Hawaii Update: DoH Confirms They Maintain A Birth Record For Obama Dated From August 1961.

After various responses from the DoH giving unclear answers to UIPA requests which exclusively pertained to birth documents for Obama dating back to August 1961 – specifically documents which caused his birth to have been “Filed by Registrar August 8, 1961″ – I requested assistance from the OIP.  Their interpretation of the DoH response was that of a denial of access.  But the OIP also issued guidance as to how I could properly refine my request.

I took the OIP advice and issued a 6th UIPA request asking for the same documents and limiting any possible wiggle room.

And to this request I recently received  a clear denial of access from the DoH by way of an official OIP form.  I also received clear response forms from the DoH as to my previous UIPA requests.

The form I received is the same posted at the OIP web site.  The box which says “denied in its entirety” was checked.

SIGNIFICANCE

Prior on target UIPA requests by other researchers had more than one box checked.  The denied box was checked and other boxes were checked which could also mean that the DoH did not maintain the record.  That policy – at least for my UIPA requests – has now changed as the DoH only checked the “DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY” box.

According to OIP administrative rules and guidance from OIP staff attorney Linden Joesting (originally provided to Terri K), the denial of access box can only be checked when the agency does in fact maintain the requested record.

I requested birth records for President Obama – maintained by the DoH – dated from August 1961.  I was only concerned with documents which came into existence no later than August 10th 1961.  The DoH has replied by denying access to those records.

This is a clear statutory admission that they possess records pertaining to President Obama’s birth which came into existence back in August 1961.

And this is the first clear admission that such birth records exist and are currently maintained by the DoH.

NEXT PHASE

The next phase will be to appeal the DoH decision not to release these documents.  The law in Hawaii supports such release since both Obama and the DoH have waived privacy protections to those portions of the records which have already been made public.  According to precedent in Hawaii, such vital records should be released with any information which has not been previously made public redacted.

Developing…

Leo C. Donofrio

Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”

I was impressed with the integrity of Judge Carter’s ruling today.  It gives me hope that the POTUS eligibility issue will eventually have its day in court on the merits.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.

Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President.  The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions.  A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion.  This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.

The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.  It’s really that simple.  Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts -  Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court.  This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition.  Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same.  If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own.  The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen).  By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

Meanwhile, it’s important for me to point out that everything I have told readers of this blog about quo warranto was confirmed by Judge Carter today.

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling.  It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.  Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ERROR

The only part of today’s ruling I take issue with is footnote 3 on page 22 where Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of  “natural born citizen”.

But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”.  Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.

Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.

Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503.  Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.  I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.

Moving Forward…

I am speaking with various parties who I may provide legal counsel to in the near future.  This will require a period of silence from me.  The time for legal talk is now over.  The time for legal action has begun.  Talk is cheap.  I’m tired of it.  Either litigation will commence or you won’t hear from me again via this blog.

This blog contains all the tools necessary for people to gain access to information from Hawaii.  The UIPA is a very good law providing standing and expedited calendar service to “any person”.  Study that law and use it.  Request the media and legislature use it as well.  They won’t.  You know that.  But put it in their face anyway.

I will report back here when I have something of significance to say regarding litigation.

For now, I will leave you with one salient point made by the DOJ in the hearing before Judge Carter:

“It’s the way the founding fathers intended.”

Page 15 of the transcript.

Since the DOJ is stipulating that the intention of the founding fathers is the proper guideline for this issue, then we ought to hold them to that position all the way down the line.  The definition of “natural born citizen” as understood by the founding fathers is certainly the only definition which is legal under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.  Barney Frank can’t change that and neither can law professors like Tribe and Dershowitz, etc.

As the DOJ has correctly indicated, the only definition of natural born citizen that matters is the one held by the founding fathers.

And that’s why everyone needs to read pages 43-44 of the transcript where Judge Carter indicates that even if Obama were born in Kenya, the Judge would not be comfortable in holding that Obama was not eligible to be POTUS.

Somebody needs to tell this Judge that the law in the US at the time of Obama’s birth stated quite clearly that Obama would not have qualified for US citizenship in 1961 if born in Kenya to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama Sr.  That’s very clear according federal law in 1961.  If he wasn’t a citizen, how could he be a “natural born citizen”?

So, if you think Judge Carter is going to decide the British birth issue in favor of holding Obama ineligible if born in Hawaii, then you are really kidding yourselves.  This case has no chance at all.

I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya.  I believe he was born in Hawaii.  But I also believe that the state of Hawaii has been playing fast and loose with their own public disclosure laws and that they should not be trusted, especially since they haven’t been put under oath.

I also don’t believe it would have mattered to the founding fathers if Obama was born in Hawaii since he was a British citizen at birth, and the founding fathers had just fought a bloody war to rid themselves of British influence.  To assume they would have allowed a British citizen at birth to become Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is to disgrace the blood of the patriots who earned this nation’s freedoms and liberties by their very lives.

For all intents and purposes, the “natural born citizen” safeguard given to this nation by the founding fathers is dead.  And the entire Constitution is also dying by a cancer attacking all organs.  It will only survive a certain death by miracle.  Pray for such a miracle.  It is truly your only hope.

Leo C. Donofrio

Comments are now closed.

Point Made…

I’ve deleted my prior post so that the journal mentioned might reverse course now that I’ve made my point: that information is available from Hawaii for those who will call Hawaii to follow their own public disclosure laws.

No news journal can talk about this issue and deserve any respect if they aren’t willing to use the law available to them for research.  Research is to the media just as a hammer is to a carpenter – a necessary tool.  We shall now see if they are interested in doing their job or if they will continue to dodge that chore.

President Obama Admitted He Was “Kenyan-Born”.

The 2004 article from Kenya’s oldest newspaper – The Standard – featured the headline which stated :

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

And the blogosphere went into hyper overdrive.  The first line of defense was that it was a fraud, and the second line of defense was to simply ignore the story.  As of today – according to the Google news search engine – not one main stream newspaper is reporting this story other than blogger Don Surber at The Daily Mail in the UK in Charleston, West Virginia.  And he has apparently debunked the first line of defense, stating:

I checked.

Apparently that is a true image from the June 24, 2004, Standard, which is Kenya’s oldest newspaper.

Then Surber goes on to argue that just because the report appeared in 2004, that doesn’t mean it’s true.  However, what Surber and most of the blogosphere have failed to comprehend is that President Obama has admitted the headline is true.

It is undisputed that Obama was Kenyan-born by the blood of his father.  That led to his Kenyan citizenship having been automatically granted in 1963 by the Kenya Independence Act.

JUS SANGUINIS

The legal concept by which it is undisputed that President Obama was “Kenyan-born” is “jus sanguinis“, which means “right of blood”.

Furthermore, President Obama admitted that, under the British Nationality Act of 1948 – at the time of his birth – he was a British citizen.  It has also been accurately reported by Factcheck.org that President Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963.  (However, a separate key aspect of that report was false and eventually corrected by Factcheck who cited this blog’s report and analysis in their mea culpa.  Please also note their second mea culpa to this blog.)

JUS SOLI

Unfortunately, the undisputed legal fact of Obama’s jus sanguinis foreign birth has been supplanted by the sensational conspiracy theory relating to the place of his birth.  The headline from the 2004 Kenyan news report does not indicate whether “Kenyan-born” relates to Obama’s  Kenyan bloodline or – in the alternative – to his place of birth.  Place of birth citizenship is conferred by a legal concept known as “jus soli“, meaning law of the soil.

Please don’t miss the forest for the trees.  President Obama admits to having been a British citizen at birth by law and a son of Kenyan blood which led to automatic Kenyan citizenship in 1963.  This alone should disqualify him from POTUS eligibility – regardless of where he was born – since he was a dual citizen at birth and at least until 1984.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen.

This is an attribute only available at birth.

Whether a person (who admits having been) born subject to the laws of a foreign power can become Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is a genuine and necessary question of law, not a conspiracy theory.

US v. WONG KIM ARK

The leading citizenship case issued by the US Supreme Court – US v. Wong Kim Ark – stated the following:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

Both hypothetical children discussed in the passage above are US citizens and both hold equal rights.  But the majority opinion makes it quite clear that only one child is “natural born” – the child of the citizen.  The court compared the native born child of an alien to the “natural born” child of a citizen, and in doing so made clear that – while both are citizens -  the circumstances of their US citizenship are not the same.

One child’s citizenship is “natural born” and the other child’s citizenship required the 14th amendment.  And therefore, it’s very important to note that the majority in Wong Kim Ark also stated that the definition of “natural born citizen” is not found in the Constitution.  If 14th amendment citizenship defined the meaning of “natural born citizen”, then the Court could not have made that statement.

POTUS REQUIREMENTS ARE NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURES.

The Constitutional requirements to be POTUS are not rights, they are national security measures.  Even natural born citizens who fail to meet the other requirements cannot be President.  For example, a 33-year-old natural born citizen cannot be President.  But 35-year-old men have no more rights than 33-year-old men.  Understand?  Requirements are not rights.

If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil.  The very notion is obscene.  Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.worpdress.com

October 16, 2009

____________________________________________________

COMMENTS ARE MODERATED.  FEEL FREE TO COMMENT WITH NO EXPECTATION YOUR COMMENT WILL APPEAR.

Hawaii Attorney General Invokes Attorney Client Privilege Concerning DoH “Natural-Born Citizen” Press Release of July 27, 2009.

On October 5, 2009 I sent the following letter to Jill T. Nagamine at the the office of Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett:

Subject: Request for AG Opinion letter
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009 8:34 PM
From:”Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
To: Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov

Dear Ms. Nagamine,

The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA.

I request a copy (or access to a copy) of the Attorney General Opinion Letter the Attorney General provided to Department of Health Director Fukino which reviewed and approved her July 27, 2009 statement/press release about President Barack Obama wherein it was stated that he is a “natural-born American citizen.”

I request the opinion letter referenced above whether it was prepared as a formal Opinion Letter under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 (and/or any other authority) or as an informal letter if prepared under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 (and/or any other authority).

Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules.

Just a few hours later, I received the following official response from Jill Nagamine:

Subject: Re Request for Ag Opinion letter
From: “Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov”
To: “Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]

Dear Mr. Donofrio:

No formal attorney general opinion was generated relating to the July 27, 2009 public statement made by Chiyome L. Fukino, M.D. Any other legal advice rendered to our clients is privileged communication. We have nothing to release based on your request.

Very truly yours,

Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Whether an attorney general opinion is formal or informal is a question of law.  Under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3, if the opinion of the Attorney General was related to a question of law submitted to him by the head of an agency, then that opinion must be made available to the public according to the statute which says:

§28-3  Gives opinions. The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department.  The attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, the supreme court library, and the legislative reference bureau within three days of the date it is issued.  Opinions on file with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, and the supreme court library shall be available for public inspection.

As I have previously discussed, 28-3 requires that formal AG opinion letters be disclosed to the public.  It is not a matter of discretion.  The statute uses the word “shall”.  The Hawaii courts have interpreted the statute as requiring mandatory public disclosure thereto.

Under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, opinions given by the AG on other matters are not expressly required to be made public.  But, according to OIP Opinion Letter 91-23, informal opinions must also be recorded and sometimes disclosed to the public when certain conditions are met:

[T]he Attorney General provides two separate and distinct recorded forms of legal advice:  (1) “opinions” on questions of law submitted by certain public officers, and (2) “advice and counsel” to public officers in all matters connected to their public duties.  Unlike section 28-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which expressly requires the public availability of certain specified “opinions,” section 28-4, Hawaii Revised Statutes, does not expressly require that the “advice and counsel” of the Attorney General either be filed with the Lieutenant Governor or be made available for public inspection.

However, according to OIP Opinion Letter 91-23, when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:

A client cannot voluntarily and selectively disclose those portions of a communication between the client and the client’s attorney without forfeiting the right to keep other portions of the communication on the same subject matter privileged…

The privilege may be said to be waived when the client relinquishes its protection.  The waiver of this privilege follows as a consequence from any conduct by the client that would make it unfair for the client thereafter to assert the privilege.  See generally, Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1065 (1986)…

Similarly, under Rule 510 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, the holder of a privilege waives it if the privilege holder consents to the disclosure of  “any significant part of the privileged matter.”  (Emphasis added.)

Note that the OIP underlined “consents” in the passage above.  This is important because the July 27, 2009 press release – wherein DoH Director Fukino stated that President Obama “was born in Hawaii” and that he is a “natural-born American citizen” -  was reviewed and approved by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office.  ( DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo previously revealed such reliance to researcher Justin Riggs.)

As stated above, whether an attorney general opinion is formal or informal is a question of law.  The Attorney General is governed by law.  If the letter is formal under 28-3 then the letter must be disclosed to the public.  If the letter is informal under 28-4, then the letter must also be made available to the public when the client/agency voluntarily discloses the conclusions of the advice rendered by counsel.

On July 27, 2009 the DoH disclosed the conclusions of the Attorney General’s opinion.  The DoH cannot make secret law.  The controlling statutes, case law and OIP opinion letters make it quite clear that the Attorney General opinion rendered to the head of the DoH pertaining to her infamous July 27, 2009 press release must be made available to the public.

I am currently drafting an appeal to the OIP as well as the judiciary.  According to the UIPA statute at 92F-15(f), judicial review will be expedited.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

________________________________________

ATTENTION: New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment.  The chances of your comment being printed are slim.  Sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know – most comments will not be printed.

SCOTUS: No Private Right To Quo Warranto.

Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple.  This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.  I recenly explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.

The deception is circling on all fronts.  Decepticons are busy issuing defective legal analysis alleging that there is a private right to bring quo warranto against a United States national office holder.  I can tell you with certainty that there is no such right now, and there was none at the common law.  But don’t take my word for it.  Instead, review the following passages from the leading United States Supreme Court decision pertaining to quo warranto: NEWMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. WILLIAM J. FRIZZELL:

Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. When a judgment was obtained against the intruder he was not only ousted from his office, but fined for his criminal usurpation.  A private citizen could no more prosecute such a proceeding in his own name than he could in his own name prosecute for the crime of murder… (Emphasis added.)

There was never a private right to bring quo warranto.  It was always brought in the name of the government.  This is further illustrated by the SCOTUS as follows:

In 1902 Congress adopted a District Code, containing a chapter on quo warranto which though modeled after the English statute, differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military. It was made available to test the right to exercise a public franchise, or to hold an office in a private corporation.  Instead of providing that ‘any person desiring to prosecute‘ might do so with the consent of the court, certain restrictions were imposed and one enlargement of the right was made. These provisions2 have never received judicial interpretation. This case must, therefore, be determined according to the special language of that Code, in the light of general principles applicable to quo warranto,—the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise. (Emphasis added.)

While all of the above sets the stage, the following establishes definitive precedent by the SCOTUS on this issue:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. (Emphasis added.)

And the following is the policy behind the restriction:

But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks.  It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such ‘third person’ must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings. (Emphasis added.)

Beware of false sentinels.

Get ready, you are going to be hearing much more about the writ of quo warranto in the days and weeks ahead.

Leo C. Donofrio  Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

Obama Opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act And Won The Nobel Peace Prize.

[UPDATE: 9:51 PM Please see my response to the following comment .]

The miraculous inner strength and will to live is so strong with some babies that even despite attempts to abort them, they survive – born into the world, umbilical cord cut… breathing on their own.  Only a few years ago, these children could be left to die – murdered after birth.  The President opposed legislation that would protect their lives.

Obama -  who today won the Nobel Peace Prize – while a Senator in Chicago, blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  The Act eventually passed in Illinois despite Obama’s opposition.  Please read the full report on this at Citizenlink.  Here is an excerpt:

“One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him.  I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.  He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long.  He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe.  Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall.  After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken…”

Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted “present” — neither “yes” nor “no,” but merely “present” — on the state Senate floor…

“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that,” Obama concluded, and voted “no” in committee again.

The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the sole speaker against it, claiming that it would impose a “burden” on physicians:

“[T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus.”

Even though the child lives and breathes on its own, Obama advocated murdering the child.  This is what we have come to, America.  This is the shining face of dear leader.  Where was the so called main stream media on this one?  Why haven’t I heard about this before?  Have you?

PROGRESSIVE EUGENICS – PLEASE INVESTIGATE

Then take a look again at my report on Justice Ginsburg’s comments wherein she stated:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.“

This sick twisted comment was not even challenged by the New York Times reporter who it was offered to.  What populations doesn’t Ginsburg want “too many of”?  Sounds like a Nazi master race angle to me.

I wouldn’t wipe my behind with the Nobel Peace Prize now that Obama the infanticide supporter has been graced with it.  The award has been disgraced and exposed as a propaganda device for dear leader.

FORCED ABORTIONS AND MASS STERILIZATION

I was recently made aware of Obama science czar John Holdren’s insatiable desire to force certain women to have abortions against their will.  This is the same man who advocates mass sterilization.

So much for a woman’s right to choose.

Obama’s zombiecore freakshow vampire brigade must leave Washington DC in shame.

Leo Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

I Have Canceled My Appearance On The Jeff Rense Radio Program.

I just went to the Rense.com site to get the feed for the show.  I was supposed to have been on at 11:00 PM Pacific time.   At the site, sprawled on the front page is a huge picture of holocaust denial advocate Ernst Zundel.  While I do believe in free speech for all, I cannot risk being associated with anyone who denies one of the most horrific moments in history.  The holocaust was real and we can never forget the atrocity.

Here is the letter I just sent to Mr. Rense  at 10:45 PM EST:

Mr. Rense,

I apologize for the inconvenience but after visiting your site tonight and seeing a huge picture of a holocaust denial advocate on the front page, I feel that it is in the best interest of the issues I represent not to appear.

I appreciate that you may be interested in the free speech aspect’s of Mr. Zundel’s imprisonment, but I do not want to be associated in any way with denial of one of the world’s most despicable moments in time.  The holocaust was real and we must never forget that happened.

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio

Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”.

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury.  Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations.  The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court.  Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.  These are facts admitted by Obama.  These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.  These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter.  Why not?

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…

Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large.  Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.

But they’ve never even tried.

Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502.  All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition.  If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently.  For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama.  So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial.  The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.

Why has this option been ignored?  16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts.  There it is.  Why not use it?  A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.

Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not.  Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.

If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.

I don’t see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.

Why give one of your tickets away for free?  Why give away your best ticket for free?  Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?

Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility.  Why not kill two birds with one stone?  Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation.  It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility.  And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it.  Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.

Look people, I’m trying to help.  Read this over a few times until it sinks in.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

_______________________________________________

ATTENTION: New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. Simple comments of support will not be printed, neither will flames. The chances of your comment being printed are very slim. The moderation takes too much of my time. But sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know most comments will not be printed.

Judge Carter Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Quo Warranto In Barnett v. Obama.

Judge Carter must dismiss the quo warranto aspect of the case (essentially the entire case) because his court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto complaint pertaining to a US national officer located in the District of Columbia.

If Judge Carter takes the case, it will be in direct contradiction to a clear federal statute as well as existing US Court of Appeals precedent.

The federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

As you can see, the statute is very specific.  The office of President is in the District of Columbia.  The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .

The following Court of Appeals decision is directly on point.  I am baffled that the DOJ failed to cite the case (originally discussed as follows in Part 3 of my Quo Warranto legal brief):

In UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:

There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions. (Emphasis added.)

The first statute mentioned above dealt specifically with quo warranto actions which arose out of 14th amendment issues where citizens were refused the right to vote.  Under this statute, all US district courts could hear quo warranto cases.  But this statute was repealed in 1911 and so the only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code.  And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

It comes as quite a shock to me that the DOJ did not cite this case in its motion to dismiss.  That’s just shabby lawyering right there.  Why argue against quo warranto and fail to cite the very case which is directly on point?  It seems a bit too strange.

Judge Carter should note that the District Court’s decision to entertain the quo warranto in that case was reversed:

“No instance is known of the use of writ of quo warranto in a district court of the United States other than the District Court of the District of Columbia.” Cyc. of Federal Procedure, 2d Ed., Sec. 7098…It follows that the district court in this case should have dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction instead of determining it upon the merits. The judgment dismissing the action is therefore modified so as to show that the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction…”

How did the DOJ miss the one case which makes dismissal a slam dunk?  Are they trying to ensure the case is heard on the merits?

The only answer I can think of is that the DOJ knows more cases are coming down the pike, some of which will be brought by very skilled attorneys with plaintiffs who have much stronger cases.  If the Barnett case gets heard on the merits and it loses, that sets a very bad precedent for these future cases.  If the Barnett case is dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction no issues of res judicata apply and future cases won’t be jeopardized.

I would be very suspicious if this case gets past the motion to dismiss.  It’s hard to believe the entire Department of Justice simply missed the case I cited above.  It doesn’t seem plausible.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

_________________________________________

ATTENTION: New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. Simple comments of support will not be printed, neither will flames. The chances of your comment being printed are very slim. The moderation takes too much of my time. But sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know most comments will not be printed.

“UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. Donofrio”

This morning, it dawned on me that I wasn’t aware of any previous UIPA requests to the DoH for the actual records which contributed to the DoH declaration that President Obama’s birth had been filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961.

How could a birth have been”FILED” on “August 8, 1961″ for President Obama with the DoH “REGISTRAR” without the Registrar having been informed that he was born?

That’s not possible.  Not unless clairvoyance was officially recognized by the DoH in 1961.  (More secret law?)

In order for the DoH Registrar to have filed President Obama’s birth on August 8, 1961 there must be a record that came into existence no later than August 9, 1961.  (I use that date to make up for any issues regarding time zone differences.)

So, I have just sent the following UIPA request to Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino.

Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 8:24 AM
From: [Leo C. Donofrio - email redacted]
To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov
cc: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
Subject: UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. Donofrio

Dear Department of Health Director Fukino,

The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA:

I request to inspect and copy the record (or records) which contributed to the decision of the Hawaii Department of Health (hereinafter DoH) to have indicated that President Obama’s birth had been filed by the DoH registrar on August 8, 1961.

President Obama has made public a “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) which he alleges is an official document printed by the Hawaii DoH. That document bears the following:

“DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR
August 8, 1961″.

Various public statements made by the DoH have given the appearance of authenticating that COLB as a genuine record originally generated by the DoH.

In this, my 5th UIPA request sent to your office, please understand that I am requesting access to all records maintained by the DoH which caused President Obama’s birth to have been filed with the registrar back on August 8, 1961. Therefore, for purposes of this – UIPA request #5 – I am only requesting to inspect (and copy) records (or official copies thereof) which originally came into existence no later than August 9, 1961.

This request is not for the COLB in question as I have previously requested that record in a separate UIPA request (UIPA Request #3) forwarded to your office by myself on September 29, 2009.

Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules. If you do maintain a record (or records) which came into existence prior to August 10, 1961 which contributed to the DoH declaration that President Obama’s birth had been “FILED BY REGISTRAR” on “August 8, 1961″ and you intend to deny access thereto, please make sure your response states that you are denying access. If you do not maintain any such records, you are required by the OIP administrative rules to inform me that you do not maintain any such records.

I would prefer to inspect these records in person. If you intend to send me official copies of the records requested herein, I prefer electronic copies sent by email to [email redacted].

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney

That a COLB has been presented to the nation by President Obama wherein his birth appears to have been filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961 could not be more public at this point.

And the DoH has given the appearance of authenticating this document.  Such authentication has been relied upon by various courts and persons in the Senate and Congress.  Therefore, absolutely no privacy protection is available to President Obama as to this information.

Should the requested records also contain information which has not been made public and to which a privacy interest still exists, that information can be redacted.

The law supports my request.  The law is rational in that way.  The strange behavior by the DoH is irrational.

If the DoH has such a record they must either grant access thereto or deny access.  On the other hand, if the DoH does not maintain such a record, then – according to the OIP administrative rules, as well as the multiple statements of OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting – the DoH must tell me if they do not maintain such a record.

If the DoH does not maintain such a record, then they do not maintain sufficient evidence that President Obama’s birth was genuinely filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961.  This would bring us back to square 1.

(For more relevant discussion about the “Filed By Registrar” issue, please see the original June 24, 2008 report by Israeli Insider as well as TerriK’s latest in depth analysis.)

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

_____________________________________

ATTENTION: New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. Simple comments of support will not be printed, neither will flames. The chances of your comment being printed are very slim. The moderation takes too much of my time. But sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know most comments will not be printed.

MEDIA UPDATE: The Awakening Radio Program tonight; Jeff Rense on Thursday; TerriK’s New Blog

[UPDATED: 11:30PM Two hour broadcast on The Awakening is available here.]

- Leo Donofrio will be on The Awakening Radio Program tonight from 9-11 PM ET.  The second hour will also feature Justin Riggs.  The Awakening is co-hosted by Arlen Williams of the Investigating Obama blog.  Arlen has an excellent summary of the Hawaiian Investigation with all the best coverage from around the web.

- Leo Donofrio will be a guest on the Jeff Rense Radio Program, Thursday October 8, 2009 8-9PM PT. [ I canceled my appearance on this show].

Also, please visit TerriK’s new blog where she continues her excellent research and analysis of the Obama/Hawaii mess.  Everyone should read her latest report:  “Our Worst Nightmare Confirmed – Obama’s COLB Lacks Legal Veracity. What Now?”

OKUBO CAUGHT AGAIN: Admits Providing False Information Regarding DoH Maintenance Of Divorce Records.

[UPDATE: 10:36 PM EST -  Okubo answers KingsKid today (Saturday) - "No records exist"  for Barry Soetoro. AND - Office of Health Status Monitoring under maintenance until 6:30 PM (Hawaii time) tonight Saturday 10.03.09 See my comment to this article for details. ]

In an amazing turn of events, the person in charge of communications at the Hawaii Department of Health – Communications Director Janice Okubo – has been forced to admit that part of her Oct 1, 2009 email to “KingsKid” was false.

I reported yesterday that Okubo stated the DoH does not hold divorce records. But later, reader KDSB commented that the Department of Health web site contradicts Okubo’s statement. They do maintain divorce records. From the DoH web site:

About Vital Records

Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health.

KingsKid had previously issued the following question to Okubo:

Is the “bride and groom” index data that you provided part of the President’s index file, or is it from Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr index files? Also, was the divorce of SAD and BOH, Sr. part of the 338-18(d) index data?

Okubo’s response:

From: Okubo, Janice S.

To: [KingsKid - real name redacted]

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:29 PM

Subject: RE: Clarificatio, Please

Aloha..,

I am sorry; I may have misunderstood your request. The “bride” and “groom” index data is from Stanley Ann Dunahm [sic] and Barack Hussein Obama index files.

The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health

That was a blatant lie. They do – in fact – hold divorce records. They do – in fact – hold the divorce records for both Stanley Ann Dunham divorces. It’s absurd to even consider Okubo wasn’t aware that the DoH held those infamous records.

When called to task by KingsKid, Okubo provided an answer which is not credible:

From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid-real name redacted]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 6:55PM
Subject: RE: Clarification, Please

Our Office does not maintain an index for divorce records. We only have divorce records from the courts between July 1951 to December 2002.  All other divorce records are kept in the court where the divorce took place. My apologies for the misinformation on the website, our staff will work on updating those pages.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health

This is insanity.

Okubo’s original response to the divorce question didn’t mention “an index for divorce records”. It simply stated, “The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.”

How does the Communications Director overlook 51 years of divorce records on file with her office?

This is more Seussian hooplah.  The DoH maintains records of divorce and all vital events.  Information from those records is [should be] maintained as index data per registrant.  Her Seussian hooplah response was that they do not maintain “an index for divorce records“.  She’s essentially telling you her answer depends on what the meaning of index is.

She may call the directory of divorce records whatever she likes in her native tongue of Seussian hooplah, but divorce records maintained by the DoH must be listed in the  index file for each registrant. The only misinformation here are the words birthed from her bent keyboard.

And when exposed, Okubo inexplicably blamed the error on the DoH web site.  But it’s Okubo who is directly responsible for the misinformation. The DoH web site accurately states that the DoH maintains divorce records. The web site makes clear that a divorce is a vital event.

Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d) commands the DoH to make the following information available to the public:

(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.

I have news for the people running this psyop: it’s over. And things don’t usually end well for the guppies. Your masters will feed you to the giant before they ever take the fall. This is not Tokyo Rose psychobabble. Giant is awake. Giant will prevail. It’s just a matter of time.

by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

_______________

Here are some relevant lyrics from The Beastie Boys classic SABOTAGE. Video below…

I Can’t Stand It, I Know You Planned It
Ima Set It Straight, This Watergate
I Can’t Stand Rockin’ When I’m In Here
‘Cause Your Crystal Ball Ain’t So Crystal Clear
So, While You Sit Back And Wonder Why
I Got This F**king Thorn In My Side
Oh My God, It’s A Mirage
I’m Tellin’ Y’all It’s Sabotage

So,So,So, So Listen Up ‘Cause You Can’t Say Nothin’
You Shut Me Down With A Push Of Your Button
But yo, I’m Out And I’m Gone
I’ll Tell You Now I Keep It On And On

‘Cause What You See You Might Not Get
And We Can Bet, So Don’t You Get Souped Yet
Scheming On A Thing That’s A Mirage
I’m Tryin’ To Tell You Now It’s Sabotage

Why; Our Backs Are Now Against The Wall
Listen All Of Y’all This Is Sabotage
Listen All Of Y’all This Is Sabotage
Listen All Of Y’all This Is Sabotage
Listen All of Y’all This Is Sabotage

I Can’t Stand It, I Know You Planned It
I’ma Set It Straight This Watergate
I Can’t Stand Rockin’ When I’m In This Place
Because I Feel Disgrace Because You’re All In My Face
But Make No Mistakes And Switch Up My Channel
I’m Buddy Rich When I Fly Off The Handle
What Could It Be, It’s A Mirage
You’re Scheming On A Thing That’s Sabotage

—————————————-

ATTENTION: New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. Simple comments of support will not be printed, neither will flames. The chances of your comment being printed are very slim. The moderation takes too much of my time. But sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know most comments will not be printed.

DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist.

MEDIA UPDATE: I will be on The Liberty Pole with Ken Dunbar tonight

9PM -11 PM EST – Texas Broadcasting Network http://texasbroadcasting.net/

[UPDATED 2:29 PM 10.02.09 - see red UPDATE below.]

The Hawaii Department of Health has reversed course.  They now admit that they do -  in fact – make some vital records information available to the public.  This admission reverses their prior response pattern indicating that “no information” could be released.

You will recall from Part 1 of my full report that previous official responses to UIPA requests were greeted with statements – issued by DoH Director Fukino and DoH Communications Director Okubo – which indicated that state law forbid “any information” about Hawaii vital records from being released.  These rigid responses were issued despite the clear applicability of Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d) which requires the mandatory release of some information from vital records on file with the DoH.

Just after I released that report, the Post and Email blog detailed that another researcher who requested “index data” had received the same improper denial of access to that index data.  I blogged on that denial in my report entitled, “Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places her Thumb Directly In The Giants Eye.”

Behind the scenes, myself and two other members of my research team – KingsKid and Justin Riggs – have been issuing very specific UIPA requests.  And last night KingsKid received a response to her UIPA request from DoH Communications Director Okubo which exhibits a complete reversal of policy.

KingsKid UIPA REQUEST ANSWERED BY OKUBO… AND MORE?

From: [KingsKid real name redacted]

To: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:03 AM

Subject: Request for information

Dear Ms. Okubo,

IAW Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d), I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.

This statute at para (d) provides officials no authority to withhold the requested information.  Therefore, I as an American citizen, am invoking Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d)  Disclosure of records, which reads as follows: (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 [my emphasis].

Ms. Okubo, I worked for the federal government for 32 years as a contracting officer and can appreciate the position you are in.  However, I will tell you this, when it came to doing my job, I never allowed politics to interfere.  Call it personal integrity, upholding my principles, or whatever.  I went by the acquisition regulations scrupulously, thus, no one could ever contest what I had done.  Yes, I encountered opposition when I rebuffed “politics”, but I wouldn’t budge.  Standing steadfast sometimes brought me short-term grief, but in the end, right triumphed.  I see you in a similar situation.  I don’t know you or your personal ethics or agenda.  I do know that as a public official and servant to the people, you have a duty to carry out the laws that govern your department.

Ms. Okubo, you cannot escape the duty you have … in providing this information to anyone who requests it.  According to the referenced statute, you are to provide me all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr (or any other name he has used as indicated above), AND such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.  My request right now is limited to all the index data on Mr. Obama.  If you have other information that you care to make available in addition, please send that also.

As a public servant, you have the responsibility to uphold the law in all respects and not cherry-pick what is politically expedient for you or any other public servant.  All your public responses that I have seen on the internet to date, absolutely avoid any reference at all to paragraph (d).  You obviously don’t want to release Mr. Obama’s index file, but by your own law, you have to.  The truth always comes out, Ms. Okubo.  You can save yourself embarrassment, if something not more serious, by quickly complying with Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d)…

Last night, Janice Okubo responded to KingsKid with the following email:

From: Okubo, Janice S.

To: [email redacted]

Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM

Subject: RE: Request for information

Aloha..,

Index data referred to in HRS 338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu .  The Director in accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.

In response to your request the following index data is being provided:

BIRTH INDEX
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

CHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
M

MARRIAGE INDEX
SORTED BY BRIDE
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN

BRIDE
DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…

(Okubo used the “blue ink” to transmit the index data.  And Stanley Ann’s last name is misspelled as “DUNHAN”.  It should be “Dunham”.  KingsKid is awaiting clarification.)

[UPDATE: 2:35 PM 10.02.09  KingsKid was informed by Okubo that the index file has the correct spelling "DUNHAM" and the typo was her mistake, it's spelled correctly in the file.]

This response certainly gives a plethora of new information.  First and foremost, it tells us that a thumb is being removed from the giant’s eye.  This is, as far as I know, the first time the DoH has responded to a request for information from President Obama’s vital records by releasing actual records as opposed to Fukino’s view of those records.

This is a significant change in policy caused by renewed public attention.

It also tells one where to view the actual index data with your own eyes, “…the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu.”

The index file also lists President Obama’s name as “Barack Hussein Obama II”.

BRIDE AND GROOM?

This information allows us to put the rumour to bed which claims that Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. weren’t married.  They were married in Hawaii. However…

KingsKid didn’t request index data for Stanley Ann or Barack, Sr.

I thought it was very odd that Okubo included the marriage index information in her response to KingsKid’s very specific request for President Obama’s index data.  Specifically, I was confused as to why Okubo’s response would list “Bride” and “Groom” in Obama’s index file instead of “Mother” and “Father”.

Okubo’s response to KingsKid gives the impression that the names of Obama’s parents are included in that response – but it doesn’t have them listed as parents.

It has them listed only as bride and groom.

Knowing that the DoH has exhibited a penchant for misdirection, this raised a big red flag for me.

I asked KingsKid to write back to Okubo and have her clarify whether the index data made available to the public includes parentage or whether the information Okubo provided was from the index files of Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr.  I also suggested that KingsKid query Okubo as to whether a divorce would appear in the index file.

Below is the follow up inquiry sent by KingsKid to Okubo at 10:07PM EST, last night (Oct. 1, 2009):

Thank you for your response.  However, I am a bit perplexed by the terms “bride” and “groom”, and would appreciate clarification.  Is the “bride and groom” index data that you provided part of the President’s index file, or is it from Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr index files?   Also, was the divorce of SAD and BOH, Sr. part of the 338-18(d) index data?

Thank you for your assistance once again.

And here is Okubo’s response:

From: Okubo, Janice S.

To: [KingsKid - real name redacted]

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:29 PM

Subject: RE: Clarificatio, Please

Aloha..,

I am sorry; I may have misunderstood your request.  The “bride” and “groom” index data is from Stanley Ann Dunahm and Barack Hussein Obama index files.

The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health

So now we know that the DoH doesn’t maintain divorce records.  Those are maintained by the “Judiciary”.

Beyond that, I just don’t know what to make of this at all.  I can’t see how Okubo could have “misunderstood” the request.  KingsKid was very specific:

“…I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.”

It’s clear that KingsKid was asking only for the President’s index data, not for the index data of Stanley Ann and/or Barack Sr.  Okubo’s response offered up information from multiple index files.  But nowhere in the request does it make reference to anyone but the President.

Either, Communications Director Okubo did misunderstand the request, or she was trying to give the impression that the President’s index data lists the names of Stanley Ann and Barack Sr. as his parents.

I am truly baffled.  Since when does the DoH give more information than was requested.  Are we going to be subjected to Seussian Hooplah such as – It depends what the meaning of “parents” is – ?

I have to believe the President’s vital records will show that SAD and BHO are his biological parents.  But Okubo’s response to KingsKid, Fukino’s “natural-born” determination, and the refusal by the DoH to enlighten the public as to Attorney General Mark Bennet’s approval thereof forces the need for public inquiry to reach much further.

Also, Okubo’s response misspells Stanley Ann’s last name as “Dunahm” while the index data misspells Stanley Ann’s name as “Dunhan“.  Researchers visiting the Office of Health Status Monitoring will need to use multiple variations of the name “Dunham” in order to thoroughly search the public index data.  Cue Twilight Zone theme. [UPDATED: 2:34 PM 10.02.09 - Okubo has taken responsibility for the spelling errors.  They are a non-issue.]

And finally, it isn’t clear to us yet whether the index data provided by Okubo to KingsKid includes all of the index data available via 338-18(d) for Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr.  We need further clarification on that.

MAYA SOETORO

KingsKid also requested index data for Maya Soetoro, the President’s sister.  Okubo’s response indicates that there is no record on file with the DoH in Hawaii for Maya.  So, I believe we can safely put to bed all allegations that Obama’s online COLB was created using a COLB issued for Maya as a template.

Here is the request made by KingsKid on September 28, 2009 5:20 AM as to Maya:

As per Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18(d), I am herein requesting “index data” available to the public according to the statute, specifically the index data pertaining to a birth record for the person known as President Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro, aka Maya Kassandra Soetoro, aka Maya Soetoro-ng…  

Below is Okubo’s response:

From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Information

Aloha…

There is no record that responds to this request.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health

PROPER RESPONSE UNDER OIP ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

This response by Okubo illustrates the correct format Hawaii state agencies must comply with when the requested records are not maintained by an agency.  (See OIP administrative rule §2-71-14(c)(1).)  If the agency does not maintain the record they must inform the requestor that no such record exists.

All of this correspondence between Okubo and KingsKid is encouraging.  It tells me that the DoH is aware of a growing public enlightenment concerning citizen knowledge of open government laws.  It’s important now that we stay on point and get all of the information the law makes available to the public.

BASTIONS OF ELIGIBILITY BLOWIN’ IN THE WIND

I would like to point out that the two core bastions cited by members of Congress and the main stream media as providing credibility to Obama’s eligibility issues – Factcheck.org and the Hawaii Department of Health – have both been seriously impeached by the findings of this blog.

Not only was Factcheck.org forced to admit I caught them making a serious error as to their factchecking of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, they had to publish a second apologetic response due to their having mistakenly reported that I was a “former attorney” while I am fully licensed.  Factcheck.org blamed their mistake on other news reports, but they certainly could have checked with me or the New Jersey court system had they been truly dedicated to getting their facts straight before publication.

Now the Hawaii DoH has been forced to back pedal from a previous pattern of issuing blanket denials of access to “all information” contained in Hawaii vital records.

My next report will analyze the legal means by which the public should gain access to President Obama’s vital records which have already been made public by him and the Hawaii DoH.

by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009 Leo C. Donofrio

Leo Donofrio Is No Longer Spokesperson For TerriK.

As we move from blog reports to litigation, TerriK and I have decided it would be best for me to conduct my own investigation.  We had previously decided that I would not take the step from spokesperson to actual counsel for her.  But I will no longer be spokesperson for her either.

This makes things much easier for the following reasons:

1. I will not have to file any pro hac vice motions, and I won’t have to represent anybody in court.  I can simply represent myself.

2. I can start over with very specific UIPA requests and proceed with each one through the OIP process and judiciary in my own name.

Many of TerriK’s UIPA requests were overly broad and due to her hard work there were just so many of them.  This made it easier for the DoH to avoid specific responses.  Last week, I quietly began issuing very specific UIPA requests in my own name.  I also have a team of researchers doing the same.  And there has been significant progress as to some of those requests.  I will report those later today.

At this point, I need to break down for you exactly what my role has been in these reports.  I will explain why below.  The actual composition of the reports was completely my own.  Nobody had any editorial control other than myself.  I claim copyright to them and have updated them to reflect my copyright.  I wrote all previous reports word for word.

LEGAL ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH

Other than use of the actual UIPA statute itself – all of the OIP opinion letter and case law research, analysis and application to the facts originated with me.  Legal analysis and application of 338-18(d) also originated with me.  The “the law of the agency” or “no secret law” research and analysis under 92F-12(a)(2) originated with me as well.

Application of the UIPA to President Obama’s eligibility issues and DoH press releases orignated with TerriK.  All correspondence between TerriK and the DoH and OIP originated with her.  TerriK was also responsible for first raising the issue of applying 92F-12(a)(15) to her UIPA requests.  As I said in my prior report, this was a stroke of genius and we all have her to thank for it.

SEPARATE WAYS

Despite my best efforts, TerriK is not satisfied that I grasp the nuances of DoH Director Fukino’s parsing of words in the July 27, 2009 press release.  Therefore, according to her most recent email I believe she will be speaking for herself or through other attorneys.

At this point our investigations will part.

I wish TerriK the best in her ongoing search for truth on this issue.  We all owe her a debt of gratitude.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

October 2nd, 2009