president of the United Nations Security Council during his tenure in the U.S. offices?” Obama is assuming the position. Is this not a definite conflict of interest at the miminum?
[Ed. Don't know. Too busy to research that right now.]
September 22, 2009 at 7:07 AM
[ed. What did you specifically request?]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18449946/ALLEN-v-SOETORO-et-al-COMPLAINT
Very interesting Ken Allen, best of luck.
[Ed. I didnt see a request for passport records covering 1966-1967 the time when he was first brought to Indonesia and possibly the time he was adopted.]
September 22, 2009 at 7:22 AM
By releasing his COLB, didn’t Mr. Obama forfeit his “right to privacy”?
[Ed. I'm working on that issue... stay tuned.]
September 22, 2009 at 7:26 AM
When you say “Hawaii Confirms…”, you can’t mean that someone deduced that Obama must have amended his birth certificate, right? Did you or TerriK contact them and ask the right question which forced them to confirm that his bc had been amended?
[Ed. Read the various replies I've made and then sit back and wait for the report. Your question has been answered in this comment section.]
September 22, 2009 at 7:27 AM
For those who are skeptical about how far states and local governments will go when they amend birth certificates, and other vital records — I have a nephew who was actually born my niece — but you could NEVER tell that when reading his current ‘long-form’ birth certificate that is available from his native state.
September 22, 2009 at 7:29 AM
Way to go, Leo! I especially like this part:
“(c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.”
Anticipating their response, this phrase came to mind: Don’t these people EVER get tired of looking like traitorous fools??
September 22, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Kenneth Allen
Leo
what is your take on the FOIA ffiled by Allen
for passports, natualizaiin records etc on the
“Sotoros”
They are now only releasing Lolo’s but not Stanley Ann’s
(she is deceased) or Barry’s (who couldn’t be Barack as he never went by any other name according to his Illinois Bar documents)
Interesting case in light of the executive order.
September 22, 2009 at 7:40 AM
j Says:
September 21, 2009 at 9:27 pm
So others can see, this is what Hawaii’s site says:
“When information originally entered on a CERTIFICATE is amended:, 1) a line is drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data is inserted, 2) what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer are entered on the CERTIFICATE, and 3) the notation “altered” is written or stamped on the CERTIFICATE.”
(Capitalized emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Obama has only released a short form CERTIFICATION of live birth (COLB) which simply lists some information from the long form birth CERTIFICATE, as that information appeared on the date of the request for the COLB.
If Obama’s actual long form birth certificate was amended, as it certainly appears given the correspondence with TerriK, it will have that ALTERED stamp or written label and the other information.
Thank you to Leo and TerriK for your persistence and dedication to uncovering the truth!!
September 22, 2009 at 7:42 AM
This is all moot. Suppose he was born in Kenya or suppose he’s a British citizen or suppose he’s an Indonesian citizen who never properly applied for American citizenship. So?
“Why that’s illegal” you stammer. Well, it’s against the prescribed rules set in the Constitution but is there an actual law that delineates action to be taken in the event of a President having been elected who doesn’t meet these requirements?
Short answer : NO. There is no remedy in the law. The only action available would be impeachment by the people’s representatives hoping that this breach would satisfy the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required. The odds of that ZERO!!!!
If there were any competent attorneys behind this blog they would know that already. This whole exercise is BS.
[Ed. Hey RCL, welcome to the nbc blog. You should familiarize yourself with my legal brief on the federal Quo Warranto statute, a three part report. In that statute Congress authorized one single court to hear issues regarding the eligibility of all US National Officers and those Government officials specifically located in DC. The statute includes all US national govt officers, no exceptions.
The DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings in one of Orly's cases where the DOJ represents President Obama.
You need to read the DOJ motion to dismiss in the Barnett case, specifically page 16:
I have maintained that any judicial review of the President's eligibility must come through the DC District Court and the Quo Warranto statute. The DOJ agrees and has put that in an actual court document defending the President. Eventually, the President's eligibility will be challenged in the DC District Court.]
September 22, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Thank you, MissTickly!
I remember your first comments to Leo on HI regs. Brilliant!
September 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM
Tom Urie’s point is a good one…why can’t we just see a duplicate of the COLB but directly from Hawaii, since now nothing has been redacted on the newer version?
[Ed. Working on this...]
September 22, 2009 at 7:51 AM
Hugh:
ConservativeOutcry.com draws out attention to this headline, “Obama To Preside At UN Security Council,” and reminds us that the U. S. Constitution has a few words to say about this:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
“Chairman of the United Nations Security Council” clearly meets the Constitutional definition of both an Office and a Title bestowed by not only a foreign State but by a huge collection of foreign States. Since Congress has not given its consent, it appears that ONCE AGAIN, Obama ignores the U. S. Constitution, a document he described as, “a charter of negative liberties.”
http://www.conservativeoutcry.com/content/obama-resigns-president-united-states
September 22, 2009 at 8:13 AM
It would appear lately that the best (and perhaps only) way to gain national and international attention to any of the shenanigans going on here is through the video taping (secret or otherwise) of real personal interviews or confrontations. Is it possible to somehow get on tape, video or audio, actual conversations – questions and answers – with these Hawaiian authorities that would present this underlying effort to change, obfuscate, or otherwise hide evidence of “transparency” of this current “regime” that has nefarious reasons for doing so while it quickly works to dismantle our laws, our powers, and our moral institutions??
September 22, 2009 at 8:31 AM
John Jay said, “The Soetoro divorce case did not terminate until 11/26/1988.”
We question this final date as Ann Dunham and Soetoro had been separated since 1972, though Dunham did return to Indonesia in 1977 (with Maya) she returned in 1978 to the UH. The divorce paperwork was filed on 24 Aug 1980 and final decree appears to be 4 Nov 1980. (See PDF File of Divorce Paperwork.) According to the document, Ann Stanley Dunham returned to use of her maiden name. Custody of the children — 1 below 18 (Maya, 10) and 1 above 18 but still dependent (Obama, 19) — given to Ann Dunham. Lolo Soetoro pays no alimony or child support. There was no property to divide. Filed on 24 Aug 1980 and appears to have been decreed on 4 Nov 1980. Nowhere in the documents are mentioned anything about the nationality of Maya or Obama — leaving their status as dual citizens unclear. The divorce decree recognizes Barry Soetoro as being part of the family unit — and some consider this as “proof” that he was adopted. It is also proof that he was NOT adopted in 1971 by the senior Dunhams as some allege.
September 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Date divorce decree signed
As to thanksgiving 1988:
BHO would have been in his first semester at Harvard.
September 22, 2009 at 8:40 AM
[Ed. I didnt see a request for passport records covering 1966-1967 the time when he was first brought to Indonesia and possibly the time he was adopted.]
Ken’s FOIA requests seemed to geared to the whole Pakistan travel thing, maybe he can ammend.
September 22, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Leo
you are going into the Lion’s Den, the HI DOH will have
no verifiable proof and package it in such a way
to protect their “beloved” son. No good for your
position can come of this. It is a set up to
make the “consitutionalists” look bad.
[Ed. Have just a little respect... this investigation has already revealed a piece of information which did not already exist. TerriK got something out of them they did not want to give. You either have not read my comments or you don't understand them.]
September 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Leo
I hope your blog does not get hacked like in the past.Have you taken steps to protect your site from this?Go get em leo.Remember you do not need to wear a uniform to fight for your country.May God watch over you and bless you for joining in the battle.
September 22, 2009 at 8:49 AM
The problem is that Hawaii DoH vital records are not “collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.” Obama’s birth records was “collected” in 1961.
[Ed. But information collected and maintained by Fukino for purposes of identifying the definition of "natural born citizen" has nothing to do with his birth records. That's one issue.
On the other hand, Im way out ahead on what you raise below... while the informaton was collected and maintained "the first time" for purposes of creating a vital record in 1961... Fukino had to access those records and record information from them to make the statement public "he was born in Hawaii"... whatevere information she collected to make that statement MUST be made available... now it's possible Obama at some point had to prove that he was born in Hawaii in order to get a BC made if one didnt already exist for him. The state of Hawaii would then request evidence of where he was born. That evidence might have been accessed instead of the BC... regardless, we are entitled to know what information was collected by Fukino for the purpose of making the public statement that he was born in Hawaii.
We may not be allowed to see his BC, then again, I am looking into whether Obama can have a privacy interest in that part of his vital records he already released, ie COLB. Therefore, that part of the original long form BC may possibly not be protected for the dual reason that both Obama and Fukino have exposed part of that record.
And there's more to it than that. The point being, we are going to court on some of this and some of it won't require going to court. Hawaii will be forced to acknowledge some of this before we go to court. You'll see. Stay tuned....
It has been “maintained” for almost 50 years. There is no conceivable way for the claim that they were “collected and maintained for the purpose of” Dr. Fukino’s statements.
They may have been accessed for that purpose, but they were not “collected and maintained” for that purpose.”
As we used to say in Ranger School, “Nice attack. Wrong hill.”
September 22, 2009 at 8:55 AM
AXJ news has found Obama-Dunham divorce decree. Contained within decree, was Obama birth certificate. They show the document, and it states Obama II was born in Mombassa, Kenya.
This is the worst possible info for our president, and those that promoted him. Game changer!
[Ed. I see no documents. Only allegations.]
September 22, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Leo, can any of these arguments also be applied to Obama’s Selective Service Registration, or would it in any way be helpful to you in this case? It was supposedly obtained by an individual in 2008 under the FOIA–here is the link to Debbie Schlussel’s site, and her analysis of Obama’s Registration, on which he states he was born in Hawaii and registered in 1980, but with her evidence and analysis of multiple irregularities, and also that the form was actually created in 2008.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/
September 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Leo, I sent an FR mail to Terry regarding something I think the two of you should look at. I don’t want to say on a public board what it is. It may or may not be significant. If it is significant, it may be a new avenue for you to explore. Have her check her mail !
September 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Then David put his hand in his bag and
took out a stone; and he slung it and
struck the Philistine in his forehead, so
that the stone sank into his forehead,
and he fell on his face to the earth.
( 1 Samuel 17:49 *NKJV )
September 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM
When you and Terri have had your way with HI, I hope Terri’s formidable investigatory skills will be applied to Obama’s birth records in Kenya, where he was actually born IMO.
September 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM
This looks to me like a huge story, and yet half a day later, nothing in the news and virtually nothing in blogs.
I’m trying to figure out if I’m crazy or the rest of the world is.
September 22, 2009 at 10:39 AM
My comment was not meant to be disrespectful, just to be careful.
The HI DOH may be covering things up in such a manner to make the “consitutionalists” (aka birhers, I hate that term) look bad.
[Ed. Your cool. Just dont be so quick to judge the outcome. I've refrained from getting involved with any kind of litigation for a reason. This is a good case based on solid statutory rules. It's their very failure to follow the rules that confirms the research.]
September 22, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Leo, I am not that far from you and I have a solid legal background. If you need free help with research or legal support, contact me.
[Ed. Appreciated, but we've got this one locked down. Nice of you to offer. Thanks.]
September 22, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Leo, good work
Are you aware of
According to the complaint, on Monday, Jan. 26, 2009, his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13490-Ethics Commitments, which stated only the Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Counsel to the President (Gregory Craig) are able to review presidential records requests and determine whether or not they can be made public.
>>>>are you also aware that it is possible that this order is void, because he wasn’t officially sworn in and it had to be done again a few days later. Maybe the next day? Therefore any order to seal his records, in HI, may be void and null? I read this somewhere, maybe on another website. Can you use this informaton if the dates pan out in this case in HI were you say above that the records are sealed, when in realty, they may not be. Or did OBAMA re issue the executive order at a later date?
[Ed. These are not "Presidential records". They are personal records on file before he was President and are therefore not involved with that statute.]
September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Talk about creating Pelican Brief II. Excellent. See that is why Dr. Fukino should have kept her mouth shut and not write anything. They act before thinking and didn’t realize the law OVERRULED or allowed a loophole to be pursued.
People don’t realize that “You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say or DO can be used against you in a court of law.” This also includes anything you write.
Lie is starting to crumble with all these forces attacking it one by one… Acorn, NEA, Van Jones and the Czars and now the legal side so we can get the records…..
Get your popcorn ready….
September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Leo did Kenneth Allen answer back?
did i misread his post? “Lolo Soetoro but not for Barack Obama, I asked for records for Barry Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro.”
why would they refuse to send info for someone he never asked for? but didnt refuse for Barry Soetoro, just omitted. Are they in some way legally connected where refusing for obama is same as soetoro?
[ed. In Hawaii, according to TerriK, they treat it as a request for the same person.]
—————–
sorry I am not a lawyer but if they treat it as the same person than there has to be a legal connection and there has to be info on both to connect the two. Is this proof of his adoption? sorry I posted again but this seems important but you seem to think it means little.
September 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Do you know if someone has asked the HI Dept of Health if an application was made for a COLB for Barack Obama which would correspond to the COLB that has been posted on the internet? Does the DOH have a copy of the request form and is it available to the public? Has the DOH confirmed that they produced the COLB that is displayed? I assume TerriK has checked these things, but perhaps not if they are not what she is going after.
[ed. Yes, just the request for that COLB is itself a Govt. record.]
September 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM
September 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Leo:
Your current effort to obtain from HI any requests to amend Obama’s vital records are fascinating, but could be mooted by Judge Carter on Oct. 5.
[Ed. They can't be mooted. Judge Carter has no jurisdiction of Hawaii UIPA requests.]
Your following comment about Orlys’ case has been affirmed by nearly every lawyer on the blogs that I have read:
“The underlying case is a loser. The pleadings ramble and they don’t do what pleadings are supposed to do…which is simply make a claim. The pleadings here are used to try the case and they contain so many things the court must ignore and they ignore many things the court must have before it. The plaintiffs have no standing so no pleadings can fix that.”
However, despite these shortcomings, somehow Judge Carter has managed to describe Orly’s case in a clear articulation of claims regarding both the constitutional question of law as to the meaning of “natural born” citizen and the fact question of whether Obama was born in Kenya.
Judge Carter said:
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY
“On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging, in pertinent part, that President Barack Obama (“the President”) does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the President, as specified by Article II, §1, cl. 5 of the United States Constitution. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a “natural born” citizen of the United States. Plaintiffs argue that there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, and not Hawaii, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that the President was a citizen of Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States Citizenship.”
[Ed. Isn't it fascinating that Judge Carter does not address the core issue in this paragraph. Judge Carter discusses Obama's BC issues - place of birth, he discusses Indonesia, but the one FACT which is not disputed but is rather admitted by Obama - that at birth he was governed by Great Britain as a British citizen - that fact and its relevance to nbc status is ignored by Judge Carter.
I told you, they failed to properly plead that issue and the Judge is throwing a sign that he is not considering that issue because it's not included in his summary.]
I take from this that Judge Carter is cutting Orly slack to which she may not be entitled, but to which the country and the Constitution are entitled, unlike Judge Land, Judge Robinson or even SCOTUS when they declined to hear your case.
Judge Carter has also made repeated statements in open court that indicate that while he will hear the Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 5 with a judicially proper open mind, he is inclined to hear the case on the merits. This can only mean that Judge Carter, and perhaps Judge Carter alone sees at least one of Orly and/or Kreep’s plaintiffs as having standing sufficient to justify discovery regarding the claims he was able to articulate for Orly and he sees a remedy.
But which plaintiff could Judge Carter be regarding as having standing? You have stated that Keyes has no standing because had no chance of winning:
[Ed. You know... if you're not going to be honest and admit Keyes had no chance of winning... then I can't really help you. Maybe another blog is what you are looking for.]
I fully agree with your assessment of Keyes prospects, but it does seen unfair to any eligible candidate regardless of prospects to have an ineligible candidate dilute possible incremental career benefits of placing higher in a smaller field, not to mention having the ineligible candidate win!
Were you relying on the following analysis by Tokaji and his reference to the Fulani case in concluding that Keyes has no standing?
Tokaji:
“The plaintiff in Robinson, a would-be elector for a minor party candidate, has a somewhat stronger claim of injury than the plaintiffs in the other cases. But while his interest may be somewhat stronger than that of other members of the public, such a plaintiff still has a serious Article III standing problem. The chances of the candidate winning any electors from any state—whether or not McCain is in the race—are exceedingly remote. On occasion, the Court has found an impediment to competition sufficient to establish standing. There is also a Seventh Circuit case, Fulani v. Hogsett, in which a minor-party presidential candidate was held to have standing to challenge the certification of both major parties’ 1988 presidential candidates. In that case, however, the court found that the minor party candidate “could conceivably have won the Indiana election” if she obtained the relief sought. By contrast, Robinson’s preferred candidate Alan Keyes is exceedingly unlikely to win any electoral votes in California, even if McCain were disqualified. Robinson’s claim of injury is thus too speculative and insufficiently imminent to satisfy Article III, as the district court correctly concluded.”
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/tokaji.htm
While Tokaji agrees with you regarding Keyes, Tokaji does say in that passage:
“On occasion, the Court has found an impediment to competition sufficient to establish standing.”
[Ed. I was more inclined to be going under the Newman holding from SCOTUS.]
Perhaps it is in these “on occasion” cases that Judge Carter has found room to consider Keyes to have standing, and perhaps the fact that Carter is in the Ninth Circuit, not the Seventh Circuit might give him some additional latitude.
Regardless of the prospects of Orly’s case on appeal for the reasons you have cited, if Judge Carter orders discovery of Obama’s vital records in HI on Oct. 5 and Obama’s HI birth is confirmed to have been witnessed in a hospital by an MD, then way will be clear for the public to focus on the quo warranto NBC issue, correct?
[ed. True... but if the case is dismissed it may appear as if the nbc issue was dismissed with it. Not accurate. The issue wasn't properly plead and is not technically before the court in my opinion. We shall see if he goes to it.]
September 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I remember Miss Tickly from Texas Darlin, who had to shut down temporarily…I think many of us gravitated over here. She was on to something back then on TD, but it hadn’t gelled quite yet. What’s interesting is that TD bloggers were putting together a lot of scenarios without much legal background, lots of great work and insight insofar as the Indonesian background, inciting Kenyan genocide, Hawaiian run-around, but no “action”. Miss Tickly was a hound on the blood trail of this amended issue. Anyone from there remember Renee who was always compiling the most intricate genealogical and business links? I remember on TD it was mentioned that it seemed someone in DoH HI was leaving a bread crumb trail if you were just willing to get out the magnifying glass and decipher it, and Miss T. was. Then she got funneled here…voila, almost like there was some divine intervention for a match made in heaven.
On No Quarter they reveal the WA Post leak that Obama fully intended all along to not win in Afghanistan, the action was a waste, as were the lost lives of soldiers–further, he limited US soldier’s rules of engagement so they could not return hostile fire if any civilians were anywhere around (so the Taliban use civilian shields and slaughter US soldiers), he ordered US soldiers not to touch the poppies (because this upsets the Taliban’s narcotraffic money flow). Obama also limited rules of engagement with the pirate scenario and a Navy commander took action despite them and since the day was saved, no contention was heard. Today also Obama looks to totally gut US nuclear armaments from tens of thousands to hundreds, to disallow any future testing of warheads, to severely limit their scope of use, and he says America’s nukes are “the president’s weapons”. This man is guilty of TREASON. When’s someone going to call him on THAT?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/barack-obama-us-nuclear-weapons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU4sVQV3Lhk
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/04/how-the-rescue-happened.html
http://thelastcrusade.org/2009/07/09/don%E2%80%99t-shoot-back-at-taliban-terrorists/
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/09/21/will-obama-surrender-afghanistan-to-the-mullahs/
September 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Just for input. Here is the response I received back from a Republican Senator when a question was submitted about his view of Vattel’s definition of NBC. Actually the submitted question had nothing to do with BHO specifically or the Hawaiian BC at all. But the response to ANY question on NBC seems to always go back to the Hawaiian BC and hence why clearing the BC smoke is required to get the DC issue. From a US Senator on his letterhead: ‘Since the election, several public officials – including the Republican Governor Linda Lingle – have viewed and certified the origional document. The concesnsus is clear that President Obama is a natural-born citizen.’
I had never heard that Lingle ‘ceritified’ the BC. This is a strong statement but I have been able to validate it.
The following website has substancial background on Lingles formal and informal statements regarding the matter. They seem to not be able find where Lingle ‘certified’ anything:
http://24ahead.com/lingle-obama-hawaii
[Ed. Very helpful ink... thank you.]
September 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I’m not sure I understand how Hawaii’s Health Director, a physician, deems herself qualified to render an assessment of Obama’s citizenship status (i.e. a natural born citizen). I mean, wouldn’t you really need to be an attorney to render such an opinion in any court of law in these United States? Hello! Am I missing something here?
[Ed. We are all missing something. We have correspondence proving it was on the advice of the AG... this will be part of the judicial appeal.]
September 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Leo:
Isn’t it interesting that BHO went to see his dear old grandmother before her death (perhaps to have her sign papers) and after she died, her remains were cremated and deposited in the Sea. Maybe there were SEVERAL amendments!
I’m trusting that you have a complete list of all of his trips back home – each one no doubt to amend some part of his life’s story.
Godspeed!
September 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Now as we were all told, Obama had these documents sealed up after he gained office by Presidential executive order, Now executive orders only pertain to the federal government not to the states, I have not seen these orders in the federal register anywhere. The office of President of the United States has a limited scope of powers and ordering a state government to do something like this is not one of the implied powers, but makes the governor an accessory to the fact.
September 22, 2009 at 12:55 PM
The response I received from a few Senators was “it is in the hands of the court system”.
Thank you Leo for bringing it to the courts again.
I believe Justice Thomas is in agreement with you: “understand what the framers were thinking” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1iyzBRr5tc
September 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM
bho boo said:
bho boo,
When Texas Darlin put her blog on hold, I created a new blog called “We the People of the United States” (WTPOTUS, vs. POTUS or TOTUS).
You can find Renee and many of the TD regulars there, as well as at Dr. Kate’s new blog.
September 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily spoke with DOH Director Chiyome Fukino three months ago and asked her if Hawaii would authenticate Obama’s online COLB. They refused to do so.
Last October, Polarik spoke with State Registrar Alvin Onaka, who also refused to confirm that Hawaii issued Obama’s online COLB.
This is out-and-out criminal fraud that will take down a lot of people when proven.
It’s not just about Obama’s British father, Obama Sr., who may not even be Obama’s real father!!!!
September 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Some background on one of Miss Tickly’s requests to Hawaii:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2305734/posts?q=1&;page=53#53
Way to go, Miss Tickly. You and I conversed often over at TD blog. Glad to see that you kept on the case. Brilliant work. Thanks to Leo, too, for taking on the case.
September 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Hello Leo,
I have a procedural question. In re:
§92F-15.5 Alternative method to appeal a denial of access. (a) When an agency denies a person access to a government record, the person may appeal the denial to the office of information practices in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to section 92F-42(12). A decision to appeal to the office of information practices for review of the agency denial shall not prejudice the person’s right to appeal to the circuit court after a decision is made by the office of information practices.
(b) If the decision is to disclose, the office of information practices shall notify the person and the agency, and the agency shall make the record available. 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]
I take it Terri followed this alternative method of first seeking an internal appeal?
[Ed. She absolutely did and the correspondence from the staff attorney at OIP states that she did.]
If not, they aren’t required to notify her regarding the denial of access provisions in (b), including notification of the right to bring a judicial action.
I’m sure you’re all over this. In any event, she has the right to a direct judicial action without first pursuing the internal appeal.
Inasmuch as there are provisions for in camera review, I suspect ‘that’ might become the primary impediment to actually receiving any docs.
One other point. I noted in Fukino’s statement:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records. . .” Note the plural.
[Ed. Noting the plural was the genesis of the action taken by terriK...she jumped on the plural fast and knew exactly what it meant.]
Is only the long form BC considered an ‘original vital record’ (as opposed to the COLB) pursuant to HA law? If so, the other vital records (plural) reviewed must, of necessity, include an ‘amended’ doc or docs. Out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
I just found your web site today. I’ll be following with interest. Best of luck and Godspeed!
September 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Leo…
“We have correspondence proving it was on the advice of the AG”
Would that be the state of HI AG? Or, AG Holder??
[Ed. Hawaii AG Bennett.]
September 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM
[Ed. She absolutely did and the correspondence from the staff attorney at OIP states that she did.]
[Ed. Noting the plural was the genesis of the action taken by terriK...she jumped on the plural fast and knew exactly what it meant.]
Excellent, then! I’ll be looking forward to your upcoming statement!
September 22, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Go at ‘em – Lol!
I have a bit of information you all might be interested in. I have lived in Hawai’i off and on – mostly off – however, my son Tollak was born at Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC) in 1984.
In January I went over to the Dept. of Health office on Punchbowl and stood in a LONG line with the form filled for a copy of Tollak’s BC. However, on the top of the form I wrote in the words “Long Form”. When I got to the top of the line the lady started to process my request and I pointed out to her I wanted a Certified Copy of the Original Birthing Record. She looked at me and said, “Oh, we don’t do that anymore”. So I said great let me see the law. She went scurrying off and came back a few minutes later and gave me a copy of 338-18 Disclosure of Record which of course at (b)3 acknowledges my absolute standing to access the record as a parent. She then told me I need to write the Director but to basically get lost (I note on the Department web site you can order the abstract but “walk ins” always take priority over mail or internet requests for records . . . ). I knew I would be in Hawai’i a few months later so I figured I would make an appointment with one of the bosses and resolve it then.
So, I was in Hawai’i a couple weeks ago and wanted inspect both sides of his birthing record and obtain a certified copy of it pursuant to 338-18 (I am NOT interested in the abstract they print out for ten bux a pop – what a scam!) so I spoke with the one of the Health Dept. gate keepers, a Dr. Onaka at 808 586-4600. Onaka confirmed to me the TAMC administrator at that time would have forwarded an ORIGINAL birthing record to the state which would have been CERTIFIED by the TAMC Administrator and that the state was holding it in an archive. The state Public Records law says that I have a right to inspect AND obtain a CERTIFIED COPY of that record I said so when I asked this jerk off if I could get a certified copy of Tollak’s birthing record pursuant to the law and my status as the father he said “No”.
I said ok I will write you a letter and he said “Why?”. And I said because I need you to deny me IN WRITING – thus exhausting my Administrative Remedies – and THEN I can sue you!
I subsequently wrote a letter and mailed it in Hawai’i on the 26th of August and not a peep from him to date (if you would like me to copy you on the letter send me a private email).
Now I need to write the director but send it certified return receipt with about a ten (10) day suspense.
What pricks – any body think this has anything to do with the Obanination . . . ?
September 22, 2009 at 2:47 PM
“It is also proof that he was NOT adopted in 1971 by the senior Dunhams as some allege.”
The senior Dunhams were appointed guardians of Barry Soetoro after he was identified as an orphaned or abandoned Indonesian refugee with grandparents who were US Citizens living in Hawai’i.
The US State Department became engaged after the Dunhams requested assistance. Barry’s refugee status paperwork, travel documents and a US State Department escort were expedited.
September 22, 2009 at 3:00 PM
OK, so what is everyone going to do if she does get this birth certificate and it proves he was born in Kenya?
Uhhh, go to court again?
Its more than obvious that the entire government complex is complicit in this coverup.
The fact of the matter is that all these great intentions expressed here were fattening their butts in front of a tv for the past several decades and let their laziness and stupidity allow this to happen. Now everyone is so surprised and angry. Angry at what? That you have all been asleep.
Having the government investigate itself, find one of itself to be questionably illegitimate, and dispose of this part of itself, although this part of itself makes all the other parts lots o lots o money, oh yeah and power is asinine and ludicrous.
Their is still a considerable amount of “veil” left to pull out from in front of all your eyes.
September 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM
And…Barack once said to a 60 Minutes Reporter who asked, “They think you’re black?”
OBAMA: “That’s what they think”
I really think he’s Indonesian.
September 22, 2009 at 3:18 PM
uh Does this mean you get to go to Hawaii and we’re stuck here workin? ;P
September 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I love, love, love you guys. My insides jumped for joy when I read this great news today! Keep up the good work. You guys are my new heroes!!!!
September 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Leo & readers,
Would it make sense to request from Hawaii the statistics which group the various quantities of BC/COLBs they have issued for each race between 1960 and 1965? I am not looking for names of any persons, just looking for a report like this:
White x,000
Asian x,000
Indian x,000
Black x,000
African ?
The representative sample of those that contain the race “AFRICAN” would be quite interesting, wouldn’t it?
On what grounds would they (State of Hawaii, DOH, etc.) be able to deny such a request? If someone can help me figure out how to go about making such a request I would be glad to do it.
Thoughts?
[Ed. Good question.]
September 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Leo,
I am just wondering if factcheck.org was aware, and failed to notify the public, that they checked the facts and KNEW that Obama had his ‘birth certificate’ amended! I wonder if they will post a correction.
Pete
September 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM
SvenMagnussen: Where do you get your “facts”?
September 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Sven,
Where does all that come from?
September 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Not to bother the other readers with ‘inside-federalist-papers’ squabbles, but:
12:45 PM Publius (not me): While neither of us can claim — at least not with a straight face — to be reincarnated versions of Madison, Hamilton, or Jay, might I trouble you for unchallenged continued use of our common handle within the confines of this blog? I believe that mine was the first use of ‘Publius’, and unless I am mistaken, all of the recent uses have also been mine.
September 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM
If Fukino gets to see the “vital records” in order to formulate her official statement to the general public, then the general public gets to see the “vital records.”
Now that’s a law that I can understand. Way to go Leo!
September 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Commenting on yesterday’s post, I had an implied question, spawned by one of your reader’s (morato) links, easy for you to miss.
Now I ask it explicitly.
link is here –
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-21102.h1.htmlcomments
with this to the point sentence:
[ However, it is DoD policy that an Applicant for a security clearance must be denied access to classified information unless the Applicant surrenders his or her foreign passport or obtains official approval for its use from an appropriate agency of the United States. ]
My question follows in several parts:
1) what is the difference between ‘an applicant for a security clearance’ and 1a) a presidential nominee? 1b) a president elect? 1c) a sitting president (sworn in) that has not undergone an appropriate security clearance for his new appointed military role, head of the U.S. Military?
2) already acknowledged it the fact that the single office of the President has two distinct roles fused into one: might we call the first as that of the head of the executive branch, i.e. the president, and the second as that of the Commander in Chief, i.e. the head of the Chiefs of Staff of the Military? (nothing new here – this is implied all throughout your blog and comments. ) All litigation thus far, including conceptually Quo Warranto, which you previously elucidated, and now evidently even the DOJ confirms, is along the lines of the first half of the office – it’s a civil issue, dealing with a public office, constitutional law, pass-the-buck vetting, and a denied SCOTUS case of first impression, etc. etc.
that’s why reader rcl just said:
[This is all moot. Suppose he was born in Kenya or suppose he’s a British citizen or suppose he’s an Indonesian citizen who never properly applied for American citizenship. So?
“Why that’s illegal” you stammer. Well, it’s against the prescribed rules set in the Constitution but is there an actual law that delineates action to be taken in the event of a President having been elected who doesn’t meet these requirements?
Short answer : NO. There is no remedy in the law. ]
……no remedy in the ‘civil law’ sense, I presume rcl means.
Actually, we won’t know until quo warranto happens, but it’s anyones guess. Problem in all civil cases is that as civilians, standing doctrine has more standing than the civilians who voted, as the doctrine is a long standing (pun) protective mechanism, I’m sure. So the argument goes in the main: “to vote, is to vet” – totally bogus, but totally unpenetrable thus far. Yet another known problem quo warranto has in its path….. what? executively appointed officials in the proper venue? Might work fine for investigating a legislator for usurpation, but isn’t the dc district court (the topos of quo warranto) a kind of legal hybrid in regards to jurisdiction….? Tell me how I’m mistaken, or maybe we’ll delve into that soon enough.
Still, you’ve pointed out, Leo, it’s a civil suit we’re talking about here. Even when involving military personnel, everything is filed as if only a civil suit against an never-known-if-qualified , yet procedurally constitutional sitting president – citizen’s good faith has been flushed down the toilet, but legally standing and proper jurisdiction has proven pretty tough.
So…., darn it. We vetted when we voted, the legislative branch scolds the citizenry. That kinda sucks. Wish we were told that by those looking out for our best interests. Why not little buttons for the respective parties to hand out at the booths next election, “To vote is To vet.”
But……. is that the same thing as “To vote is To Grant Security Clearance.”? That is totally absurd. The voting public does not have the authority to grant blanket security clearance to anyone.
Begs the question: Who gave the current CIC his security clearance? What are the proper procedures, and were they followed, and by whom?
In other words, I’m taking Miss Tickly’s line of inquiry to the second half of the fused office of the president. NBC is an important constitutional issue in it’s own right. The implications of dual national loyalties are present therein. However, until that time, I’d like to know the answer to this MINISTERIAL (thanks leo) question:
Where are the procedures delineated for issuing a security clearance to the CIC, or
By what mechanism is a security clearance granted to the CIC? and,
Does the CIC undergo the same rigors in security checks as the Chiefs of Staff, who now as and elected official has access to the same level of sensitive information regarding national security as his staff, of which nation I am a citizen?
Anybody with a birth certificate, naturalization documents, or U. S. passport should have no problem with standing along this line, I would think.
Motion:
“Please make available the procedure (non sensitive matter) to the voting (and vetting, evidently), and, need I say, tax paying, public.”
I mean, let’s not get the IRS involved in this. Surely we as property tax paying citizens are entitled to the same rights of assurance that paying customers are in the marketplace. Shall we use the FDA as example of disclosure? – dosen’t federal law require all ingredients to be clearly printed on a consumer product?
Won’t we just walk off someones map with this? And why not? Miss Tickley shouldn’t have all the fun?
But for real, Leo, this simple question:
Who issues the security clearance to the CIC?
Is it automatically granted as a mechanism in the vetting process? Then the admission might be this: the DNC, by vetting their own candidate, issued a top security clearance pre-electoral (legal latin?) pro bono.
True or false?
If true, then that implies that Pelosi issued the CIC security clearance.
Check that out. That’s cool.
Do the Chiefs know this?
September 22, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Be carefull what you ask for. If Obama has to leave office because he really wasn’t born in the US, Big Mouth Joe Biden is next. He would be even worse than Obammy
September 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Leo,
Has anyone used the OIP statute to assertain who lived at the home address listed in the newspaper birth announcement?
5) Land ownership, transfer and lien records,
including real property tax information and state
land leases;
September 22, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Leo, can you PLEASE, in layman’s terms, tell us / me what this means?
It looks important!
****************
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
JUDGE ROYCE LAMBERTH GRANTS PREMISSION TO PROSECUTE SOETORO-OBAMA ON CRIMINAL CHARGES OF FRAUD AND TREASON!
http://jaghunters.blogspot.com/
[Ed. It's a skewed and intellectually dishonest headline. Judge Lamberth didn't say plaintiffs could prosecute Obama. He said they could file the presentments and pay the filing fee but that the presentments would then be dismissed specifically because they do not have standing to prosecute the laws of the US. His order says basically the opposite of what their headline is. It's just awful and their cartoon is very bad and evil. It appears to portray a headstone for Obama, perhaps indicating he died in 2009. That's really really bad. I certainly condemn both the headline of their press release and their cartoon. This is the kind of activity that gives the movement for honesty in Government a very bad name.]
September 22, 2009 at 5:16 PM
With the entire resources of the CIA, NSA, and DHS do you really believe there is any document that Barack Hussien can not have forged?
September 22, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Our united States of America dearly needs some accountability. The truth would be nice for a change. God help us all if we do not regain truth, accountability and the rule of law in our country.
September 22, 2009 at 7:11 PM
I understand your good motivations and infatuation with the complexities of what you are doing, as you have a unique educational background and aptitude which fortunately is well suited to the task. However, please also remain glued to the bigger objective; which I think is to restore the Constitutional Republic, the true USA. So, that we can get back to more productive endeavors or golf.
The hoard of sheople need to be awakened. Don’t write the screen play yourself. Call for some help on this. Call for resumes. Be careful in your selection, but make one or a few for a phased selection of the final winner. Promise to endorse a linked web site for direct support of the writer. Feed the brief but intensive history of your life during 2008/09 and the facts surrounding the NBC definition drive. Make suggestions in terms of plot, action points. I know you want a “happy ending”. You must know from golf that the likelihood of a positive shot outcome is more likely if you project it in your mind first. Well help project a positive outcome with this whole mess for all of us to see. You must delegate this task; to communicate using video and the new media.
Please forgive me. It all may go something like this (kind of like the “Manchurian Candidate”:
A meeting of the powered elite behind closed doors;
A decision is made by the “illums” that now is the time to push the big domino
A discussion from the meetings messenger with big corporate boss(es);
Money transfers to politcal action reps.
The globalists lay out the strategy, all roads must lead to Rome.
Trash the dollar and the Constitution.
Both Repubican and Democratic candidates to be unconstitutional.
The President at their finger tips should be vulnerable to the bus undercarriage.
Young David appears as rumblings occur regarding the absence of a Birth Certificate. DAVID reads beyond the web posting of the COLB.
What his birth was controlled by the British Crown?!! Can’t be!!!
David speaks softly “He could have been born in the White House and it wouldn’t change the fact that his father was Kenyan at his birth.” (sorry for misquote). Few listen to DAVID.
DAVID gets the run around in New Jersey (obstruction of justice stuff)
But the appeal points him in the direction of the big house of JUSTICE, SCOTUS.
By now the dogs are all over him, sniffing around, getting ready to pounce. Then the train ride. Then the document concealment. Then the homeless guy. Then the radio chatter. Then the thugs. Poor David, how could anyone not soil themself. The document delivered, there is no turning back now, GAME ON!
Dismissal for Berg. Dismissal for Taitz. Dismissal for DvW. Dismissal for Wrotnow.
The electoral vote, no da!
A big celebration bash held by the power elites. Some side conversations about the pesky flees testing their fortress defense.
Then the Chester Arthur discovery. Have we a copycat fraud in the House. The elites talk more seriously about the threat but still with confidence in their well chosen and groomed guards.
They initiate phase 2, what happens when a few intelligent Americans get balls. They create their own threat to stifle the real threat to the USURPER.
Discussions between the elites with the MSM big dogs.
Protect this President Usurper (PU) or we will bring down the whole house.
But DAVID sets up his own dominos, one by one, and at just the right moment starts the chain reaction. He had discovered that the President Usurper was only one domino in the chain. There was a pressure point, a chink in their armor, a particular person who had a particular legal weakness. (Or a bad guy turned good [not as likely])
As the Supreme Court makes its ruling that no “Natural Born Citizen” must ever have been or be born into any possibility for conflict of national allegiance through dual or multiple citizenships,
the public wolves start attacking the accomplices to the “biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people”.
The elites start tumbling down. There are not enough hand coughs to go around.
The announcement of the installment of the Presidency by the VP and the date set by the Supremes for the special election to formally set the the record straight; “The United States Of America shall be a Republic, with the rule of law from its Constitution”
A US Marine commander al decked out in battle gear announces to his troops, “The President has resigned after the Supreme Court ruled that he was not eligible to be The President. Folks, once again get to fight for the real America. Uuraah!”
Close out with DAVID gets to play golf once again.
As he cans a long snake, he does a beautiful fist pump and yells
“YES, WE DID”
———————————————
A long journey begins with the first step.
We need a movie to get more Americans on the subject.
You could make a call for writers to present storyboards or
whatever they call the concepts for their piece.
———————————————
Thank you!!!!
September 22, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Leo,
First of all I would like to thank you (and everyone else) for remaining vigilant on this matter. It could very easily have been swept aside as a lost cause if not for the dedication of a few true Patriots.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this issue to me is that this NEVER happens again. The American people should be 100% confident that the candidates on the national ballot meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office they are seeking. It is for this reason that I feel it is imperative to get a ruling from the Supreme Court which clearly defines what a “Natural Born Citizen” is.
I was wondering if it is possible to bring a dual citizen before a court of law and ask that they make a determination whether this person qualifies as a “Natural Born Citizen”. At the very least it would provide a legal precedent which could then be used with regard to Obama’s eligibility.
Furthermore, I feel it is the duty of Congress to pass legislation requiring that each candidate for the Office of POTUS to be vetted to ensure they meet the Constitutional requirements.
It just blows my mind that Obama has been allowed to post a jpeg on a leftist blog as proof of citizenship. I can assure you that would not pass the muster at your local DMV when your drivers license is up for renewal, yet it was sufficient for this fraud to access the nuke codes.
September 22, 2009 at 7:25 PM
SvenMagnussen said: “The senior Dunhams were appointed guardians of Barry Soetoro after he was identified as an orphaned or abandoned Indonesian refugee with grandparents who were US Citizens living in Hawai’i. The US State Department became engaged after the Dunhams requested assistance. Barry’s refugee status paperwork, travel documents and a US State Department escort were expedited.”
Is there proof of this assertion that Obama had “orphaned or abandoned Indonesian refugee” status? If so, this would mean that he had an Indonesian passport to claim such status. Though I hold to this theory of an Indonesian passport, I am also aware that there is NO PROOF of this at this time. The day after Obama won the election in Nov 2008, the Indonesian government stated that all records for Obama (Barry Soetoro) were sealed — though they had promised to open them AFTER the election previously. No one has undertaken an investigation of Indonesian consulate records in Hawaii (an appointed position) for possible passport renewals in 1985. If you have proof of refugee status with the State Department, this would be explosive information.
September 22, 2009 at 7:34 PM
NewEnglandPatriot Says:
September 21, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Once the case is filed, I wonder how long it will take for the Hawaii court to rule on it? It sounds like a cut-and-dried case, but of course because it has to do with the Usurper, they will make all kinds of ridiculous delays and rulings. No one there wants to be found guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice, or even treason, even though that’s what we seem to be looking at!
It’s about time for the T-word.
In all of these months I have read thousands of words and hoped for truth and justice.
I’m over 50 and have seen several words relegated to the hyphenated level. Of course they are all consonants, but if used with the improper vowels have huge consequences; such as the “F-word” and it goes on and on. I have just wondered why, with all of the associated acts by this usurper, we seldom see or hear the word “Treason” or in this case the “T-word”).
According to Wikipeda, (In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.)
How about that?
If found guilty of only one of these offences, such as usurping the Presidency of the United States of America, isn’t he and those who aided him guilty of “treasion” according to the constitution? Are we willing to be so conformed to “political correctness” that we dare utter the word?
Thanks to you New England Patriot, one Republic of Texas citizen smiled today! Many thanks and prayers for the quiet working patriots like “Leo D & TD” I’ve missed them both online (but they have been buzy) in what counts.
All dictated to us by the same people
September 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Leo,
If Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama Jr. were not in the US on August 4, 1961 that should be establishable via travel records. Has anyone ever attempted to determine which airlines flew between Honolulu and Kenya in July-August 1961? Most would have connected and gone through Europe, and there should have been very, very few flights.
If both Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama Jr. made a trip to Kenya together, she would have had to obtain a Visa to enter Kenya in addition to her US passport, would she not? If Barack Hussein Obama Jr., a subject of Kenya, left the US to go to Kenya and then returned to the US with his wife Stanley Ann Duhma, would he not have had to obtain a US Visa to re-enter the US?
The State Department rules on FOIA requests related to passports is at:
http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/
Records maintained by the US State Department include:
Applications from U.S. citizens for U.S. passports
Visa requests from non-citizens to enter the U.S.
Their specific current page on Passport requests indicates that they do not maintain travel records (such as entries in Passport books) and Visas for US citizens and is at:
http://travel.state.gov/passport/services/copies/copies_872.html
It appears that when someone is requesting records on a person who is deceased all that is necessary is a copy of a death certificate. Can the death certificate of Stanley Ann Dunham be obtained from the State of Hawaii in order to do a FOIA on her passport records? I’m not sure how much would be revealed there, but it would start to clarify just when she first received a passport and what records she provided when it was issued. The time frame on the key July-August 1961 might be able to be pinpointed quite accurately, however, with a FOIA request on the Visa issued to BHO Jr. for entry into the US around that time. Can a Death Certificate be obtained from Kenya on BHO Jr. to enable this FOIA request?
September 22, 2009 at 8:31 PM
I have read that one of the first things Obama did when he got in office was to presidentially order all his records closed. If by a special presidential order, this was done, what are the legal chances of seeing these records? And does a presidential order have weight over state statutes?
September 22, 2009 at 9:02 PM
How did Fukino feel allowed to make the statement that BO is a natural born citizen?
Because his team gave her a certification that said that it is so when he gave the State his nomination after the primaries. We’ve wondered why the form to Hawaii was different than the rest.
September 22, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Hi Leo,
Be careful and know we are praying for all involved..
This is an outrageous attempt by the powers involved
to hide the truth..amendment–what does that mean?
Our Constitution will finally rid us of this usurper ..
however our court system is more corrupt then I thought.
Frank Smithe
September 22, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Leo,
Sometimes there is a way to read words that sets off a completely relevant question when the initial read seems to point to irrelevance….
Here my previous quote condensed from the UIPA:
(5) Information relating to an individual’s nongovernmental employment history except as necessary to demonstrate compliance with requirements for a particular government position;
No state can pass a law that supersedes the US Constitution…RIGHT?
Since Article 2 Section 1 contains a requirement to know NBC (birth) status then anyone in that office of POTUS or even running for it, should not be able to use a State Law to subvert or avoid the mandates of the supreme Law of the land should they????
Is there any merit to this line of thought ??
After all it would appear the even Hawaii supports releasing information where government employment qualification is at issue …does it not?
THis is after all in its basic sense a National Security Issue….and I know that the government certainly investigated me and everyone I knew for the security clearances I eventually recieved ????/
September 22, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Leo,
With all of the scrutiny that is being focussed, currently, on Hawai’i, I would think that the people pulling the levers of power in that State are starting to have serious regrets about helping to install a Usurper in The White House. A lot of them will be hoping that this will all go away – and the sooner the better.
September 22, 2009 at 9:21 PM
P.S. World Net Daily finally picked up the story…
who’s next DRUDGE…if we all let them know maybe…..
September 22, 2009 at 9:41 PM
I admire your dedication. Persistence and hard work will lead to the truth about this alleged impostor–if we are still a nation of laws.
This is only the beginning of an epic legal battle that will set precedents, and rock our world. Bob Woodward et al have nothing on you. What do they know about finding the real story?
September 22, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Leo,
Are you thinking about following the “Hospital Letter” issue? How easy it would be for a hospital-record-clerk to make a copy of the record and indirectly through a third person or attorney claim the $50,000 reward. It is not happening.
Maybe your readers know if anyone asked the White House to confirm or deny its authenticity. This could be done during a press conference by Gibbs. If he denies to authenticate it, that could be interpreted that the letter is fake (not written or signed by the prez). Could a lawsuit be filed against the hospital for false advertising or on similar grounds?
The hospital would be forced to produce the original letter and the birth record and bingo – the $50,000 will be paid to the plaintiff.
At any rate, $50,000 or not, some very useful information would come out of it, that maybe useful for other legal paths. Tell me what is wrong with this scenario, as no one seems to be interested in doing it?
September 22, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Getting factual information on Obama is taking longer than WW-II. I hope America wins.
September 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Leo,
I am fairly new to the blog. I went into the archives and read the quo warranto articles. I came across the article:
‘US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns’
In it Leo says:
“My suggestion to anybody who does care is to send your quo warranto letters to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.”
Do you still feel the same?
[Ed. Not really.]
September 22, 2009 at 10:47 PM
If you want to talk about breadcrumbs, Fukino’s statement seemed to be an intentional breadcrumb to indicate that Obama’s birth records were not the records that substantiate his claim of native birth. Whether it was her desire or the AG’s, the statement was worded to make a distinction between the vital records and the original birth certificate. IOW, she was towing the line for Obama by saying vital records confirm he was natural born, but sabotaging that claiming by saying she also stuck by her earlier statement about the original birth certificate. If the birth certificate was the vital record that verified him as NBC subject, there would have been no need to reference vital records (plural). Similarly, she could have the birth certificate AND other vital records prove his claim. Instead, it’s clear that these vital records are not original birth records. The question is how reliable these records are. Seems like a bold thing to do, but I would imagine the state of Hawaii assumed Obama might come clean by now??
[Ed. The two conflicting statements are at the genesis of TerriK's investigation. She nailed that right away and acted right away as she had already been investigating.]
September 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Another key question is that if Barack Hussein Obama II had been born outside the US, wouldn’t his parents have had to have a passport issued for him to get him back into the US?
What about Customs records for persons entering the US? Are these available using FOIA requests?
September 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Has anyone seen the Hawaii DNC presidential certifications for 2000 and 2004?
[Ed. still waiting.]
September 23, 2009 at 12:13 AM
I think your looking at the whole “being british at birth” not included in the Judge Carter case the wrong way.
[Ed. I'm not going about it in the wrong she, the pleadings in that case are going about it in the wrong way.]
If Orly makes it to court(highly doubtful for the DOJ will appeal to a really friendly court) and loses(or even wins the first round and loses in SCOTUS) the precedent set no matter how insane and pro-obama by SCOTUS or another court can write it won’t stop another case from coming up about his british citizenship.
I think its good to have a backup option open that should in the future docs get leaked and that not all the eggs are in 1 basket. Plus the fact even if Orly loses due to a poor case the info and docs that will be on public record will setup the british citizenship case and push that one through as well as getting public opinion to shift into demanding a trial and more info.
We need info and we need public support… if we can get either of those 2 things we can move to get the other and then no matter how many legal games obama plays he will be buried under the facts and public outcry.
[Ed. I've already stated that her case did some good by drawing the DOJ out on important issues. I've said that on this blog.]
September 23, 2009 at 1:00 AM
[...] prepare the statements made by Fukino, as HI laws allow; and that her request was denied. Donofrio explains the course of events: TerriK was originally interested in whether or not he made a request to amend [...]
September 23, 2009 at 1:01 AM
[...] Pending Litigation: island Confirms That Obama's Vital Records … [...]
September 23, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Just had to share this with everyone Leo!
September 23, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Leo,
There’s two documents you want to get your hands on:
1) Hawaii Att. Gen. Op. 84-14 – which provides for the alteration of only birth certificates (see referenced here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0015.htm ; this AG opinion is NOT where it should be: http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/opinions/ )
2) Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 117 (Title 11) of the Vital Statistics, Registration & Records Office – it will tell you the department policies as to how the older birth records are archived. It’s been under review for more than a year. If Chapter 117 is STILL under review, ask for the old Public Health Regulations Ch 8, 8A, and 8B of the Administrative Rules for the Vital Statistics, Registration & Records Office.
Good luck!!!
[Ed. This is why I'm taking time out of the day form writing the forthcoming report to read these comments. Thank you for these links. I didn't have know about that opinion letter. I suppose we'll have to ask them for it. The letters on the site don't go back to 1984.]
September 23, 2009 at 2:58 AM
The records of discussions regarding the disposition or recommended actions of this FOI request between Hawian officials could be very telling also.
Are the retention and production of these correspondence including emails, phone transcript etc. required also? Will you be able to subpoena those?
Are you(or other attorney) allowed to take depositions from an AG in a case of this nature?
[Ed. stay tuned...]
September 23, 2009 at 3:26 AM
[...] Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, is reporting on his website that Hawaiian state law requires “information collected and maintained for the purpose… [...]
September 23, 2009 at 4:32 AM
When Obama takes the title of “chairman of the UN security Council”, then he will have committed an impeachable offense! Then he can be impeached. Although his own party would never impeach their own President.
September 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM
Thanks Paul, I would not have been aware of this.
I have several “unanswered” requests for information regarding
DoH addressed to Gov. Lingle.
I have always wondered if Dunham met the “one” year requirement in
Hawaii statute 338-17.8
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
Then searched: L 1982, c 182, §1
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/hrs/searchhrs.asp?query=L+1982%2C+c+182%2C+%A71&currpage=1
Led me to: scroll previous or next
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol09_Ch0431-0435E/HRS0435E/HRS_0435E-0043.htm
Chapter 91:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/hrs/searchhrs.asp?query=Chapter+91&currpage=1
under:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol09_Ch0431-0435E/HRS0435E/HRS_0435E-.htm
Sealed Birth Records 578-15, 14,14.5,23
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/hrs/searchhrs.asp?query=sealed+birth+records&currpage=1
Somebody had to render Support:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0584/HRS_0584-0022.htm
Did Madelyn intervene?
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0584/HRS_0584-0021.htm
Why not have Hon.. Manning say he may be the father…lol
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0584/HRS_0584-0020.htm
Manning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ydGyBrmCY&feature=channel_page
HRS-587 GUIDE
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0587/HRS_0587-.htm
Use this to search Hawaii Statute’s: (revised statute’s)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/hrs/searchhrs.asp?query=HRS+578-15&currpage=1
HRS 575 Desertion
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0575/HRS_0575-.htm
CHAPTER 574 NAMES
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0574/HRS_0574-.htm
CHAPTER 587
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/hrs/searchhrs.asp?query=HRS+587&currpage=1
Chapter 587 Child Protective Act
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0587/HRS_0587-.htm
Plus, when “birth certificate’s” are SEALED, it usually mean’s an adoption
took place. 338-20 , 20.5 and other’s have “sealed” in them.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
I believe there is a statute whereas the DoH would notify a
local Newspaper of an “Announcement” of birth (even if the child was
adopted, they provided a “New” birth certificate. I will have to
go over “all” the statutes again to try and find it. I know that
“announcement’s” are sometimes made when searching for the
alleged father when a “court” was involved. Dan Smith, NY
September 23, 2009 at 6:08 AM
Leo,
feel free not to post this, or parts of it.
I have a couple of questions. I noted that everyone is saying that since Obama made his COLB public that he gave up his right to privacy. Let’s just say, that the internet COLB doesn’t match a released document from Hawaii. Then, Obama has never given up his right to privacy, and thus you are not entitled to look at the information. Sure, this would be a legal admission that the internet COLB is a fake/fraud, but it will block release.
Finally, the statement made by was based upon a Hawaii state legislature vote. They will claim it wasn’t based on original information:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2304220/posts
Leo, when you step back and consider the scope of what is going on, it is life and death. Seriously, not careers, but life and death, that the information not becomes public for so many. We are not talking about embarrassment; we are talking many of these individuals committed high treason. We are talking powerful and wealthy people and politicians who were in on it. Be Careful.
[ed. I am not aware of a Hawaii resolution which states obama is nbc. There is a US Congress res saying he was born in Hawaii. There is a statement by Fukino Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is nbc, but I do not see any Hawaii resolution.
Furthermore, I have e mails in my possession form Akubo that the Fukiono nbc statement was advised and approved by Hawaii AG Mark Bennett.]
September 23, 2009 at 6:10 AM
[...] Too ] [ US Stocks Extend Global Rally - Dollar Slips ] [ HSBC Bids Farewell To Dollar Supremacy ] [ Hawaii Admits Obama's Vital Records Amended ] [ Sell Out Your Fellow Citizens For Fun & Profit! ] [ Makow - Illuminati Sabotages Patriot [...]
September 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM
From Fight the smears
“Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America. ”
Heck even BHO doesn’t claim to be a Natural Born Citizen. So how could the State of Hawaii come to that conclusion.
September 23, 2009 at 7:21 AM
When you succeed in getting the Hawaii AG to tell you how he came to the conclusion that Obama was a nbc, i’m thinking that he will say the birth certificate says he was born in hawaii and then go into the reasons why he believes that qualifies Obama for nbc status.
At that point you make your arguments about dual citizenship that you have made on this blog.
My question relates to the birth certificate part. If the bc was amended to make Hawaii obama’s place of birth, how would we find that out? The AG can truthfully say that he is relying on the bc, which has been amended, and we’ll seemingly still be left in the dark about what the bc said before it was amended.
Maybe you can’t give away all your strategy on this blog, but this question has me wondering how we’ll get to the bottom of the bc question.
September 23, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Great work……keep the details coming
Finally it looks like a crack in the obot defense shield
September 23, 2009 at 9:29 AM
God Bless Leo and Terri and Orly… anyone who is working on this in whatever way possible.
One thing I wish I could reason but perhaps have is the question why McCain, Clinton, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, etc… why they haven’t brought suit? Are they afraid of backlash or branding? Or, is it that everyone is in on all the corruption and it just doesn’t matter?
We know BO is a muslim in heart who hates the Capitalists and Free Republic. Argue this all you want but it is clear; watch Glenn Beck (whether you do or not you know this).
September 23, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Again I want to caution you and TerriK to be very careful; my prayers are with you and TerriK, Leo. Just cannot say enough how much you are appreciated; I believe God raised you up much like Moses was raised up in Egypt for just such a time as this. God be with you both.
Source: http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=3484
Near the end of this article she says:
Quote:
“As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.”
September 23, 2009 at 10:27 AM
I’m expecting to hear that Obama’s bc was amended based on the grandmother’s deathbed confession that the identity of his father is unknown thus making him a nbc born in Hawaii.
“I was just too embarrassed” could be the justification used for nondisclosure.
Following this blog is a wonderful lesson in the rule of law and specifically constitutional law, and, I imagine, the procedure will be studied in conservative law schools in the future — if the Republic survives.
September 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Mick the Dualer: I read a story at WND stating that when asked, Gibbs would not authenticate that letter to the hospital. You can probably find the stories at WND by searching their archives. The issue also involves a problem for the hospital, because they used the letter to raise funds, which might be illegal if the letter is inaccurate. I believe the hospital removed the letter from their website.
Voco Indubium: About the address on the birth announcements: Property records indicate that the home was owned by a Mr. and Mrs. Lefforge. WND had a story stating that Stanley and Madelyn Dunham rented the home (I don’t know if they have proof of that) but they did have images from city directories that confirmed that they and their daughter lived at that address in 1961. However, Barack H. Obama (Sr.) lived at another address and apparently also had a room in student housing.
September 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM
The National Archives have the ‘Certificates of Ascertainment” and the “Certificates of Vote”. As I recall the 2008 were online and we did download both documents for all the states from this webstie.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/certificates.html
One would believe that if the N.A. were asked in an email..as we did…one could have a PDF of the certificates emailed to their email address.
* Certificates of Ascertainment confirm the names of the appointed electors.
Learn more | View the 2008 Presidential Election Certificates
* Certificates of Vote contain the elector’s votes for president and vice president.
Learn more | View the 2008 Presidential Election Certificates
September 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
itooktheredpill Says:
September 21, 2009 at 9:14 pm
5) If Obama were born in Kenya, but later adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Honolulu, Hawaii, then the State of Hawaii would have issued a new birth certificate for Barry Soetoro, with the birthplace listed as Honolulu.
Can you provide a cite for this?
September 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
2004 Hawaii Electoral College Certificate of Ascertainment…
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
It has the statement saying Constitutional Qualified. I suppose one can view the Certificates of VOTE at this website.
The SOS are mandated to provide these certificates PRIOR to the electoral vote counting so that there won’t be any nefarious activities to change the votes.
2004 page for Electoral College Certificates of Ascertainment…
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/certificates_of_ascertainment.html
September 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM
2008 HAWAII Certificate of Ascertainment in the National Archives.
saying Constitutionally Qualified candidates.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008-certificates/ascertainment-hawaii-01.html
September 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Is article from WND talking about hospital letter and Gibbs…
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104718
September 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Hi Leo!
Sounds like good info is flowing in from everywhere. Wonderful! May you stay in good health and have millions helping you.
Regarding that COLB we all have seen: As soon as I saw it, I assumed Mr. O. had been adopted. Just a simple adoption – that he was born to two unknown individuals, and then adopted by this couple – Dunham and Obama. Now in most U. S. States even today, including Hawaii, no one would be allowed to see the original b.c. because “adoption info.” is private. I was afraid that somehow our adoption laws could trump the Constitutional Natural-Born Citizen requirement.
Of course, many things have happened since that COLB was released – the realization that POTUS has hidden ALL his public info., a few posts claiming even plane passenger info., kindergarten info., etc is GONE, the fact that noone ever saw Ms Dunham pregnant, the fact that she was in WA State maybe three weeks after Mr. O’s birth, etc. and of course all the dollars spent to keep his papers hidden are alarming.
My hopes are two-fold:
1. That the USA can reclaim its Republic’s sovereignty. (Surely Biden, Pelosi, the Clintons, etc were/are aware of this ID problem and cannot legally replace this de facto POTUS) We’ll have to go way down the succession line to find at least an honest American personfor the job, until we can afford (emotionally and even monetarily) another election.)
2. That the average American now understands the importance of the true ID, and that our Legislators can soon rule that every adult adoptee in every state can easily discover who his parents are. I hope to God, that all the money and all the work and all the worry e are incurring because of not knowing WHO OUR POTUS IS,
September 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM
To the real Publius:
I have always assumed that you are the same person that blogged at The Federalistblog. I saw your well reasoned positions there and have seen your other posts here. I can only conclude that you are an attorney.
As expressed below, this issue does need attention!
Publius Says:
September 22, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Not to bother the other readers with ‘inside-federalist-papers’ squabbles, but:
12:45 PM Publius (not me): While neither of us can claim — at least not with a straight face — to be reincarnated versions of Madison, Hamilton, or Jay, might I trouble you for unchallenged continued use of our common handle within the confines of this blog? I believe that mine was the first use of ‘Publius’, and unless I am mistaken, all of the recent uses have also been mine.
September 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM
[...] Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms that Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended [...]
September 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM
After reading all the comments about the possibility of a bc due to adoption, it should be pointed out that his Hawaiian COLB indicates that his birth was filed with the state registrar only four days after his birth.
A filing with the registrar, only four days after the birth, would indicate that this record does not exist as the result of an adoption. Further, if Obama was born in Kenya, it was NOT filed by his mother. This would indicate that either (1) Obama was born in Hawaii, or (2) that someone other than his mother affirmed his birth.
[Ed. Based upon the info he released and the 07-07 opinion letter, I don;t see where he has any privacy interest in that COLB so I expect it will be the subject of UIPA requests and I believe eventually they are going to have to release it and then we shall see what's up with that record.]
September 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
It’s very odd that Obama’s own Health Scare legislation will open up individual private medical records to IRS officials and Medi-Crats ON DEMAND. But the sanctity of his own common birth certificate (which we’ve all been assured is absolutely innocuous) is totally off limits!
Seems like a real dichotomy to me and Obama’s sliding scale of concern over privacy rights is very convenient when using any trick available to keep people from seeing what he can’t afford to let them see.
September 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
“2008 HAWAII Certificate of Ascertainment in the National Archives.
saying Constitutionally Qualified candidates.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008-certificates/ascertainment-hawaii-01.html”
Lingle has some stink on her as well. She signed off on this Fraud.
September 23, 2009 at 12:49 PM
To JIm in St. Lou who said: ”
One thing I wish I could reason but perhaps have is the question why McCain, Clinton, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, etc… why they haven’t brought suit? Are they afraid of backlash or branding? Or, is it that everyone is in on all the corruption and it just doesn’t matter?”
You can get alot of answers to that….. from the trite and somewhat true, “there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the parties”, to the McCain/Obama gentleman’s agreement (SRes 511) pre-election to “play nice” on this one.
You can also take the cynics route and say that ALL politicians consider it their birthright to lie and get away with it. By attacking Obama’s ability to lie and coverup, you are attacking each and every member of Congress. Actually, not to be cynical, there is alot of truth in that one!!!!!
But the real reason is simple. Politicians like to win, and they like to be on a winning side. The patriot side has been unable to pick up any key or even marginal players (any republican at all in fact) to take this on directly because the “book” is a million to one against anything coming of this. It’s been great seeing good historical research being done and collaborated upon via the internet, but when push comes to shove, any success that seriously rises to a viable threat to the status quo will be derailed, obfuscated, secreted or erased away.
The “evidence needed” is not there (it has been taken care of). The pros from Dover (i.e.Congress) know this. And even if you succeeded somehow but not relying on direct evidence, you really aren’t talking about turning out just Obama anymore. For if you did manage to do that, you would also be turning out EVERYONE who was silent and have basically supported him in almost every way (i.e. the Republicans in Congress). That’s alot of people, actually the entire political elite and sturcture from DC down through the state party organizations.
Orly’s success, even if limited, will be appealed and further appealed, lots can happen to make a case no one in power really wants to die a strangled death.
Leo, as bright and pitbullish as he can be at times, can not plead for the original documents, but only the requests for, and comments about, original documents.
Its all important, for the record so to speak, but in asking your question you really have answered it.
The Big Boo
[Ed. No. I honestly believe the original documents will have to be brought forward by Hawaii, at least in redacted form. There's more to come.]
September 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
@Kevin J
[...If someone can help me figure out how to go about making such a request I would be glad to do it...]
I can take a look at this with you if you’d like. It’s going to be like pulling teeth, though. I have a feeling HI isn’t going to be letting go of any information unless and until they absolutely have to from here on forward.
September 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM
In regard to the issue of whether Obama “waived” his privacy rights by allowing the posting of abstract document images, I wonder about the process of requesting a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” as spelled out in the Hawaii statutes. After all, we aren’t interested in getting a certified copy of Obama’s record so much as we are interested in learning the information contained on the vital records that the State of Hawaii has in storage. We aren’t trying to commit identity fraud against Obama by getting a certified copy of his BC, we are trying to prevent him and others from committing fraud against us by verifying claims based upon the unseen documents.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
Because Obama or some other duly-authorized party has made a public claim that documents exist by posting the Factcheck image, Section G of this statute basically says that the Department shall issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy to any 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.
The state doesn’t have to issue an actual certified copy of the vital record to just anyone, but they are obliged to verify (or disconfirm the veracity of) ANY claim made based upon the documents. They aren’t allowed to disclose information, but they must confirm or disconfirm the veracity of claims that are based on their documents.
Otherwise, anyone could claim to have a Hawaiian birth certificate that said anything. Anyone could forge a document or an abstract of such a document. The state wouldn’t be allowed to answer questions about whether the documents were genuine or the information was accurate.
To illustrate that this interpretation of the law must be the case, a hypothetical person could present a fake Hawaiian birth certificate to a prospective employer. If the employer doubted that the certificate was real, or doubted that some of the information was truthful, he could send a letter asking for verification of the information presented to him in lieu of a certified copy. An employer would not be entitled to receive an actual certified copy, but would clearly be able to ask whether the information presented by the applicant matched the information held by the State.
There are no real requirements in that law which state how many times a person can ask the basic yes or no question. There are also no requirements in the law that state who must make the claim to be verified in the first place. It doesn’t have to be the person named on the certificate. In other words, you could send requests for verification in lieu of certified copies for each of several plausible scenarios, which have been claimed by various people.
“Please verify that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center as is claimed” Yes/No
“Please verify that Obama was born at Queens Medical Center as is claimed” Yes/No
“Please verify that Obama was born at Home as is claimed” Yes/No
A few Yes/No questions of this type could do a lot to redirect research into more productive areas.
The State SHALL answer these questions with a yes or no answer according to the law, regardless of who made the claim. They are not allowed to “disclose” information to non-authorized parties, but they are compelled by law to answer “yes or no” questions about claims truthfully.
Presumably, they could only verify the “current” information on the documents and not any information that has a line through it or is otherwise legally sealed. However, the law doesn’t really say that you can’t ask for verification of even sealed or stricken information. I suppose if someone claimed that they changed their legal name from X to Y, you could verify both the X and the Y on a vital record. If someone claimed that they have always been named X and only X, you could ask for verification that there is no earlier name with a line through it, without knowing a specific Y to ask a yes or no question about.
Any college student writing a research paper would meet the legal requirements in subsection (g)(5) as an individual endorsed or sponsored by an educational agency who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to a record in preparation of a report or publication for research or educational purposes. At the very least, a college student could ask for an official interpretation of what the “verification in lieu of certification” process can and can’t be used to verify.
Maybe that Hannah Giles lady should take this on for her civics class.
September 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM
It’s great that so many fruitful lines of inquiry are suggested here. One of those I especially like is that of AmericanPatriot 9-22 at 8:02, who suggests checking flights between Honolulu and Kenya in July-August 1961, which would have been few and far between. I don’t suppose there is any possibility of getting passenger lists of that time, but who knows, maybe those lists are archived on old microfilm somewhere.
AmPat also suggests finding out what passport Ann Dunham/Obama used to travel to Kenya. First someone needs to get Ann’s death certificate. And there is so much else to discover. Of course, there would be no need for all this if Obama would just establish as a fact that he is a natural born citizen, but that would require an honest man, which the Great Deceiver is not.
September 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Please spread this info
Verify Obama birth records in Britain
Since Kenya was a British colony and is a member of the common wealth of nations there should be a record of births for the Hospitals in Kenya.
In 1902 Kenya became a dependency under the British Colonial Office. After several name changes the Colonial Office is now called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The British maintained records of their colonies and there should be a microfilm record of Obama’s birth if he was in fact born in Kenya.
There should also be a passport record of Obama’s mother’s visit.
The address for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is…
King Charles St
London, SW1A 2AH, United Kingdom
+44 20 72701500
Now the records department for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are kept in a separate location at Kings College London.
Information about records can found at this web site.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iss/library/spec/collections/indiv/fco.html
Now don’t let them tell you those records are not available to the public. Records are closed to the public for 30 years after the date in question. Since Obama was born in 1961 there should not be a problem.
What you need to look for are the Provincial and District Record Books for the area and date that Obama was believed to be born. Remember they will probably be in mico-film.
September 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Leo,
It has been a long time since I posted, but I have read just about every thing from before the election , and I have just one thing to say ,
You are one class act! I am not easily impressed by men, but I am impressed by you! Keep up the good work, and may God bless you and your mission of truth. Mike Tieman , Las Vegas
September 23, 2009 at 2:09 PM
[...] to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, is reporting on his website that Hawaiian state law requires "information collected and maintained for the purpose … While Fulino's statements have been picked to pieces and, in fact, leave out a number of key [...]
September 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM
American Patriot at 8:02
Someone did file a FOIA request for Ann Dunham/Obama’s travel records. They went through a major hassle trying to get anybody to respond and eventually were told that her records were controlled by Homeland Security. And Homeland Security said they only had records from the early 1980’s, if I remember correctly – and even those records were redacted.
Unfortunately, when the Precedent is not legal to be president, anything that reveals his bribe-ability becomes a matter of national security. I’m afraid there are a lot of records that would be considered fodder for terrorists or enemy states if they were made known. Of course, an enemy combatant is most dangerous when he’s IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
I do wonder whether Obama’s capitulation to Russia on both the missile shield and Iran has anything to do with the fact that Russia has his passport information from when they detained him as a senator because something was wrong with his passport. That record may be one of the few documents that Obama WASN’T able to bribe somebody to forge or alter- if only because Russia doesn’t want to give up their trump card to anybody.
September 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM
RE: Braveheart Says:
September 21, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Leo, can you use the legal theory of waiver at all? As in, Obama has made available a digital image of his alleged COLB, as a result, he was waived his right to privacy on the certificate of live birth. Exactly what privacy interest of Obama’s is being protected by not releasing Obama’s certificate of live birth (the long form) if Obama has already made his certification of live birth (the short form) public?
Good luck to you and MissTickly!
[Ed. You've nailed an important argument.]
—————
Looks to me like putting out a false BC might end up being the catalyst that hoists obama upon his own petard! “Be sure your sin will find you out…let every man be a liar, but God will be true”…and the non-scriptural admonition, “be careful what you do because your chickens will come home to roost.” Cockadoodle hot damn!
[Ed. I believe so as Hawaii has stated it for me in OIP Opinion Letter 07-07, see today's report.]
September 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Leo, per RR’s post @ 1:40 today & your response:
“…. I didn’t have know about that opinion letter. I suppose we’ll have to ask them for it. The letters on the site don’t go back to 1984.]
maybe this will help? it cites pre-1987 opinion
http://64.29.92.27/Old/htdocs/hsba/Legal_Research/Hawaii/Ag/op87-6.htm
The Honorable John C. Lewin, M.D.
Director of Health
State of Hawaii
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Dr. Lewin:
Re: Surname of Legitimated Child
By memorandum dated March 17, 1987, you requested
clarification of the law on surnames of children legitimated by
court determinations of paternity. Your questions, as modified
by your memorandum of June 19, 1987, are set forth below followed
by brief summaries of our responses:
1. For paternity orders issued after May 27, 1980, that
are silent on the surname of the legitimated child,
what surname should the Department of Health insert on
the child’s new birth certificate?
We answer that in cases where a paternity order issued by
the family court after May 27, 1980 is silent on the surname of
the legitimated child, the Department of Health should issue,
upon request, a new certificate of birth that shows the surname
of the child to be the surname that was listed for it on the
original birth certificate, unless the parents agree that the
surname should be changed.
2. Would there be any difference for those children
legitimated prior to May 28, 1980?
We are of the opinion that for children legitimated pursuant
to paternity judgments issued prior to May 28, 1980, which did
not specify a last name for the child, the Department of Health
should prepare a new birth certificate for the child using the
mother’s last name as the surname for the child, unless the
parent who requests the preparation of a new birthcertificate asks for a different surname, pursuant to section
338-17.7(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, as enacted by Act 39, 1973
Haw. Sess. Laws 50, and in force up to May 27, 1980.
…there’s more (long article)
September 23, 2009 at 2:28 PM
really i don’t know
September 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
I have seen an example of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB/short form) belonging to another individual on Phil Berg’s forum that clearly states the record has been amended for a name change. The verbiage even states the change is by order of the Lt. Governor. Obama’s short form should state that it has been amended. I sincerely doubt that Obama’s COLB is genuine. The question is: To what end the forgery?
Kevin J (above) brings up statistics. Please remember that the compilation of stats available from the Hawaiian Dept. of Health does not contain full information. An annual report for 1961 should have been published, hopefully with more detail. Perhaps some library in Hawaii has a copy? I don’t think you will get straight answers from the Dept. of Health.
September 23, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Dave at 2:58am
I e-mailed the Hawaii AG after Worldnetdaily linked to an article describing the ways that a person can get a HI birth cerrtificate. The author of that article ntoed that HI changed their rules on issuing certified copies of the long-form BC within the week of June 7th – that is, within a week of the judge in Kerchner v Obama extending the time for the defendants to get good legal representation because this is such a serious issue. I asked the HI AG why HI changed their rules and nomenclature (what was previously called the CertificaTION of Live Birth is now called CertifiCATE of Live Birth”) and asked him to subpoena all communications to and from the departments involved so that the influences and procedures could be made publicly known.
He never replied to me, even though his office had replied to me within a day when I e-mailed their office generically asking how I could get his individual e-mail address since the website was being “reorganized”.
Someone here told their story about wanting denial in writing of their opportunity to see and receive a certified copy of the original long-form birth certificate of their child, so they could sue. Excellent idea. He cited the law requiring the availability of that document. I’d like to know what law was passed to nullify that law, that they could all of a sudden say they don’t issue those any more. Governmental departments can’t just disobey state law. The public needs to be given the rationale behind those policy changes which break state law – as well as all the communications that led to that breaking of state law.
September 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Leo:
You stated the following:
September 22, 2009 at 7:42 am
“The DOJ has already agreed that the POTUS eligibility can be reviewed and revoked in their recent court filings in one of Orly’s cases where the DOJ represents President Obama.
You need to read the DOJ motion to dismiss in the Barnett case, specifically page 16:”
“The authorizing statute for the District ofColumbia sets forth a number of requirements, including a requirement that any quo warranto action be heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code Sections 16-3501 through 16-3503. Indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement in their pleading, but seek to have this Court ignore it because of their apparent dissatisfaction with the precedents in the District of Columbia. See FAC at 35-36.”
Yet in the same DOJ motion just before the quote you provide on page 16, DOJ seems to claim that a quo warranto action cannot be brought against a president because it is a “nonjusticiable political issue”! DOJ referes back to their Page 11 discussion that the Constitution explicitly provides for eligibility to be established by the legislative branch and thus separation of powers precludes the judiciary from taking up what DOJ claims is a political issue.
[Ed. The legislative Branch drafted the Quo warranto statute. It comes from them and is an example of them exercising their power in this area. The statute makes no exceptions and applies to every US National office and Officer. I've been through this all before, just read the comments to the QW legal brief. This is done and dusted and the DOJ put up no argument to the QW statute having control of this issue in their MTD, they cited it.]
Do I remember correctly that you have argued that quo warranto is not an action controlled by the judicial branch of the government but rather in the implementation of quo warranto, congress has only statutorially delegated authority to conduct quo warranto to the judiciary? Is the weakness of the separation of powers claim by DOJ the reason why you are taking the DOJ admission that the DC District Court is the correct venue for quo warranto as an admission that the president is subject to it? I missing something?
Here are the passages in the Motion to Dismiss:
Page 11.
“This Case Presents Non-Justiciable Political Questions
It is well settled that when the United States Constitution
makes a “textually demonstrable commitment” of an issue to another branch of the government, other than the judiciary, that issue presents a non-justiciable political question.”
Page 16.
“The question of whether a quo warranto writ should issue in this case clearly involves nonjusticiable political questions, as discussed above.”
September 23, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Dear Editor,
This effort is all very commendable and we’re praying the TRUTH will out; but PLEASE *proofread* and correct your mistakes before you submit any “legal” documents anywhere.
The Ed. comments on this site seem to have a lot of errors, no doubt due to the late hour and fatigue. Having written material full of errors is not conducive to winning legal battles, however. Please consider this a *constructive* criticism or tip, and not meant to belittle or injure anyone’s feelings.
Thanks for all your efforts and for considering this comment in the spirit in which it is offered.
September 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Somebody wrote, “As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities.”
Doesn’t his E.Order about hiding documents cover ONLY STATE DOCUMENTS and not his biographical data??
[Ed. Correct.]
How can materials that are pertinent to his life BEFORE he came into office be considered “state documents” that can be sealed and hidden? Somebody needs to CHALLENGE this! Besides, it is nearly impossible (now more than ever with electronic documents) to “conceal” everything about a person’s life and history. This whole concept of hiding his whole life documents is absurd and should be legally challenged. WHY hasn’t this been done?
(Or has it?)
September 23, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Leo,
Please explain why Hawaii’s privacy laws trump the Constitutional mandate for the Office of POTUS when even the Hawaii UIPA will place private interests second to “state” government job requirements requiring disclosure of vital records????
Thanks
September 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I think you’re all crazy… BUT… the fact that Fukino, in making a public statement that Obama is a nbc, THUS made the supporting documents for that public statement to be public (by law)… WOW, that’s so perversely ironic.
Even as an Obama supporter and having no reason to doubt Dr. Fukino, I still have to laugh. It’s just the perfect “gotcha!” and ranks among the most perfect examples of “Unintended Results.”
September 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I said:
Carlyle said:
Sure…
September 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Even if one cannot obtain a copy of the amending document it would be interesting to know when the amendment was made.
Did it concern Barry Sortero’s adoption, two name changes, or some adjustment made since he became a candidate for U.S. President and hired lawyers to ensure his birth certificate would remain hidden from the American people?
September 23, 2009 at 3:59 PM
i wonder if obama did fix/ammend his bc in regards to paternity (to assure nbc) if he would be subject to dna testing if the situation called for it?
September 23, 2009 at 4:05 PM
WND, will not bother to even put a link back to Leo’s blog.
They only chase the dollar.
Tex-
September 23, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Fan & self-professed Socialist / Communist / small-d democrat / E=mc²
“…evil does not exist unto itself”
Reading it all and waiting for more. Way to go team TerriK / Leo.
“…darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light”
September 23, 2009 at 5:16 PM
The first order the usurper signed? An order making all of his papers PRIVATE and UNTOUCHABLE.
September 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM
I also made a UIPA request to Hawaii that was denied, it is a little off this track, but might be worth looking at. If you are interested I can email the documents to you.
[ed. post it in comments here.]
September 23, 2009 at 5:54 PM
As I’ve stated before, “like a bloodhound on the trail of Cool Hand Luke” Keep shakin the system Leo, something disgusting and unethical is bound to drop out. Also, could the fact that his excellency O’Bama and his State Dept. elite jumped to the defense of the expelled President of Honduras so fast was because they didn’t want any of us here in the good ol’ USA going into a court (Quo Warranto) at the behest of some courageous legislator or govt. employee and having the same situation in the US. The military did the right thing in Honduras (followed the rule of law and upheld their constitution) What will ours do? I understand that this is this very concern that is at the foundation of your patriotic zeal. Our brave men and women in the military need to know that upholding their oath to the constitution is based on a non fraudulent Commander in Chief. There can be no question as regards this issue. Our Judicial and Legislative branches must, for the good of the Republic demand an unbiased and legitimate answer to these questions.
September 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM
John Jay Says:
September 22, 2009 at 2:17 am
The Soetoro divorce case did not terminate until 11/26/1988. Check the dates and you will discover that this was on Saturday of the Thanksgiving weekend. courts aren’t open on Sat. As there are no court fees I have to assume someone visited the judge at home and he signed and dated something that terminated the case. Someone needed that divorce finalized ASAP. Also, according to his sister Maya, “on Thanksgiving in 1988,”Obama told them “no more Barry.” If I were a betting person, I would wager that any request for amending his bc would be in 1988.
Case Title: STANLEY ANN SOETORO VS LOLO SOETORO
Initiation Date: 08-20-1980 Initiation Type: P Confidential Code: N
Initiator I.D.: A1530 Division: Court: F
Cause of Action: DIVORCE Nature of Action: 01018
Section Code:
Trial Type: Trial Judge: Court Costs: 0000000000
Consolidation Code:
Case Disposition: Case Termination: Case Termination Date: 11-26-1988
Orig. Agency: Lower Court Case:
Taxation Dist.: Tax Appeal Source:
Gen. Ex. Tax Amt.: 0000000000 Gen. Ex. Tax No.: Tax Key:
Property Location:
Comments:
Non-Criminal
[Ed. Nice find...]
In his book, Obama/Soetoro wrote his b/c was tucked in among articles and vaccination records. The b/c was allegedly attached to the divorce decree (order). Maybe he got this b/c he refers to in his book in 1988 and then used it to amended his b/c thereafter (change his name from Barry to Barack, or change Soetoro back to Obama, or both).
September 23, 2009 at 6:29 PM
I think he wants be impeached. seriously! He knows that his poularity in other countries is great so they would make him king after he destroys america. He could rally nations around him thats why this issue is so long in cracking open its truly pandoras box.
September 23, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Re: Ken Allen’s FOIA request to the USCIS for immigration/citizenship info on Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro–
Excerpts taken from the letter to Ken Allen from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reads in part”…This responds to your March 31, 2009, notarized Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) Appeal of the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (USCIS) March 18,2009, response to your February 9 and March 1,2009, FOIA requests for “information relating to Barack Obama a.k.a. Barry Soetoro.”
The basis for your FOIA appeal appears to be that part of the response wherein the USCIS requested the “[s]ignature of the subject of the request, signed under penalty of perjury or notarized as
permitted by 28 U.S.C. 1746.” …to the extent that the USCIS has a record pertaining primarily to President Barack Obama, it would be incorporated into a Privacy Act protected system of records referred to as the Alien File/Central Index System (A-file/CIS), DHS-USCIS-001: A-file/CIS System of Records, 72 Fed. Reg. 1755 (Tuesday January 16, 2007).’ For a requester to gain access to an alien file maintained in this system of records pertaining to someone other than the requester, that
unrelated third party requester would have to produce a “consent to disclosure” or “waiver of confidentiality,” signed by the subject of the requested record, designating the requester an authorized recipient of that record….In the absence of a valid waiver of confidentiality, the
USCIS did not initiate a search for documents responsive to your FOIA requests for records relating to President Barack Obama…”
—————–
Okay, sounds pretty clear to me that the USCIS clearly states that obama is an alien “[to the extent that the USCIS has a record pertaining primarily to President Barack Obama, it would be incorporated into a Privacy Act protected system of records referred to as the Alien File/Central Index System (A-file/CIS), DHS-USCIS-001: A-file/CIS System of Records, 72 Fed. Reg. 1755 (Tuesday January 16, 2007).”
The Alien File footnote reads, “The alien file, or A-file, is the official and most comprehensive record ofImmigration and Nationality Act (INA)
transactions (e.g. alien applications for benefits under the INA); it is here that all INA transactions involving a particular individual are documented and stored as he/she passes through the U.S. immigration and inspection process. The Alien File/Central Index System is a centralized and consolidated electronic system of records through which A-files are
stored, maintained, updated, tracked and retrieved. Although the US CIS is the official custodian of all A-files and the system manager for the Alien File/Central Index System, both the files and system are shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforceme t, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Department of State, all of which create, use,
and/or contribute to the documentation found in A-files. All official records generated or held by U.S. immigration authorities pertaining to INA transactions involving any particular alien should, as a matter of course, be consolidated in an A-file maintained under, and retrievable by reference to, that alien’s name, alien registration number, and date of
birth, among other identifiers, or a combination thereof.”
I would think that someone could use this admission from the USCIS.
September 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Looks like the followin would apply ?
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 101 § 2071
Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
September 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Leo, 1. I read about his a while back and there is an article today in the American Thinker. Maybe other readers can help figure out which Secretary of States have been bought off. Its always good to know who you are up against. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_soros_connection_in_the_mi.html
2. Have you tried to contact Orly or Gary Kreeps regarding your thoughts on the discovery order?
3. Couldn’t Orly use the sanction process by Judge Land to gain standing as another elderly lawyer tried to do do in one of the other eligibility cases? Keep up the good work!
September 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Ed, What type of birth certificate do potential milatary service recruits have to present when the recruits are attempting to get inducted into the U.S. armed forces? Could a recruit offer a colb like obama’s posted on obama’s website when he was running for President? I am trying to point out that the current enlisted armed forces of the U.S. should not have the least doubt about the President being legitimate.
September 23, 2009 at 8:22 PM
g. amos… “But……. is that the same thing as “To vote is To Grant Security Clearance.”? That is totally absurd. The voting public does not have the authority to grant blanket security clearance to anyone.”
The Office of Personnel Management (similar to an HR department at a civilian company) among other things provides Federal Investigative Services for all federal employees including the President. The Defense Security Services (DSS) conducts investigations for all military personnel. If applying for a federal position you will be subject to an investigation, regardless if the position requires a security clearance or not.
Here is a link to Q&A from OPM’s website…
http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/qabackground.asp
There are many Q&A at the site, but here are a few that jump out at me.
“Q. Do I have to answer all the questions on the form? A lot of that information is already on my resume.
A. Yes. The resume is part of the application process. The Security Questionnaire is part of the investigation process. All of the questions should be answered fully, accurately, and honestly.”
- I would argue that Obama’s “resume” is what he used to apply for POTUS position and was the voters said, YES! Was he honest in what was placed on his “resume” provided to the public? That is debatable.
- The Security Questionnaire (SF-86) filled out at some point by Obama has never been seen and in part was used by our government for clearance. The form he filled out and information provided is not available to the public. To my knowledge, Obama never had a security clearance prior to the election. I also do not know the time line, but would make sense that he would have provided OPM the SF-86 and supporting documents shortly after the DNC to allow enough time for the investigation prior to the election. To wait until after the election would be nothing short of dereliction by a federal agency.
———-
“Q. Are you going to tell my boss that I’m looking for a job?
A. It is a requirement of a background investigation that your current employer be contacted. We must verify your employment data and make other inquiries concerning your background. If you are a Federal employee or contractor, it may be that your current employer needs you to have a security clearance for the work you do. In other instances, generally you are asked to complete the investigative form for an investigation and clearance only after a conditional offer of employ-ment has been made for a position requiring a security clearance.”
- Who is Obama’s boss as a US Senator? Simple… We the people. Was anyone in the public consulted by OPM when they wanted to “make other inquiries concerning his background.”? I was never contacted, how about you?
———-
“Q. Who decides if I get the job or a security clearance?
A. Adjudications officials at the agency requiring the investigation will evaluate your case and communicate their recommendation to the appropriate personnel or security office.”
- Now here is the $1m dollar question. Voters said he gets the job, but what about the clearance for Commander in Chief? Who are the adjudicating (to act as a judge) officials who made the decision? What information did they use if any, in addition to the SF-86 form to conclude that Obama was eligible for a security clearance? It would be nice to have access to the report generated by these officials.
———-
“Q. Who gets to see the report you prepare about me? Do I?
A. The only persons authorized to see this information are Personnel Security, Suitability, and Investigations professionals who have been investigated and have a demonstrated need to review the information. You may request a copy of your investigation file under provisions of the Privacy Act. For an OPM investigation request, write to OPM-IS, FOIP, Post Office Box 618, Boyers, PA 16018-0618. You must include your full name, Social Security Number, date and place of birth, and you must sign your request.”
- Since the SF-86 and the report were conducted prior to him taking office, these documents should not fall under the EO he signed. I’m not sure if this information could be requested under the FOIA or not.
September 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Once again Leo gives us hope.
Good luck!
September 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Hi Leo,
Many thanks for your time and effort…I ran across this and I was wondering if it would help or hinder the search for information….perhaps it doesnt pertain to your issue at all. I just thought I would show you anyway. WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will announce a new policy Wednesday making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping, according to two senior Justice Department officials.
The new policy requires agencies, including the intelligence community and the military, to convince the attorney general and a team of Justice Department lawyers that the release of sensitive information would present significant harm to “national defense or foreign relations.” In the past, the claim that state secrets were at risk could be invoked with the approval of one official and by meeting a lower standard of proof that disclosure would be harmful.
This is supposed to be effective as of Oct. 4th…..
September 23, 2009 at 9:07 PM
[...] more, according to his article, it appears that it is well within a citizen’s right to ask about such a proclamation: I will [...]
September 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM
I wonder if there is a different standard of birth certificate requirements for milatary recruits, and a presidential candidate? If the milatary reguires a ceritified copy of the original birth certificate of a recruit, and a President or Presidential candidate does not or is not willing to produce a certified copy of the original birth certificate, then the commander in chief should not be able to order a soldier into combat or to the middleeast. I am not trying to get off subject here, but the Presidential candidate made sworn affidavits to the various state board of elections, and the elected President took the oath, and the milatary recruit took an oath. U.S. service personel have a claim to potential injury if they are captured by the enemy, or prosecuted for war crimes. I wish Obama would just show page 2 of the long form of the original birth certificate, because thie is a mess. I am not a lawyer, but I am trying to make some sense out of this.
September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM
May God continue to bless you and TerriK.
My prayer is that you seek His wisdom, guidance and direction.
In Jesus name,
I ask that all you seek, write and speak be revealing and truthful.
September 23, 2009 at 10:25 PM
A good task for either a private detective or for an enterprising individual is to see if a person can be tracked down whose birth certificate number matches the one on the FactCheck COLB photographs. The number appears to be out of sequence (thanks to the Nordyke twins going public). One could run an ad with the number asking if that’s ‘your BC number instead of Obama’s.’ One could also look at the birth announcements in the newspaper for the week after Obama’s was published and get a list of family names for whom the real certificate number might belong to. Could be a quick way to prove fraud. Also, it would interesting to see if the Nordyke twins were announced in the paper. One would have to do some digging at the Hawaii state library.
September 23, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Does this bring up another issue? If BHO has stated something that turns out to be false by what could be uncovered in any of these trials or discoveries, is it a crime?
September 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Leo,
Included the following blogging from right side of life. What does this mean for Factcheck, fight the smears, and Obama campaign?
>>>Obama doesn’t have an altered birth certificate, Pete.
I know this because Hawaiian Law clearly states that an altered birth certificate (and COLBs) must be marked “altered” to indicate that it is. Obama’s is not marked in any sort of way. (HRS 338-16(a)).<<<<<
Which document are you talking about that would have to have had the HRS 338-16 mark. I have not seen the COLB released by Hawaii in June of 2008 (they claim a request and transaction for this date), and the one from June 2007 that factcheck had on the website has NOT been verified (and Hawaii claims no transaction for). Since the embedding from the photos on factcheck.org are dated from march 2008, see Natural Born Citizen blog from today, then they couldn't have been taken from a COLB not yet released by the state of Hawaii!!
I truly hope that you are correct, and you were looking at a COLB dated from June 2008, that doesn't have the legally demanded "amended" mark HRS 338-16. I would also truly hope that you can post a picture of a June 2008 released COLB from Hawaii (please don't bother with one dated from June 2007).
Thanks for posting a COLB from 2008 for Barack Obama, I'm sure Phil will be quick to add it to his reference material. Clearly, if Hawaii DoH says Obama vital statistics have been 'amended' and the 2007 doesn't have HRS 338-16 on it, and DoH of Hawaii claims to have no transaction request/payment, it must be a forgery!
Wait….did you just say that the June 2007 COLB released by Obama campaign and factcheck.org was an obvious forgery if it was 'amended' and there is no HRS 338-16 stamp on it?
September 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Leo,
Something has been bothering me ever since this story reared it’s ugly head before the election. I keep thinking that everyone who’s in the know knows.
You have to listen to all the rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of the politicians. The last thing these guys are is stupid. What are we missing? They sound like idiots to us but I would bet that every word they say is true and they know the implications. I can not believe that NOT ONE PERSON will stand up. This is highly unusual. I cannot believe it. These guys know he is a NBC but are probably not happy about the circumstances that make him so. So I ask, is there something wrong about concealing your personal story that could be embarassing and may prevent you from achieving a position that you are constitutionally entitled to hold? His autobiography even contains a disclaimer as to authenticity.
OR…
Can requirements for eligibility be included somehow in another document written subsequently to the constitution? Something that has provided some loop-hole that has come into play that cannot be legally challanged?
We are missing something. And it must be something major for no one to even touch it. Maybe I am tired. It is late.
I remain….beyond baffled
September 24, 2009 at 4:03 AM
Realistic,
That cite you have that leads to archives.gov, says nothing about qualified candidates, only that the election followed the law…a statement regarding proceedures…
September 24, 2009 at 4:38 AM
Realistic,
Though interesting to look at, are the Certificates of Ascertainment really relevant? They deal with the electoral votes. The really relevant pieces of paper is the one’s where Obama has signed to have himself placed on the ballots of the states which contain a sworn statement that he is a “natural born citizen.” From what I’ve seen some states have the “natural born citizen” phrase on the document and others don’t. I’ve only seen two of the states documents that Obama signed where he swore he swore he was a natural born citizen. I couldn’t locate any others on the internet with the “natural born citizen” statement.
However, if you try to hold their feet to the fire, the states say, “It’s not my job to vet the candidate. We just accept the person the pary recommends.” The Sec of States/Attorney Generals/Congress/Electoral College — and finally the courts have all said, “It’s not my job.” Thus chasing this dog ends up in a dead end.
That’s why Leo’s methods are the only way to get at the truth. We need a definition of “natural born citizen.” That’s why I’m rooting for Leo and TerriK to get at how Fukino came to the conclusion that Obama was a “natural born citizen” — and hopefully getting at least the date when the birth certificate was amended…which I believe was amended in Dec 1970, but who knows?
September 24, 2009 at 5:49 AM
[...] to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, is reporting on his website that Hawaiian state law requires "information collected and maintained for the purpose … In July, the state's director of health, Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement on the subject of [...]
September 24, 2009 at 7:41 AM
@ Carlyle, here is the citation you requested. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth?
As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:
* A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and
1. has become legally adopted, or
2. has undergone a sex change operation, or
3. a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
4. previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.
* A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.
September 24, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I am glad some one finally picked up on my post about my son. Since Onaka did NOT answer my first letter I fired off a second letter and sent it by Certified Return Receipt US Mail. I predict if I get any response to this second letter it will enclose the most recent municipal machination as a rebuttal – assuming of course Fukina also denies my request.
Here is my second letter to the municipal Hawai’i Department of Health which encloses my first letter (I have deleted some personal information):
Bjorn Rafto
POB XXXXXXXX, XXXXX
September 22, 2009
Cell:
Director Chiyome Leinaala Fukino, MD
Hawaii municipal Department of Health, 1250 Punchbowl St.
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone (808) 586-4400
Fax (808) 586-4444
Subj: Second Request for Inspection and Certified Copy of Original Hawai’i Birthing Record
In re: First Request; ltr to Onaka dated 26 August 2009
Greetings,
Please find enclosed the referenced letter to Onaka which on 26 August 2009 was composed, printed and mailed in Hawai’i during my recent visit after Onaka was kind enough to speak to me on the phone on the same date from 808 586-4400.
The referenced letter is self explanatory, however, Onaka has failed to answer me therefore I am making the same request to you, vis-à-vis, requesting you allow me to inspect both sides of my son Tollak’s original birthing record and production of a certified copy of both sides of said record, all pursuant to your municipal code section 338-18(b)3.
Though I am NOT interested in a green abstract – I already have one for Tollak – I am interested also in how much you all make by printing them out for ten (10) bux a pop. Therefore, in addition to the above request, please also be so kind as to produce, pursuant to your municipal Freedom of Information section of the Uniform Information Practices Act all documents which disclose the gross income from fees you receive and enjoy per fiscal year in the printing of abstracts upon the receipt of a “REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF BIRTH RECORD (Form OHSM 135 rev. 3/10/15)” from divers “customers”; might it be found in your Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports?
Of course I will be most happy to pay for any duplication and certification costs in advance pursuant to your applicable municipal records code sections provided you state same to me in writing in advance. Please be so kind as to respond to this request within ten (10) business days service of this communication.
Sincerely,
Bjorn Rafto
Cc: Hawai’i Attorney General Mark Bennett
September 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Delta: Can you give us a link to where you saw an example of an amended COLB? Or do you remember where and how the amendment was indicated on the COLB? I’m curious as to whether it is marked amended on the reverse side, which might explain why nobody has ever seen the entire backside of the purportedly authentic Obama digital (or photographed) COLB.
September 24, 2009 at 11:02 AM
itooktheredpill Says:
September 23, 2009 at 3:31 pm
thanks – but that says only that the BC will be amended – not how, nor what exactly it will say – it is not specific and certainly does not say it will show birth in Hawaii – it seems you are reading a lot between the lines.
[Ed. Just revealing the BC was amended in the face of every attempt to thwart that revelation is progress. But we are just getting started here... there will be more UIPA requests, all strictly tailored to reveal a separate piece. There will be more appeals and then judiciary appeals. ]
September 24, 2009 at 11:58 AM
This is/was my UIPA Request, first part kinda parallels Miss Tickly’s
By the way if someone is in Hawaii they may want to look at
HRS 338-18 (d) which allows for public inspection of index of vital records. if that is computerized, I fail to see how they could deny the second part of my request for all index information, as it would take about 10 minutes to locate and print out. I did not receive a timely reply to original request and follow up, and no one would talk to me at Hawaii Health for two days nor return my calls, they boundced me from office to office. I had to contact Hawaii OIP and then finally got a denial. I am still curious if the index would list amendments to BC’s and if there was a record of marriage application by Stanley Ann or BO.
Ms. Janice Okubo, Director August 10, 2009
Hawaii State Department of Health
Via email
janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
UIPA Record Request
Dear Ms Okubo:
In accordance with the Hawaii Open Records Act, UIPA, I am requesting copies of all applications for verified or certified copies of the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II , from the year 2000 to the present that were granted.
I am only requesting the FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Information which includes index searched, volume searched, date copy prepared, year volume, certificate, receipt number. As well as HBC DBC UNREC BC, NR FILE and PENDING information as show on the lower left of the application. (OHSM-135 ) I am requesting the same information that was in use prior to the current form in whatever format it was compiled. I am not requesting any information about the person or persons making the request or their personal information.
In addition under the UIPA and in accordance with HRS-338-18 (d) I am requesting a copy of all index information pertaining to all vital records of Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.) and Barack Hussein Obama II, including type of event and date of event and location of the records such as volume from 1959 to the present.
A photocopy or electronic copy of the records is acceptable.
——————-
Their Denial in form letter OIP4 with check boxes:
NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO YOU THAT YOUR REQUEST:
Cannot be granted because
Request requires agency to create a summary or compilation from records not readily retrievable.
Is denied in its entirety
based upon the following exemption provided in HRS § 92F-13 and/or § 92F-22 and other laws cited below
RECORDS OR APPLICABLE AGENCY
INFORMATION WITHHELD STATUTES JUSTIFICATION
Vital records of an individual HRS §338-18
[Ed. The same thing happened to TerriK... I have the same form. I will take it apart in one of the follow up reports. They gave you a wrongful misleading response. Everyone who asked anything close to a proper question via UIPA was misled. Save all of that for evidence in a future investigation or law suit. Thank you for speaking up. Trust me, this is only the start of the process now.]
September 24, 2009 at 12:42 PM
You owe it the Citizens of the United States to comply with the laws and release this document as requested.
Not to do so would amount to Obstruction of Justice and it is my deep hope that someone brings suit if you do not follow the law.
September 24, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Keep up the good work! Real Americans are counting on you and we are all behind you.
September 24, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Miri…a few examples (one a Long form and the other a Short form):
http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab273/xx44/colbs/unknownHawaiiCertificATEofLiveBirth.jpg
http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab273/xx44/colbs/NoeloikeauCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateR.jpg
September 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM
State officials claim they “have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record….”
So what. First, this statement simply says that the records are on file, it does not have anything to do with the content.
Second, the fact that a copy of his birth certificate is on file does not mean it is a certificate of a Hawaiian birth: Since the document which has been floated as his “birth certificate” (short form) is issued to document out of state births to state residents, it is entirely possible that a foreign birth certificate is on file to document only the out of state/out of country birth of a child to a resident. If a foreign-issued birth certificate is on file, having been submitted for the purpose of documenting the birth as I describe, it is technically truthful to say “the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record…” even though the implication to which the listener is lead is a lie.
Third, even if it does show a Hawaii birth, the issue may be the date of that birth. According to Barry 0’s *official* MySpace page (linked to from his official website) his age is 52. That makes him born *before* Hawaii was a state and therefor not a “natural born citizen”.
September 24, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Miri,
Thanks for the Certificate of Live Birth example. I’d never seen that one before. Is this the new form? Is this the form that is used to register amended information before the pen-and-ink changes are made to the original birth certificate (Certificate of live birth)?
I posess a State of Hawaii birth certificate, but my Certificate of Live Birth is the same as the 1961 example shown in http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
My birth certificate was amended in the 1960s with one letter changed in my legal name. The entry was a pen-and-ink change with the typed entry lined out and new name entered on the Certificate of Live Birth.
On the other hand, my daughter received a Certification of Live Birth the same as Obama’s COLB posted by Fighting Smears. She received a Hawaii Birth Certificate upon presentation of the US Embassy Certificate of Live Overseas Birth form. However, her COLB has her overseas location. If Obama were born overseas, his form would also have such an entry — or the COLB that appeared on the internet was a forgery.
I hold that Obama was born in Hawaii because of time constraints involved if he were born in Kenya and his father’s student status. (1) His mother would have to had get a US Embassy certificate of live birth BEFORE she could have gotten on an airline. (2) Using the plane travel of 1961, travel would have been much slower. Jet travel was still emerging — the first jet airliner to Hawaii was around 1961. She had to travel from Kenya to Europe to the East Coast to possibly Chicago then to the West Coast (most likely SEATAC). BUT to be able to start attending night school at the University of Washington on 19 Aug 1961, she could NOT have made it to Hawaii and back — and still have the birth registered at the DOH for it to be in the papers by 13 Aug 1961. Someone else would have had to have reported it for her. (3) BUT MOST DAMNING. The abbreviated transcripts from the University of Hawaii shows that Obama Sr. did NOT take a break from his studies at the UH. There is no indication he returned to Kenya for a month and then came back to the UH. (4) Given that Obama Sr. was a “poor student” living off a stipend, NOT A SCHOLARSHIP, how could he afford a round-trip ticket to Africa and back for his wife and himself? More reasonable question is why would he even make the trip with a pregnant wife in the late stages of pregnancy (which some airlines back then would have refused travel) in the first place? Such a trip is illogical given the circumstances.
Thus I hold that Obama’s birth certificate will show he was born in Hawaii and his CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH will look like mine. I also hold that his CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH (as was shown on now defunct Fighting Smears) will probably be valid. HOWEVER, the information contained on that form (THE AMENDED INFORMATION) will destroy Obama for the lies he has sown. (Even as we speak Christopher Anderson’s new book relates that Obama’s “autobiography” (actually part fact-part fiction) was written by Bill Ayers — and confirming columnist Jack Cashill’s contention of such an event.)
As a side note on Certifications of Live Birth, I’d sure like to see the COLB for Maya Soetoro Ng. The reason is the linkage to how to get foreign student scholarships while being a US citizen. Maya was born in Jakarta, Indonesia and most certainly her COLB would show that location — or does it? If it shows a Hawaii birth location, it would be a definite gotcha — and show how Ann Dunham Soetoro gamed the system with S-2 visas on Indonesian passports. But that’s another topic.
September 24, 2009 at 7:22 PM
I know what I ponder seems very elementary and certainly discussed long ago on this blog, but could it be so simple as the anger followed by violence such as that in the L.A. Rodney King riots probably to take place is just what they are all trying to avoid?
So simple but yet so WRONG!
September 24, 2009 at 8:05 PM
[...] to be made available in 92F-12 under the UIPA are not subject to privacy exceptions. In my introductory reportconcerning the TerriK investigation, I asked you to take note of the UIPA at 92F-12(15), which [...]
September 24, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Article 11 section 1 talks about the Presidential Oath. We are basically demanding of Obama to “preserve protect and defend” the constittution of the U.S. per the Oath Obama took. Obama by stalling, and showing an unwillingness to provide the ceritified copy of the birth certificate showing the place of birth,time,parents,hospital,date proving the natural born citizen requirement of Article11 section 1 has violated his oath of office by not preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution. I am not a lawyer, but I believe if a judge orders Obama to show the original birth certificate, and Obama refuses he has violated the oath of office.
September 25, 2009 at 12:01 AM
I realize this is futile, but has anyone read the information posted at an enemy website?
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3457
1. Vital statistics information is excluded by the l language of the privacy and freedom of information laws.
If there is any doubt about that, there’s still the very specific language concerning vital statistics.
——————– start————————-
§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 admi
nistration 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.
———————— end ——————-
There’s a rule of statutory interpretation that gives priority of specific language over that of general language. And you can’t much more specific than vital statistics records which are birth, marriage and death records.
[Ed. now just look down a bit to subsection (d) which states:
"(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."
Same statute. Furthermore, whether a record exists is not the record itself. Just as we are entitled to know the index data, we are entitled to know whether the government keeps other records. If they keep such records, they must say so. If they don't keep such records they must say so. TerriK asked whether they maintained records of an amendment application, records of fees, records of other requests...those are not requests for the records...
the government MUST say
1. we have the records and you may have them
2. we dont have the records
3. we have the records but you are denied access
that's their options. so, when TerriK asked, do you have records of an amendment?, they were required to answer, as to that question, in one of those three ways. try to see the position she put them in and the light will go on. ]
What the Hawaii officials did in stating that they’d seen the originals and they show that Obama is a natural born citizen don’t create anything that a member of the public can sue upon. Those words might lead to a criminal complaint for violating state law. But that’s not going to happen.
[ed. You are so wrong. in order to determine if one is nbc, the person making that determination must have a definition of nbc. the public is entitled to any information collected and maintained for purposes of making that statement. furthermore, under 92F-12(15) of the UIPA, all information collected and maintained for purposes of making that statement must - MUST - be released upon request. Obama has no privacy interest in the legal definition of nbc, so there is no issue there.
as to his BC, the 07-07 Opinion letter states that privacy interests are not applicable when 92F-12 comes into play. that's their own attorney talking.]
The chances of this lawsuit succeeding are zero.
[Ed. the investigation has already successfully yielded a positive admission by the DoH. coming in the next part.]
September 25, 2009 at 9:26 AM
SEE TITLE 18 Section 1001 below: DOES THIS
GIVE LAWYERS A LICENSE TO LIE?
FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAWS
Compiled by
THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
APPENDIX
TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE
CRIMES and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
18 U.S.C. Section 1001
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisidiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch of the Government of the United States knowingly and willfully
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a
material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, ficticious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
5 years or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding,
or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings
or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
magistrate in that proceeding…
IS THIS A LICENSE FOR LAWYERS TO LIE?
http://www.uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
in the Title box write 18
in the Search box write 1001
Submitted by Cris Ericson
REASONABLE DOUBT
SEE DIGITAL PHOTOS OF DOCUMENTS ON MY BLOG WHICH PROVE THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH THAT OBAMA CLAIMS IS HIS DOES
HAVE THE LEGAL NOTICE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER PROVING IT WAS AMENDED.
[Ed. considering the info being requested in Hawaii did pertain to a federal election - anyone who violated this statute would be guilty and could get up to five years in prison. should obama be removed from office, anyone who is guilty of such an offense might find themselves in jail because if Obama is removed, this country is going to be mad as hell, even the people who are happy to see him go are going to be angry this ever happened. they will be looking to uncover the roles of every person who had authority over information.
As to your amendment allegation and the COLB...please elaborate.]
September 25, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I see a way to get Obama’s birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. Follow my logic…
and follow the rules…
1. §338-18 (b) (9) – You must have established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction – the right to obtain or inspect the certified copy of the record.
This means – You have to go through the court system!
2. §338-18 (b) – You must show a direct AND tangible interest in the record.
(I’ll attempt to tackle the “direct” part, you figure the “tangible” end of it).
My reasoning in tackling #2 above is that our “direct” interest has already been established by the “owner of record,” BHO himself.
By BHO POSTING his Birth Certificate on the internet, BHO has already made his Birth Certificate a matter of public interest and public information.
BHO himself or through his agents, (his campaign), posting publicly his vital record (on his website), is establishing a direct and a public consent to interest in his own vital record. He has therefore expressed by his own actions or through his campaign’s actions, or the actions of his other agents, that they are his wishes for the American People and the public at large – that (yes, my records are of public interest, you the public may see my Birth Certificate and here it is, and yes…you all have a direct interest and that’s why I, BHO, have posted my Birth Certificate on my website).
Otherwise – why would any man, in their right mind – post their birth certificate on the internet for all to see?
Unless, he, BHO, felt that we the People of the USA – have a right, and a direct interest in verifying his vital record.
I think that a lot of lawyers are knocking on a door that’s already open.
Thank you,
Edgar
[ed. this is what I was getting at in my commentary to OIP letter 07-07. since he exposed the colb, then he has no privacy interest thereto so we should be able to requests copies of that colb. the levy will break eventually. i still think he was born in hawaii and this investigation wont see him removed on the basis of place of birth, but we will be able to move on to the nbc issue 100% and that's what Im after.]
September 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM
rxsid: Thanks for providing those links to other COLBs. Interesting that the altered Falconer COLB is the same revision number as the purported Obama COLB, yet it differs from his. For example, it says “state registrar” while Obama’s says only “registrar”. The seal differs from the one on the FactCheck photos, but of course it’s been noted that the seal is absent from the “scanned” Obama COLB that they originally posted. How obvious it becomes when you compare these images side by side that the FactCheck COLB is bogus. The Falconer COLB looks like a scan of an actual paper document. The Obama “scan” does not. Anybody with a rudimentary familiarity with scanners and the resulting images should see the difference immediately. But as has been stated many times, they think we’re stupid.
September 25, 2009 at 10:27 PM
If the shoe fits…
This is for those that are trying to “debunk” what Leo and TerriK are doing:
Ground rules & Assumptions:
First, reread and reread again, this blog… until you really understand what is truth and what is not.
Secondly, agree to agree with them. Thirdly, put your research and efforts into areas that will support them and give them more “ammunition” for their cause. And finally, pray for them
September 26, 2009 at 1:12 AM
[ed. this is what I was getting at in my commentary to OIP letter 07-07. since he exposed the colb, then he has no privacy interest thereto so we should be able to requests copies of that colb. the levy will break eventually. i still think he was born in hawaii and this investigation wont see him removed on the basis of place of birth, but we will be able to move on to the nbc issue 100% and that's what Im after.]
Leo,
I’m not into conspiracy theories, but I am into confirmed facts. So far, I have seen no one (doctor, nurse, neighbor, friend, school classmate, etc.) who can verify B.O. was born in Hawaii. No Hawaiian hospital has released the publicly available information they would release to newspapers when a baby is born.
What makes you think he was born in Hawaii?
[ed. it really doesnt matter what I believe as to his place of birth, all that matters is that the fact be firmly established by Hawaii officials. we are entitled to that info and we will get it.]
September 26, 2009 at 9:56 AM
As a long-standing member of a Public Records Access group, and having lived in HI previously, I am checking contacts in that area for the same – which could prove helpful.
September 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Dear Folk,
I had a column in HI. I wrote of numerous things. The corruption in HI was so far reaching, people I exposed in one piece for massive fraud weren’t ever punished cept for one dolt who was caught record fibbing to the Bankruptcy Court (Fed Level). There’s a building intended for conventions which cost the folks a big sack of gold. It made numerous HI bureaurats and corrupticians numerous smaller sacks of gold. But in HI, power works. It works in opposition to and direct conflict with legal, fair, moral, ethical and fiduciary. HI is also, as far as I know, whose politicians assist in keeping HI natives as the only ‘tribe’ under US jurisdiction who aren’t afforded the same rights as other tribal units. Such as gaming. If their white whale of a convention center wee a major style casino, (in an intelligent application) a great number of HI tourism woes would be diminished. But despite the illegal gaming rampant in HI and supportive of certain law and gov civic serpents, and the one way flow of cash to NV.
Ooops, I forgot those little salmon like kickbacks swimming upstream to lay their eggs of influence in certain HI’s self acclaimed well intentioned…protecting the ignorant HI residents from the ills of gambling. But I ramble, yes Chicken Little and you Sleeping Dogs, if it in some way benefited the ‘correct’ people in HI or elsewhere as imported cash bribes spend just as well as ‘Natural Born’ US and HI residents who have discovered the means by which to control…well, pretty much anything they determine needs controlling and the list is pretty much all inclusive. In fact, I’m still trying to wrap my head around the momentary lapse during which I had hope a particular political figure might be okay. Darn those lapses, anyway…! Best to HI, ’cause if anybody needs a chaka and a well meant prayer sent heavenward, it’s the mostly decent and good hearted people of HI who aren’t pretending to guide, lead or control the nicer majority.
September 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM
One Simple Question About Obama…
By Paul Hollrah
9-24-9
Paul Hollrah believes the Obama birth/citizenship qualification issue can be resolved by determining with or without Obama’s cooperation the answer to one simple question.
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi ?
We will pass over the question of how a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later. A much simpler question tells us all we need to know.
Once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities:
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British=2 0passport that would provide proof he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008.
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
If it doesn’t matter to you if Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this and go into your cocoon.
If you see that it does matter then forward this!
September 26, 2009 at 3:42 PM
I can’t wait to see what they come up with next. Let’s hope it’s not something like “the dog ate Obama’s documents.”
September 27, 2009 at 10:45 PM
[...] Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended. [...]
September 27, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Leo… FYI
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18954334/FINAL-Patriots-Heart-v-SoetoroPetitionforGJ?from_email_04_friend_send=1
September 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I was wondering if this would be interesting to your quest:
B O’s mother married a man named Lolo Soetoro, and they must have produced a birth certificate from his step-father, Lolo Soetoro’s adoption and change of name to Barry Soetoro. When there is an adoption, you cannot go BACK! There is nothing tieing Barry Soetoro to the name Barack Hussein Obama II. It could be anyone, any child’s birth certificate that they have produced. The child, Barack Hussein Obama could have died. We have no documentation. Barry Soetoro was entered into school by his step-father, with a legitimate birth certificate saying that Barry was Indonesian, with the Religion, Islam. Maybe another thread to follow and see what “dots” begin to connect. Just sayin…. This came from the Smart Girl Politics website ! ! ! !
[ed. we do not know for certain whether Obama was adopted by Soetoro. There was a marriage. There were two children effected by the marriage and mentioned in the divorce. But I have yet to see any conclusive proof Obama was adopted by Soetoro.]
September 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Although Mr. Obama is an unlawful squatter in the White House, he is in de facto possession of the office of President, and possession is nine-tenths of the law. The Democrat Congress will not recall him. Fifty times the courts have demonstrated their unwillingness to bring the usurper-in-chief to justice. So who will remove the pretender from the throne? You and whose army?
If the U.S. military will recover the United States from the control of the anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-law-and-order coup d’état, God bless ‘em real good. If not, only the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven can deliver us from this evil. So pray, and don’t quit praying.
September 29, 2009 at 1:43 AM
(Barry Soetoro was entered into school by his step-father, with a legitimate birth certificate saying that Barry was Indonesian, with the Religion, Islam.) RE: the statement above?
we do not know for certain whether Obama was adopted by Soetoro.(Question) Then how could his step-father have a legitimate birth certificate with the name barry soetoro on it ? ? ? ? And if that was not his legal name, ergo it was BHOjr. what is the law about false statements in this instance ? ? ? ? Also how could he legally change his name without there being “public records” of such a change ? ? ? ?
[ed. what birth certificate are you talking about? Please elaborate.]
September 29, 2009 at 9:26 AM
I think is much more important to determine and be able to look at Barry Soetoro’s passport from 1981 when he was traveling to Pakistan and Indonesia, etc.,
A true investigation has to be happening after the murdering of that 24 year person who was found shot dead in his car in the DC area a few days ago,
This person was going to testify what he knew and had handled information regarding Obama’s passport, etc.,
Can it be proved that this is pretty much the same as Vincent Foster’s muder also in DC?
WHY THESE DEMON-RATS keep committing crimes and get away with it?
September 29, 2009 at 10:21 AM
It appears to me that Hawaii recently limited the format of their birth certificates to a COLB format for ALL its citizens, apparently to justify the President’s having only a lowly COLB birth certificate. That being the case, the State could suddenly change all their “information” rules on a dime, as well. You and Terri are right: acting quickly is so important.
September 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Leo, you believe BHO was born in hawaii and part of me thinks the same. What is strange to me is why has no hospital layed claim to his birth? Wouldnt that put them on the map so to speak? Also no Dr. no nurse or staff will come foward to say they were present at his birth.
[ed. they could grab Greg Jackson's $50,000 reward too.]
September 30, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Ya well I have made a formal request to Fuk$na for a certified copy of my son’s birthing document that originated in 1984 from Tripler Army Medical Center. I need a denial from these pr$cks IN WRITING and then I can move in their circuit court – or possibly the Ninth District here in San Diego – on an order to compel in the manner and form of a mandamus.
Those goram documents are held in trust FOR ALL OF US and I aint taking “no” for an answer.
It is hard to imagine at this point but I think Obamanation shortly will take the mantle from Bush as the worst POTUS . . .
September 30, 2009 at 3:31 AM
Re: The “surprise emergence” of the recent “amended long-form COLB”
Remember about 5-6-7 months ago the stories regarding another effort at producing the “real long-form COLB”? It involved a search for a 1961 era printing machine (a Heidelberg brand) located in a museum in Toronto Canada along with an old manual typewriter found at an estate sale and a search for matching paper that would have been used at the time. The plan was to produce “the authentic long-form Obama birth certificate”. The produced COLB was then to go through aging/curing by humidity, UV rays, etc. for 3-4 months.
Could this “surprise emergence” of the amended “original long-form COLB’ possibly have something to do with that plan, particulary with the apparent hesitation regarding its emergence because of the scrutiny it would be undergoing?
Thank you for all your hard work in this area along with that special advice letter you wrote to Dr. Orly Taitz on her upcoming battle for the truth — and, hopefully, the results we’re all praying for. I wish you the best of luck and opportunity in ferreting out the truth as well.
Jan
[ed. I don't think that has anything to do with what we are going to find locked in DoH files. And I dont think you're going to see the discovery I suggested to the Barnett attorneys being requested.]
September 30, 2009 at 6:31 AM
[...] has detailed the requests of TerryK in July, and her subsequent requests in September (part 1 & 2). The Post & Email has also reported the request made last week by another citizen [...]
[ed. this is an excellent report. I am putting this at the top of the blog.]
October 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Oh, looky at what I got about a week after I sent in a request ! ! ! !
Aloha,
Below are the responses (in blue) to your questions.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 586-4442
Fax: (808) 586-4444
email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
——————————————————————————–
From: oldcodger63@aol.com [mailto:oldcodger63@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:09 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: amended vital records
Dear Dr. Fukino…
1.) I request the blank/voided or ‘unfilled’ forms issued by the Department of Health that Dr. Fukino saw per her public statement below, be disclosed OR a list of those forms & types of records. I would also like included copies of any notations, amendment notes and stamp impressions that are found on these documents. If any of the following records I requested are already available for downloading on the web, please send me direct links to their location(s). Please let me know if this is not clear or if there is a more suitable record(s) to be requesting:
The department does not issue blank or unfilled forms. Your request is not clear.
2.) I request any record of receipt by the DoH for all proof that was offered and/or used to amend any of the vital records that Dr. Fukino saw per her public statement below, be disclosed:
No such records exist.
3.) Also, per Dr. Fukino’s public statement on 7/27/09 (below), I would like a copy of the record OR portion of the record(s) that has the word ‘Amended’ stamped or written and also initialed by the DoH reviewer. In addition to this I would like a copy of the record or portion of the record that states what type of information was amended, when and why. Please provide me electronic copies…
No such records exist.
[ed. Can I see these email responses? ... This is a totally different type of response than what they sent TerriK. But not all of these questions not parsed tight enough to be sure the answer means no changes to his records took place. Still, they are evidence that the DoH is finally starting to follow the rules. These questions give them some wiggle room. You can' give them any wiggle room. Number 3 is pretty good though. More requests are pending. I still need to see that this comment is legit. "Amendment" is different than a "corrected" or "altered" BC.]
October 2, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Leo,
If you are already aware of this, you can delete this note. I forgot to note the link and cannot quickly find the recent blog which states
the only legal reason Fukino’s office would be able to disobey Hawaii’s laws governing disclosure of information to the public, would be if the workers were aware that Obama had comitted a crime. The author cited Hawaiian law.
October 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Isn’t this what got them in “hot water” in the first place ? ? ?
(g) The department shall not issue a (verification) in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof.
Didn’t she “verify” that she saw his record ? ? ? ?
[ed. in the ordinary sense of the word --- yes she did. In the statutory sense, no she didn't. this is the world of Seussian Hooplah. I am the Lorax though... I speak for the trees.
But seriously folks -- I speak their language, figured it out. And this is why they keep scrambling and tripping over their words... they play this game of doublespeak. but once you know their codes, the translations appear. I have the Rosetta Stone for Seussian Hooplah. Tick tock...]
October 2, 2009 at 6:31 PM
[...] will recall from Part 1 of my full report that previous official responses to UIPA requests were greeted with statements [...]
October 3, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Would it be possible to request from the Hawaii S of S the documents used from the past four presidential elections to certify eligibility of candidates? These historical records should be on file and available to the public.
[ed. they have been requested for 2000, 2004 and Justin Riggs is on that. they haven't responded yet. he did an OIP appeal. we are waiting.]
October 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Great work and brilliant insight by the parties involved!
Some of you may wish to check out The Obama Timeline. I have devoted over 4,000 hours and accumulated 5,000 references to assemble a timeline of Obama’s life, from birth to the present. You cannot read it and feel comfortable with him in the Oval office. I believe it as the best source of documentation available. It might even make a great present for a judge!
Find the Timeline at http://www.colony14.net
October 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM
My previous note referenced the wrong form number, it should be I-9 not E-9. Sorry for the confusion.
October 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM
My earlier not did not post for some reason. My question concerned obama’s previous employers and their certification of citizenship with an I-9. What documents did they use to verify his citizenship? It would be listed on the I-9 form.
October 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Leo,
It is good that you have taken up this fight (along with all the rest that’s on your plate). THe Noble Prize to Obama – It’s beyond words.
ELmo
October 12, 2009 at 9:27 AM
[...] “Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms that Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended,” initial thesis regarding TerriK’s initial investigation, by Leo Donofrio, 9/21 [...]
October 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM
An obvious point, but has anyone inquired of Hawaii anything using the various names associated with Obama ?? Hawaii may be answering very specifically.
October 15, 2009 at 5:55 AM
Is any of this relevant to the ongoing discusion ? ? ? ?
A question of inheritance, between a British male and his son (now an American), prompted Thomas Jefferson to write, what is now titled “Jefferson Notes”. It is in
” Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789
Edited by Paul H. Smith, et al. (1976-93) “
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol21.html , in “Volume 21” as “Letter 151”. In part:
Qu:1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England? Natural subjects can inherit – Aliens cannot. There is no middle character — every man must be the one or the other of these. A Natural subject is one born within the king’s allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person’s being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance. An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
FACTS: By 1783, a person was either British or an alien.
There was no middle character.
Constitution” and “Natural Born Citizen”.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm
.
Book One, Chapter 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
US Constitution (adopted September 17, 1787) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
—–
October 16, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Anything here that help’s ? ? ? ?
From the research of Ken Dunbar:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” -US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1812)
********
“By this same writer it is also said: ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society [60 U.S. 393, 477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – Associate Justice Peter Daniel in Scott v Sanford ( 1857 )
********
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen – —Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )
********
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
********
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
[…]“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” .-Associate Justice Horace Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
In all these quotes, two things are of importance: the use of the word Parents – plural meaning more than one, and the concept that the citizenship conditions of children follow from that of their parents. These historical references are clear in their meaning. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents – two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the son of a British subject. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was never an American, never applied to be, and never intended to be. His son’s condition at the moment of his birth cannot be changed, altered, redacted, retroactive or in any way changed.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a Natural Born Citizen because he does not have two parents who were citizens of the United States of America.
-This article would not be possible without the internet research of Ken Dunbar
November 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM
This is upon examination a simple solution to an intricate question. Common sense in which there seems to be a preponderance in the Original Father’s of the Constitution of these United States dictates and poses a question of it’s own: “If, there is nothing to hide, then why go to the trouble of hiding and signing a presidential mandate to be hidden all information concerning the records in question?” It is self evident, a prima facie cause, that there is hideous self damning evidence in the hidden record. Nothing but a fool would logically resolve to a different opinion. Further, the individual in question would be more than happy to present the proper documentation in support of his position, were he known to be righteous and worthy. Truth shines forth in the Light, evil vulgar perversity shrinks from the light in anguish. I encourage you to bring forth to the general populace the Truth and the Light.
[ed. it think the only thing he's hiding is that he was born in Hawaii. that's what he's been hiding IMHO.]