UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. Donofrio

.........................................................................................
The woodpecker persistance to prevail is matched by Leo Donofrio's pursuit of the elusive original obama COB if it exists.
.........................................................................................

“UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. Donofrio”

Leo will dog the Hawaii DoH with UIPA, Office of Health Status Monitoring, requests until 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 are produced or the Hawaii DOH admits they do not maintain any such records.

If the Hawaii DOH admits they do not maintain any such records they would be admitting obama does not have an original birth certificate from August 8, 1961. A possibility as Leo Donofrio is pointing out. How is this possible you ask? Simple, it is possible the DOH has lied about obama and used the DNC certification of nomination which included the statement below to expand the scheme to hide obama's true identity. (Story Reports)

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."

.........................................................................................

1.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on Oct. 31, 2008:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

..........................................................................................


2.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on July 27, 2009:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii 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.”
.........................................................................................

It is important to note Fukino said, "have seen vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health". She also added," Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen." This is pointing to the DNC certification of nomination and the non binding resolution congress sent to Hawaii on Hawaii's 50th anniversary of statehood. These too could be considered, "vital records". She didn't say she had seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in the second statement 8 months later. (Story Reports Comments)

..........................................................................................
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
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.

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

..........................................................................................
If we go back to "square one" as Leo says, obama will be exposed as an imposter and the Supreme Court/Congress/Quo Warranto will kick in big time to remove the imposter. There won't be much rioting if "square one" turns out to be an empty suit as I have said all along. Can't wait for the next episode of, "as the imposter squirms" from Leo Donofrio or MissTickly (aka ‘TerriK’).

TerriK Blog

Natural Born Citizen Blog Leo Donofrio
..........................................................................................
I used Leo's "template" to "carve out" some information of my own. (Story Reports)
..........................................................................................

Dear Department of Health Director Fukino,

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

I request a copy of 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 1st 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 #1 – I am only requesting (official copies thereof) which originally came into existence no later than August 9, 1961.

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.

If you intend to send me official copies of the records requested herein, I prefer electronic copies sent by email to, xxxxxxxxxxx

Very Truly Yours,

xxx xxxxxxx

..........................................................................................

Abstract of record definition - legal

........................................................................................
‘Filed by Registrar,’ in 2007 Abstract

........................................................................................


........................................................................................
‘Filed by Registrar,’ in 2007 Abstract

........................................................................................


Abstract of record definition - legal
.........................................................................................
‘Filed by Registrar,’ in 2007 Abstract
.........................................................................................

A summary of the record of a case advising an appellate court of the underlying facts, all the steps taken to-date in the case, the decision of the trial court, and the legal issues to be decided.

An Abstract is just a SUMMARY of the real record.
.........................................................................................
Obama’s COLB Lacks Legal Veracity or No Honesty; credibility; truthfulness.



‘Filed by Registrar,’ in 2007 Abstract


When the State issued obama's COLB that states ‘Filed by Registrar,’ in 2007, we can conclude that the evidence submitted to them of the ‘proof of the facts stated within the COLB’ was insufficient, at least at that time, to warrant recording on permanent state record with the Registrar.

President Obama’s online COLB says ‘FILED BY REGISTRAR.’ The information on the President’s COLB represents information he furnished the local registrar in an application to amend his vital record information. He furnished this info likely on a blank certificate or form supplied by the local registrar. Fukino’s statement in October 2008, indicates that an original birth certificate already existed ‘on record in accordance to state policy and procedure.’ The vital records she refers to on July 27, 2009, “verifying” the President is a ‘natural-Born’ American citizen and born in Hawaii are only “maintained on file,” therefore they cannot possibly be “on record with the State Registrar:”

“COMPLETED RECORDS” – MEANING ONE WHERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN COLLECTED, REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED, PER POLICY AND PROCEDURE, TO RECORD THE VITAL STATISTICS WITH THE STATE REGISTRAR.

IT IS AT THIS POINT THAT A FILED CERTIFICATE APPLICATION OF ANY KIND HAS BEEN ‘ACCEPTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.’

Once obama's filed application to amend his Birth Certificate was accepted by the State Registrar, the amended information would be pulled out, noted and endorsed. It’s impossible to tell by looking at the President’s COLB, which information is to be amended until after it’s accepted. In fact, the notation that President Obama’s COLB is ‘Filed by Registrar’ indicates the state stands by NONE of the information found on the document. Hawaii did not send obama a colb that says accepted by registrar.

Obama has a ‘reproduction of a FILE’ while other samples of Hawaiian COLBs found online are ‘reproductions of RECORDS’ that have been accepted and therefore completed with the State Registrar using the support of sufficient evidence required by the state to register the Birth Certificate on record.

Obama's colb is nothing more than a reproduction of a file that the state of Hawaii indicates does not have sufficient evidence required to be ammended and certified as "accepted by registrar." In other words it is not legal proof but just a reproduction of a file that obama supplied to the state indicating he wanted the colb ammended. Hawaii in effect said NO. You supplied fake documents or incorrect documents to us.

What does this all mean? IT MEANS OBAMA IS AN IMPOSTER, A FRAUD, A CON MAN WHO CANNOT PROVE NOR WILL NOT PROVE WHO HE IS!

America elected a CON MAN for president.

I challenge you, "Barack Hussein Obama" to prove who you are. You can't. You can't use the online colb which has not been accepted by the registrar. You can't reveal your original "birth certificate" because as you know it has information on it that either can't be verified or is dubious at best. You are an imposter. If I had 100 million dollars I would bet it against your not being able to prove who you are. $10.00 gets your original birth certificate on file that Hawaii won't let you ammend and release because of bogus information you supplied to them. Congress cannot even persuade Hawaii to issue you an ammended colb after passing a non binding resolution for you. You seem to be a loser at every turn. Thats because you are an IMPOSTER!

Obama is a 'no record' empty suit with the clout of the presidency because of his veracity of deceit. Obama's legacy will be his veracity of deceit because he will be exposed as a fraud. Somehow someone or a group of people will expose obama. When obama is exposed as an imposter others who hid his origin by deception will also be exposed. Obama is about to ram through the so called health care bill but it will not stop Americans from bringing him to justice. All obama's efforts can't hide the truth forever especially now that we KNOW his colb is a fraud and can explain why.
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
HERE IS THE PROBLEM ~ HAWAII ISSUES 'COLB' CERTIFICATES OF BIRTH FOR CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE HAWAII, IE (KENYA). A COLB IS NOT PROOF OF BIRTH. Neither is an amended colb that has not been accepted by registrar.

Here’s the main problem, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

Since Hawaii issues “Certificates of Live Birth” to children not born in Hawaii and “Birth Certificates” to children who are born in Hawaii, the only way to know where Obama was actually born is to view Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.

Obama has not produced any document that has a hospital name nor doctors name. This is a BIG fact the state run media and all those who believe obama has produced evidence he is a US citizen have overlooked or ignored. The next time you talk to someone who indicates obama is legitimate ask them in which hospital was he born? Who was the doctor that signed his colb?

Obama birth certificate somewhere in Hawaii and possibly elsewhere

..........................................................................................
Front row (left to right): Auma Obama (Barack's half-sister), Kezia Obama (Barack's step-mother), Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama (third wife of Barack's paternal grandfather), Zeituni Onyango (Barack's aunt)

Back row (left to right): Said Obama (Barack's uncle), Barack Obama, Abongo [Roy] Obama (Barack's half-brother), unidentified woman, Bernard Obama (Barack's half-brother), Abo Obama (Barack's half-brother).
..........................................................................................
Zeituni Onyango (Barack's aunt), Said Obama (Barack's uncle), Ralph Dunham (Barack's uncle), Charles Thomas Payne (Barack's uncle), Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama), Habiba Akumu Obama (Parental Grandmother)

These people can get a copy of obama's birth certificate. 6 people. 6 possible ways to get obama's birth certificate. Maybe an uncle would do. Maybe an aunt. Not likely but possible. I suggest writing to some of these people asking where obama was born. I doubt you would get an answer. If one did request his birth certificate under Hawaiian law that person would get a copy. Maybe one of these people allready have a copy. It is possible.
Lets see it.
..........................................................................................
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII Index
..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................
More Family Members

* Stanley Dunham - maternal grandfather (1918-1992)
* Charles T. Payne - maternal great-uncle (born 1925)
* Lolo Soetoro - stepfather (1936-1987)
* Hussein Onyango Obama - paternal grandfather (1895-1979)
* Habiba Akumu Obama - paternal grandmother
* Sarah Obama - paternal step-grandmother (born 1922)
* Kezia Obama - step-mother (born 1940)
* Abo Obama - half-brother (born 1968)
* Auma Obama - half-sister (born 1960)
* Bernard Obama - half-brother (born 1970)
* Ruth Ndesandjo - Barack Obama Sr.'s third wife (born in U.S. c. 1940)
* Mark Ndesandjo - half-brother
* Zeituni Onyango - half-sister (born May 29, 1952)

Hawaii state law restricts the access to vital records to only authorized individuals. Birth and Marriage certificates may only be requested by the individual, the individual's father, the individual's mother or the individual's relatives.


Self
Mother
Father
Son
Daughter
Brother
Sister
Aunt on mother's side
Uncle on mother's side
Aunt on father's side
Uncle on father's side

Grandmother on mother's side
Grandfather on mother's side

Grandmother on father's side
Grandfather on father's side
Grandchild
State Agency

.........................................................................................
How To Order a Copy Of Obama's COLBOnly if you are one of the above. No cousins.
.........................................................................................

It also lists state agency. This is interesting. What state agency. This could mean Obama's birth certificate is also somewhere in another state agency file. A possibility.

Lets contact all revelant state agencies an ask for a copy. Once its given to another state agency is it open to the public? First come first serve?
.........................................................................................
This site also lists state agency as a possible requestor of a birth certificate. This means certain state agencies in Hawaii could have requested and received a certified copy of obama’s birth certificate.

Would the same restrictions on releasing obama’s birth certificate apply to different state agencies as anyone else obtaining a copy of obama’s birth certificate? Once a copy is on file with another agency what are the restrictions if any? Remember once information is made public about someone’s birth certificate doesn’t the law allow for it to be received by anyone on request?

Yes i’m fishing but i’m hoping to catch an imposter.

obama has peddled a colb that has not been verified by Hawaii

.........................................................................................
The information used by obama and congress are insufficient proof, unsubstantiated, unrecorded and suspect. Hawaii will not accept it.Now we know that all we have is Obama's and Pelosi's word for it. No thanks. Hawaii will not confirm obama's documentation to amend his original colb. Why. Maybe because he doesn't have real proof of WHO HE IS, WHO HIS PARENTS ARE OR WHERE HE WAS ACTUALLY BORN! A BOMBSHELL! PROOF OBAMA IS AN IMPOSTER!Story Reports Comments
........................................................................................

TerriK confirms through officals in Hawaii obama is an imposter because Hawaii has not confirmed his ammended colb to this date!

On July 27, 2009, Obama was not verified as ‘Constitutionally Qualified to be U.S. President’ by the standards of Hawaii’s Department of Health and Vital Statistics Registrar. Any assertions by Nancy Pelosi or anyone else must be reexamined. TerriK

THE KEY: ‘FILED by Local Registrar’ vs. ‘ACCEPTED by State Registrar’

We have two statements about two sets of vital records belonging to the President issued from Hawaii. An “original birth certificate” that is “on record in accordance to state policies and procedures” in October, 2008, AND “original vital records” that are “maintained on file,” on July 27, 2009.

• We also have a COLB presented by President Obama that indicates the information shown has been ‘Filed by Registrar.’

• However, we also have samples found online of HAWAII COLBs that say they have been ‘Accepted by State Registrar.’


........................................................................................

President Obama’s online COLB says ‘FILED BY REGISTRAR.’ The information on the President’s COLB represents information he furnished the local registrar in an application to amend his vital record information. He furnished this info likely on a blank certificate or form supplied by the local registrar. Fukino’s statement in October 2008, indicates that an original birth certificate already existed ‘on record in accordance to state policy and procedure.’ The vital records she refers to on July 27, 2009, “verifying” the President is a ‘natural-Born’ American citizen and born in Hawaii are only “maintained on file,” therefore they cannot possibly be “on record with the State Registrar:”

*****************************************************************************************
And when the State issued his COLB that states ‘Filed by Registrar,’ in 2007, we can conclude that the evidence submitted to them of the ‘proof of the facts stated within the COLB’ was insufficient, at least at that time, to warrant recording on permanent state record with the Registrar.
*****************************************************************************************

President Obama has a ‘reproduction of a FILE’ while other samples of Hawaiian COLBs found online are ‘reproductions of RECORDS’ that have been accepted and therefore completed with the State Registrar using the support of sufficient evidence required by the state to register the Birth Certificate on record.

We can conclude from Fukino’s use of the phrase “maintained on file” which refers to the vital records “verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen,” the state had not recorded and indexed the information verifying the facts within. We can conclude that the State of Hawaii was unsatisfied on July 27, 2009 of those facts.

THIS IS SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS. BREATHTAKINGLY STUPID. IT’S RECKLESS. IT’S UNBELIEVABLE. TerriK (The Person who has written Hawaii and received the answers about obama)
PROOF OBAMA IS AN IMPOSTER US SENATE AND HOUSE RESOLUTIONS TRY TO COVER THIS FACT UP.

COINCIDENTAL & BIZARRE CONGRESSIONAL MOVES.On July 28th, did Congress sell out our Constitution with a Resolution that declared that President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961? If so, was it inadvertent, on purpose, corruption or stupidity? All of the above? Who knows with that gang of thugs?

“Looking at the dates of TerriK’s pre-release of Fukino’s written statement (July 27) and the PUBLIC release of Fukino’s written statement (July 28) seems to indicate a COORDINATED effort by the Hawaii Department of Health and Hawaii Congressmen in an attempt to “shut down” further questions of Obama’s eligibility.

As you may recall, there was a non-binding Resolution with the passage of H.RES.593 (House timeline on July 27) and S.RES.225 (Senate timeline on July 28) recognizing Hawaii’s 50th Anniversary as a US state. Also in the Resolution, among other things, was a clause that stated “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” (House version text).”

Could Congress have provided the ‘evidence’ to amend the President’s Birth Place?
.........................................................................................

And when the State issued his COLB that states ‘Filed by Registrar,’ in 2007, we can conclude that the evidence submitted to them of the ‘proof of the facts stated within the COLB’ was insufficient, at least at that time, to warrant recording on permanent state record with the Registrar.

UNLESS BOTH STEPS ARE COMPLETED, THE STATE DECLARES THE FILED APPLICATION OR AN APPLICATION TO AMEND HAS ‘INSUFFICIENT PROOF’ TO SUPPORT THE INFORMATION FOUND WITHIN.

An application can be dismissed for lack of evidence after a period of time, or a person can submit evidence to be reviewed and accepted in the SECOND STEP. In the interim, the state makes no claim that the Birth Certificate ON FILE has been found sufficient on a state registrar level. AND they should clearly state so on the Certificate if this is the case. They do. Now we all know–it’s been in front of our faces all along.

THIS STEP MUST BE COMPLETED FOR A BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR INFORMATION BEING AMENDED WITHIN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO BE FOUND VALID OR LEGAL PROOF.

f the records that verified our president was born in Hawai’i and is a “natural-born American citizen” did not complete or end at state level registration through STEP TWO, those records are completely empty and unfounded for all legal purposes.

STATE ADMINISTRATION
NRS 440.110 State Registrar of Vital Statistics.
NRS 440.120 Regulations of State Board of Health concerning registration; enforcement by State Registrar. [NOTE: This never happened for the President's online COLB, so the info found on it is NOT LEGAL.]
NRS 440.130 Preparation and distribution of forms and blanks; charge for blank certificate.
NRS 440.135 Form for reporting divorce or annulment of marriage: Preparation; contents; distribution.
NRS 440.140 Preparation and issuance of instructions; use of other forms and blanks prohibited.
NRS 440.150 Examination and supplementation of certificates. (See below)
NRS 440.160 Preservation and indexing of certificates. [Any pending application has not been indexed. Therefore, the index data won't show the whole picture. Perhaps, not even for Maya.]
NRS 440.165 Reproduction of original records and files.
NRS 440.170 Records open to inspection; use of data restricted.
NRS 440.175 Furnishing statistical data; limitation on preparation or issuance of certain documents; charging fees to homeless persons prohibited; remittance required for issuing copies.

Obama has an incomplete and unsatisfactory COLB if indications from Nevada policy are true:

“NRS 440.150 EXAMINATION AND SUPPLEMENTATION OF CERTIFICATES. THE STATE REGISTRAR SHALL CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE CERTIFICATES RECEIVED FROM THE LOCAL HEALTH OFFICERS, AND IF THEY ARE INCOMPLETE OR UNSATISFACTORY HE SHALL REQUIRE SUCH FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE RECORD COMPLETE AND SATISFACTORY.”

In other words, The State Registrar says, “Something stinks here and I ain’t puttin’ any of it on record.”

........................................................................................

This is it. I agree. Obama tried to ammend his "original" birth certificate but the state of Hawaii did not find his documentation satisfactory as of this date Oct 4, 2009. He has published an incomplete uncertified colb as proof he is a natural born US citizen.

Wow this is documented and makes perfect sense. Obama is hiding the fact he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as the US Constitution requires! He did it by filing an ammendment to his original which the state has yet to verify!

Obama has been revealed as an IMPOSTER and a FRAUD!

Worst nightmare confirmed obama has peddled a colb that has not been verified by the state he says he was born in. Hawaii will not confirm obama was born there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*****************************************************************************************


COINCIDENTAL & BIZARRE CONGRESSIONAL MOVES…OR NOT, shhhhhh…

On July 28th, did Congress sell out our Constitution with a Resolution that declared that President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961? If so, was it inadvertent, on purpose, corruption or stupidity? All of the above? Who knows with that gang of thugs?

Looking at the dates of TerriK’s pre-release of Fukino’s written statement (July 27) and the PUBLIC release of Fukino’s written statement (July 28) seems to indicate a COORDINATED effort by the Hawaii Department of Health and Hawaii Congressmen in an attempt to “shut down” further questions of Obama’s eligibility.

As you may recall, there was a non-binding Resolution with the passage of H.RES.593 (House timeline on July 27) and S.RES.225 (Senate timeline on July 28) recognizing Hawaii’s 50th Anniversary as a US state. Also in the Resolution, among other things, was a clause that stated “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” (House version text).”

Could Congress have provided the ‘evidence’ to amend the President’s Birth Place?

Could the evidence only be a house and senate resolution stating that Obama was born in Hawaii? Of course this is no evidence at all..only a BIG BIG COVERUP of the fact obama is an IMPOSTER!

Read this amazing article confirming obama is an IMPOSTER by Terry K

FOR ALL WE KNOW, President Obama’s application is headed right for the garbage can even with the non-binding resolution.

We have the evidence now, without accessing the President’s birth files – 1.) Dr. Fukino’s 7/27/2009 statement and 2.) President Obama’s online COLB because both state clearly they refer to Files of NO EVIDENTIAL value…Files that are maintained, but not on record… Files that are proof of nothing…SLEIGHT OF HAND.

Thank you Dr. Fukino for showing President Obama what transparency means, what ‘Open Government’ means. What honesty means. And what being forthcoming as a leader in whom people place their trust means. You didn’t need to give us the last clue! You’ve done enough.

(Story Reports Comments) I’m convinced. If only the American people new the truth. Obama tried to fake us out by filing an ammendment to his “birth certificate” and Hawaii has not confirmed his ammended colb because of lack of evidence he is a Natural Born Citizen. You have shown us the truth. Now obama can’t hide behind an “incomplete” non verified colb he says is his birth certificate. Congress under the control of the democrate has tried to coverup for the imposter obama. Thank You TerriK for revealing the FRAUD obama.

Thanks to Leo Donofrio also. You both are true patriots!

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot.
........................................................................................
The main witness to passport information stolen is dead. I don't think this was an accident do you? It is to coverup information about the imposter obama. Leo Donofrio is about to expose the imposter obama in Hawaii court. Who is in the "shawdow" of obama is who "obama" really is. AN IMPOSTER!Story Reports
........................................................................................
A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday. Apr 18, 2009

Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department's Criminal Investigations Division.

Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.

City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.

"We don't have any information right now that connects his murder to that case," Cmdr. Anzallo said.

Police say a "shot spotter" device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.

A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency's top ranks

One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained "passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State."
.........................................................................................
On September 12, 2009 another key witness was murdered who could also expose the imposter obama. The man federal prosecutors pressured to cooperate in the corruption probe of ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich died of an apparent aspirin overdose on Saturday, law enforcement sources said.

Christopher Kelly, 51, of Burr Ridge, was pronounced dead at Stroger Hospital at 10:46 a.m.

It is no accident "key" witness to investigations that could expose the imposter obama are dead.
.........................................................................................

Key Blagojevich adviser Christopher Kelly dead

September 12, 2009
BY MARK J. KONKOL, NATASHA KORECKI AND ART GOLAB Staff Reporters
The man federal prosecutors pressured to cooperate in the corruption probe of ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich died of an apparent aspirin overdose on Saturday, law enforcement sources said.

Christopher Kelly, 51, of Burr Ridge, was pronounced dead at Stroger Hospital at 10:46 a.m. An autopsy is scheduled for today, a Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office spokeswoman said.
Kelly was Blagojevich’s “go-to guy” who once was the mastermind of the ex-governor’s lucrative campaign fund.

Kelly’s death comes just four days after he pleaded guilty to a scheme involving $8.5 million in fraud at O’Hare Airport. It was the second conviction this year -- he still faced trial along with the ex-governor, in June. Kelly had been indicted three times since 2007 but refused to become a cooperating witness. When he pleaded guilty to the O’Hare scheme Tuesday, Kelly spoke of feeling intense pressure by prosecutors to abandon his loyalty to Blagojevich and cooperate with the feds.

Devy Kidd

.........................................................................................
Both bodies had the duty to stop the confirmation of an illegal candidate and they didn't. We the people are doing what they should have done and that is expose Obama and get the question of his dual citizenship settled in a court of law. The next critical hearing is October 5, 2009, in front of Judge David Carter in federal court, Santa Ana, California.

CASE NO. SA CV09-0082-DOC(ANx)
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE FOR
OCTOBER 5, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.,
Courtroom 9-D
READ IMMEDIATELY
........................................................................................

OKUBO CAUGHT AGAIN: Admits Providing False Information Regarding DoH Maintenance Of Divorce Records.Leo Donofrio Blog (Modern day lone ranger)

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

A CONCERTED EFFORT BY “WE THE PEOPLE” TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT US ATTORNEY PHILLIPS BEGIN AN INQUIRY IN QUO WARRANTO AS TO OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY

One Action A U.S. Citizen May Take!

If ’you’ believe that the United States Constitution was violated and Obama’s eligibility warrants a public inquiry, please consider writing, in your own words, a letter to the proper authorities, politely and respectfully asking them to bring (or permit a third party to bring) the matter before the DC District Court. You may write to Acting United States Attorney Channing D. Phillips and or Patrick J. Fitzgerald: Fitzgerald is probably the best way to go -
Patrick J. Fitzgerald

United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office Fitzgerald

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone: (312) 353-5300

Fax: (312) 353-2067


*****************************************************************************************
Both parents need to be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen, but the parents don't have to be nbc themselves or even born in the US, just that they were US citizens at the time their child was born on US soil.Leo Donofrio
*****************************************************************************************
........................................................................................
Letters to us attorney District Of Columbia
........................................................................................
The Constitutionally proper way to challenge POTUS eligibility is via the DC Code quo warranto statute.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONCERTED EFFORT BY “WE THE PEOPLE” TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT US ATTORNEY PHILLIPS BEGIN AN INQUIRY IN QUO WARRANTO AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.

If every person who was troubled by Obama’s eligibility wrote a letter to US Attorney Phillips and got on the same page, perhaps there might be enough of a public outcry for the US Attorney to move on this issue. But the forces are split up and divided. Much of this has been intentional and many have been duped.
Leo Donofrio quote

........................................................................................
An example letter to send to US Attorney Channing D. Phillps District Of Columbia Another Action a Citizen May Take.
.......................................................................................

VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL

United States Attorney Channing D. Phillips
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Phillips,

I am writing to you out of great concern and fear for the future of our constitutional republic. As I’ve watched events unfold since the 2008 presidential election I’ve learned about policies and actions proposed and/or taken by the executive and legislative branches of our federal government that are in stark contrast to the authorities and limits granted to them by our Constitution.

Witnessing this usurpation of authority on a daily basis, I grow increasingly concerned over the nagging questions regarding Mr. Obama’s allegiances and his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States and serve as Commander In Chief of the military. As you should know, I am not alone. Numerous members of our citizenry and now some of our military members are publicly questioning his eligibility to the office and his allegiance to the Constitution. Some military members are even joining legal actions in our courts questioning his authority as Commander In Chief. It appears that these legal challenges, both direct and collateral, will persist until the questions are answered.

It is especially troubling when we see that our active and retired military are becoming involved, which has the potential to disrupt the military chain of command thus risking our national security. This is a mounting crisis that could have unfathomable consequences to our republic. I have even heard and read predictions of bloodshed and civil war! This is a serious matter and hopefully you agree that this crisis must be addressed sooner than later to preserve order and to protect our Constitution and nation from further damage.

I understand from the research by Attorney Leo Donofrio that this can be addressed legally (in accordance with the Constitution and statute) and peacefully by a quo warranto action by either yourself or the Attorney General. I quote the following from Mr. Donofrio’s open letter to you dated March 19, 2009:

“Since you are the main law enforcement officer charged with enforcing the District of Columbia Code, and since you are listed in 16-3502 as one of only two people who may institute a proceeding – upon their own motion – in quo warranto to investigate any United States public office holder’s qualifications if the office concerned is within the District of Columbia. I respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible.”

I too respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible. I fully understand that such an action will be highly controversial and will focus critical attention on you and your office. However, I believe this is exactly what is needed to quell the growing public concern over the eligibility and allegiance questions. It must be understood that the action is necessary to protect and defend the Constitution.

We must know if Mr. Obama is indeed a natural born Citizen as defined by the historical perspective of the framers when they included that specific eligibility requirement in the Constitution. It appears to me that it had a specific meaning to the framers. The qualifier “natural born” means that one’s “Citizenship” is absent of ambiguity – meaning both of your parents were US citizens at the time of your birth & you were born on US soil. According to the writings of the framers of the constitution, this qualifier was put in to avoid any allegiances to any other country and at the time in particular, England. The meaning of natural born Citizen over time perhaps has been obscured but the term has never been removed or altered by constitutional amendment. As further explained by Mr. Donofrio, the 14th Amendment has no effect on the natural born citizen clause.

If it is determined that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible, then his title to office of President will be cleared of all doubt and our nation can move ahead. If it is proven that he is truly ineligible and is therefore usurping the office, he must be removed. Either way, the matter will be resolved. This will be in the best interest of the nation and specifically the military chain of command.

It is not my intent to convince you with more details and citations as to the constitutional ineligibility of Mr. Obama for the office of President of the United States. It is only to convince you that the matter is indeed serious and is showing signs of reaching a boiling point. My great concern is that the longer it goes unresolved the more it puts our nation at risk of severe damage. I pray that you will have the wisdom and courage to take action on this matter and protect our Constitution and nation from such damage. God help us!

Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

........................................................................................

Contact Link For US Attorney
Channing D. Phillips District Of Columbia

........................................................................................

Read the Minor v Happersett case. Identitfy the "doubts" SCOTUS had regarding nbc status. There are strongly opposed opinion on what a nbc is... SCOTUS expressed doubts that people born of foreign parents could be nbc... that is the most relevant decision in US Federal law and as such it remains controlling on the issue. Leo Donofrio Quote.

........................................................................................
........................................................................................
Additional Information That Throws A Dark Shadow On obama
........................................................................................
........................................................................................

We need to determine what passport obama used to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when travel was forbidden to US citizens.

There was a break-in at the passport office last summer; questions should be asked to see if it involved trying to hide his passport information. A man associated with that was found dead.

There are improprieties on his Selective Service Registration and print out and evidence that seems to show an insider helped to forge his registration to make it look like he registered at 18 when he did not. As a foreign student he did not have to register at 18, but needed to look like he registered when campaigning for president.

..........................................................................................
THE FEC only verifies a candidates eligibility to participate in public funding, which, Obama did not participate in. Again no verification of his citizenship or anything. Do you remember this?
..........................................................................................

Barack Obama II knew he could not pass an eligibility investigation: He rejected using public funding when he told the voters and his fellow candidates, John McCain and others, he would limit himself to public funding. He found FEC must verify candidate's eligibility to participate in public funding.

"In the Berg v Obama lawsuit, the FEC has responded to the suit, asking to be removed from the suit as it is not the responsibility of the FEC to verify a candidates eligibility. THE FEC only verifies a candidates eligibility to participate in public funding, which, Obama is not participating in. So, we now have the FEC washing their hands of verification, as well as the FBI washing their hands.
..........................................................................................
******************************************************************************************
What is Quo Warranto?
******************************************************************************************

In the year 2008, the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or “doubt”, as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means “settled” that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

The DC District Court has the authority to investigate the eligibility of a sitting President. The DC District Court received this authority from Congress when Congress passed the Federal Quo Warranto Statute in 1901 and revised it, in 1963, to its present form.

A Quo Warranto inquiry is not a prosecution. It does not accuse Barack Obama of breaking any law. The inquiry is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. In a Quo Warranto inquiry, the DC District Court would say to Barack Obama something to this effect (loosely paraphrased):

Mr. President, you are being asked to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to hold the office that you are currently holding. Please be advised: 1) You bear the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that you are eligible to serve as President. 2) Constitutional questions will be heard and settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. 3) This Quo Warranto proceeding has teeth. It operates under Congressional authority. If you cannot or will not show the Court, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to be President, this Court has the power and the authority to remove you from office.

The DC District Court would determine (by jury, if necessary) the relevant facts of the case — Obama’s birthplace, his parents’ citizenship, etc. The Supreme Court would then decide the Constitutional legal issues, such as what a Constitutional natural born citizen is and whether Barack Obama is such a citizen.

Chess Game Hawaiian Style

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

Okubo caught in another lie about obama


Leo Donofrio and company, ie American citizens who believe obama is an imposter, are seeing Hawaiian officals ignore the law.

This HI quagmire is obviously a key factor in a larger controversy. The DOJ seems committed to defending Obama instead of the Constitution. Is there some point at which the thing to do is request a Special Prosecutor?

[ed. The OIP will get their chance first. They have the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings. I think Okubo got tripped up on her own Seussian hooplah by trying to parse the words "hold" and "maintain". The records of divorce from 2002 onwards are aparrently "held" by the judiciary... but I believe the DoH still maintains them in that they control access to them in some manner. That's the law in Hawaii... you don't have to actually "hold" records to "maintain". If you exercise any authority over them, then the law says you "maintain" them. She tried to parse her answer to KingsKid and she tripped over her own tongue. This is what happens when people lie to the giant...the giant just has too many eyes, ears and noses... Seriously, it's on now. We know for certain that there's a cover up at the DoH... It may just be that they don't want us to have closure on the place of birth... and it doesn't matter. One way or another we will have closure. They are starting to sweat over there. It's just a matter of which guppy comes forward first.]

Many guppys in the Hawaiian government. Just before birth, the eyes of fry may be seen through the translucent skin. Lets hope some "guppy" gives birth to documentation that proves obama is an imposter.

The jig is up and the imbecilic narcissistic obama displays failure again

.........................................................................................

JIG: A joke or trick. Used chiefly in the phrase The jig is up.

Urban Dictionary: imbicile Unknowingly mentally challenged. You're such an imbicile, you don't know what goes on around you.

The trick is up. It didn't work. The narcissistic obama thought he could, by his presence, persuade the olmypic committee to host the 2016 games in of all places Chicago. The urban dictionary definition fits obama perfectly. He is an "imbicile". An unknowingly challenged narcissist!

narcissism: The term narcissism' refers to the personality trait of self-love, which includes the set of character traits concerned with self-image or ego. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness.

THIS DESCRIBES BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE IMPOSTER
.........................................................................................

COPENHAGEN — Even the First Couple couldn't keep the USA from finishing dead last in the race for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

IOC voters sent Chicago away with just 18 of 94 first-round votes before handing Rio the opportunity to host the first South American Olympics.

Critics questioned the value and motive of his attendance with so many pressing domestic and other international issues on his plate.

.........................................................................................

This is how obama operates. In the face of sure defeat he travels to denmark to make a speech knowing chicago really didn't have a chance. He does not think logically nor act like a mature adult. He is really STUCK ON STUPID! He wants what he wants even in the face of sure defeat no matter what. Obama truly is a narcissistic freak!

US relinquishes control of the internet obama grabs more power through the un to control the internet

US relinquishes control of the internet

• Icann ends agreement with the US government
• Move will give other countries a prominent internet role

obama grabs more power through the un to control the internet

Other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

(This will mean the united nations will control the internet. I'm sure free speech will be controlled by the UN. Just what the IMPOSTER obama ordered.)

........................................................................................

After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.

Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.

The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.

Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together.

But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control.

"It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "This is a very significant shift because it takes the wind out of our opponents."

He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin. Many countries have lobbied for the shift in recent years, as the expansion of the web reaches out deeper into society and business.

While the issue reached critical mass in emerging economies such as China, it is not the only country that has lobbied for a change. Earlier this year European officials said that they did not think it was proper for America to retain so much control over the global computer network.

Viviane Reding, the EU's commissioner for information society and media, said she was pleased that Washington chose to make the shift.

"I welcome the US administration's decision to adapt Icann's key role in internet governance to the reality of the 21st century," she said. "If effectively and transparently implemented, this reform can find broad acceptance among civil society, businesses and governments alike."

Meanwhile Nominet - the British organisation that handles the day-to-day running of .uk domain names - said that Icann had started a trend for companies with internet influence to appear more open and accountable.

"Putting public interest first will also be a focus for the UK internet community over the coming months as there is growing support for Nominet to develop more of a public interest role," said Nominet's chief executive, Lesley Cowley.

The new agreement comes into force immediately. It replaces the old version which had been in place since 1998 and was scheduled to expire today.

Beckstrom suggested that bringing more countries to the table was the best way of ensuring the long term future of the internet.

"We're more global, period. The chances of the internet holding together just went up, the cohesion just went up," he said. "We expect more active involvement from governments, a higher level of participation from many governments and we're already hearing about more governments joining the team… This was, ironically, a power move from the US."



(Another move by obama to consolidate power using the UN)

Game Changer Update About Officials In Hawaii Hiding Obama records

THE MASK IS COMMING OFF

By taking official agency notice of Obama’s vital records and issuing an official opinion as to his Presidential eligibility, DoH Director Fukino’s actions fall under “the law of the agency” pursuant to 92F-12(a)(2). And by refusing to inform the public concerning how she came to define the term “natural-born American citizen”, she is guilty of making “secret law”.

TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law. Leo Donofrio

Hawaii Makes Secret Law Hiding Obama's Identity

.......................................................................................

......................................................................................
From Leo's Great Game Changer Blog!

Hawaii Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino’s press release of July 27, 2009 was a public statement. The UIPA (Hawaii open records law) at 92F-12(a)(15) states:

§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

Fukino’s July 27th press release 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.”

There were two very important pieces of information made available to the public in the above statement:

- “…Obama was born in Hawaii…”

- “…Obama…is a natural-born American citizen…”

It cannot be disputed that this information was made available to the public. Therefore, under 92F-12(a)(15), all “Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making” the July 27th statement available to the public must be disclosed.

TerriK locked onto 92F-12(a)(15) and applied it to the July 27th press release by requesting all relevant records thereto. It was a very intelligent and savvy analysis, especially for a lay person. I tend to believe the application of this provision was overlooked by Hawaii officials and this will be the game changer leading to full disclosure.

Everything specifically listed in section 92F-12 is required by law to be made public. There is no discretion involved. Furthermore, no other provision of the UIPA may work as an exception to the mandatory disclosure mandated by 92F-12. Therefore, none of the exceptions listed in 92F-13 to the UIPA’s general rule of disclosure are applicable.

The only exceptions to mandatory disclosure of records listed in 92F-12(a)(15) are confidentiality laws listed in other chapters of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. This would specifically include Haw. Rev.Stat. 338-18 which makes vital records maintained by the DoH confidential.

As to Fukino’s July 27th press release, 92F-12(a)(15) and 338-18 may be in conflict as to disclosure of Obama’s vital records. The resolution of this potential conflict will be the subject matter of Part 4 of this report where we will comprehensively analyze whether vital records viewed by Fukino in making her July 27th statement must be disclosed.

I will tell you in advance that when such a conflict exists, the law requires that authorities give effect to both provisions where possible as “repeal by implication is disfavored”. OIP OP. Ltr. No. 00-02 citing Mahiai c. Suwa 69 Haw. 349, 356-57 (1987). My conclusion stated in advance of Part 4 is that those vital records must be disclosed.

That being said, this section of the report will be limited to issue of which records must be disclosed by the DoH, the Hawaii Attorney General, and any other official – state or federal – pertaining to the definition of the term “natural-born American citizen” as used by Fukino in her July 27th, 2009 press release.

NEW UIPA REQUESTS

Unfortunately, TerriK’s requests for records on this issue were very broad. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have yielded some disclosure. But the DoH seized on the broadness and issued a very confusing response which did not exactly conform to the OIP administrative rules.

Therefore, I have begun the process of making very specific UIPA requests on my own behalf for the records discussed. Other researchers I am in touch with are doing the same. Below is comprehensive legal analysis which strongly indicates full disclosure must be provided.

HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK BENNETT APPROVED FUKINO’S JULY 27th PRESS RELEASE.

Justin Riggs sent the following email to DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo on July 29, 2009:

From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]

…Ms. Okubo,
I am currently a masters degree candidate at …

The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.

I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.

Sincerely,

Justin W. Riggs

Janice Okubo responded later that day:

From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…

Aloha Justin,

The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…

So, we know that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennet “reviewed and approved” Fukino’s July 27th press release. Bennet may have prepared the entire press release or perhaps just the “natural-born” part. We don’t know. Okubo states that she is unable to provide further comment, so the rest is a mystery at this point. But we certainly have another public statement here which makes information available to the public.

The public is therefore entitled to all records maintained by Hawaii officials which pertain to this July 29th statement by Okubo. For example, any emails between Okubo and AG Bennett, between Okubo and Fukino, between Bennett and Fukino, Governor Lingle, etc. which guided Okubo’s statement to Justin Riggs must be disclosed along with memos, letters, transcripts, video and telephonic conference recordings and any other records maintained thereto.

The same goes for any records maintained documenting dialogue between Hawaii officials and federal officials as to this issue.

But more important is that all of the above records pertaining to Fukino’s July 27th press release must also be disclosed.

WHAT DEFINITION OF “NATURAL-BORN” CITIZEN DID FUKINO RELY UPON?

The statement, “…Obama…is a natural-born American citizen…”, contains both a factual determination as well as a legal definition. In order to decipher the factual determination made public by that conclusion, we must first know the legal definition of “natural-born America citizen” that Fukino determined Obama conformed to.

Without that legal definition, we can’t analyze the factual determination.

For example, if she used a definition which alleges anyone born on US soil is therefore a natural-born citizen, then the factual determination for this statement might only be concerned with records she viewed which led her to believe Obama was born in the US.

If, on the other hand, she used a definition which required that Obama was born in the US to parents who were citizens, then the factual determination involved with the “natural-born” part of her statement would have taken into account records she viewed which stated who his parents were.

Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett reviewed and approved the July 27th press release so we should assume that an Attorney General opinion letter exists. I personally issued a UIPA request for this letter to DoH Director Fukino on Sept. 28, 2009.

While the following analysis centers on disclosure of Attorney General opinions letters, it equally applies to all other government records kept by any state official or body covered by the UIPA – ie, emails, memos, photographs, minutes, etc. – which pertain to the July 27th press release.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION LETTERS CANNOT BE A SWORD AND A SHIELD.

Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 imposes an affirmative duty upon the Attorney General to document and make public all opinions he gives upon a question of law submitted by the head of an agency:

§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.

The word “shall” signifies an affirmative duty to document the opinion as well as make it public. This means that even if no Attorney General opinion letter currently exists, since a question of law was submitted to AG Bennet by the head of a state agency – DoH Director Fukino – the opinion received by her must be put in letter form and made available to the public.

If necessary, this may be accomplished via a writ of mandamus. However, I do believe such an opinion letter already exists along with accompanying emails and other records kept thereto. It would be highly suspicious for the DoH Director and the Attorney General to claim that no records whatsoever exist concerning Bennet’s review and approval of the July 27th press release.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETTER MUST BE DISCLOSED.

In a case before the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (State of Hawaii) – Akaku v. Bennett – involving current Attorney General Mark Bennett, the head of a state agency sought to keep an opinion letter prepared by AG Bennett from being disclosed:

Pursuant to HRS § 28-3, the Attorney General’s duty to disclose legal opinions in response to questions of law posed by any head of department is not discretionary. If the head of any department poses a question of law, the Attorney General’s response must be filed in accordance with HRS § 28-3 absent other considerations set out in HRS §§ 92F-13 and 14. [FN] 3.

Footnote 3 from that opinion states:

§ 28-3 provides that the “attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion.., within three days of the date it is issued” (emphasis added). Generally, the legislature uses the word “shall” to Indicate its intention to make the provision mandatory and not discretionary. State v. Shannon, 118 Haw. 15, 25 (2008).

NO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE APPLIES.

The court went on to discuss that once the existence of the opinion letter and the conclusion of the letter are made public, no attorney client privilege applies:

Under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence (”HRE”), Rule 511, “[a] person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if, while holder of the privilege, the person or the person’s predecessor voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. “… Commentary to HRE, Rule 511 further provides that “[a]ny intentional disclosure by the holder of the privilege defeats [the purpose of HRE 503] and eliminates the necessity for the privilege in that instance…

[I]t has been widely held that voluntary disclosure of the content of a privileged attorney communication constitutes waiver of the privilege as to all other such communications on the same subject.

This next part is very important since it discusses that a press release was the basis for a waiver of the attorney client privilege:

A sophisticated, well-counseled party who intentionally discloses an important part of an otherwise privileged communication acts in a manner that is thoroughly inconsistent with preserving the confidentiality of that communication. See Electro Scientific Indus. v. Gen. Scanning, Inc. , 175 F.R.D. 539, 543 (N.D. Cal, 1997) wherein it was held that where a party issues a “news release” disclosing that counsel advised him that the opposing party’s patents were invalid, waiver was effectuated because the party voluntarily disclosed an important and substantive part of what would have been a confidential attorney-client communication.

DoH Director Fukino is an M.D., and she certainly must be considered a “sophisticated, well-counseled party”. She disclosed an important part of the communication between herself and AG Bennet – the conclusion. And by virtue of an eloquent metaphor, the court provides illumination upon the policy which demands disclosure once such a conclusion is made public:

Defendant Reifurth disclosed to the public both the purpose for which he contacted the Attorney General– he wanted a legal opinion…and [he] also disclosed the essence of the legal opinion provided by the Attorney General… The disclosure of the legal opinion of the Attorney General amounted to a disclosure of a significant or important part of the attorney-client communication…

Defendant Reifurth has put two important statutory provisions in competition by using the attorney-client privilege as both a sword and a shield. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, Fukino can’t use the Attorney General’s opinion as a sword to justify an official determination by her office that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen” while at the same time using the attorney client privilege as a shield to prevent public disclosure of AG Bennet’s opinion which is required by HRS 28-3.

As long as Attorney General Bennett’s opinion was recorded in a letter (or email, memo, note etc.), that record must be disclosed under 92F-12(15) as well as 92F-12(b)(2). The court in Akaku v. Bennett made reference to 92F-12(b)(2) in its holding:

The Uniform Information Practices Act (”UIPA”), directs agencies to disclose “[g]overnment records which, pursuant to federal law or a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed to the person requesting access…” HRS § 92F-12(b)(2).

The holding in Akaku v. Bennett also contained the following findings of law:

In this instance, if the Attorney General could avoid publication of his response to a question of law by denominating the opinion as an “advise and counsel” letter, the mandatory disclosure provisions of HRS § 28-3 would be rendered meaningless…

Defendant Reifurth and the DCCA disclosed a significant part of the Attorney General Opinion thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege on communications on the same subject matter.

Since Attorney General opinion letters are expressly authorized to be made public by Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3, it follows that 92F-12(b)(2) demands disclosure by law.

If Attorney General Bennett is given a question of law by DoH Director Fukino, his opinion in response thereto must be documented and made available to the public. If he has failed to make a record of this opinion, he will be compelled to do so and any resulting recording must be made available to the public.

NO SECRET LAW

We should also assume that DoH Director Fukino didn’t rely exclusively upon Attorney General Bennett’s opinion. She may have done her own research and she may have been influenced by other sources including officers of the federal government. 92F-12(a)(15) demands that all information she collected and maintained for purposes of making the July 27th press release be disclosed to the public. But there is another provision of 92F-12 which provides illumination on this issue, 92F-12(a)(2):

§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

(2) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, except to the extent protected by section 92F-13(1);

This is also known as the “law of the agency” which is specifically discussed in various OIP opinion letters and case law as having the purpose of preventing the issuance of “secret law”.

The most instructive analysis of 92F-12(a)(2) is provided by OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 which provides multiple statutory interpretations which are applicable here as well as to Part 4 of this report. I will quote extensively from this opinion letter:

The UIPA, the State’s new open records law, generally provides that “[a]ll government records are open to inspection and copying unless access is restricted or closed by law.” Haw. Rev. Stat.  92F-11(a) (Supp. 1989). In addition to this general rule of agency disclosure, in section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Legislature enumerated a list of records, or categories of records, which must be made available for inspection as a matter of law. [FN 3.]

Footnote 3 includes an important provision we’ve seen before in Part 1 of this report:

3 As to the records, or categories or records set forth at section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the legislative history of the UIPA indicates that the Act’s exceptions to public access, “such as for personal privacy and for frustration of legitimate government function are inapplicable.” See S.Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J.689, 690 (1988); H.R. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 112-88, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. H.J. 817, 818 (1988). (Emphasis added.)

OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 then goes on to explain that the purpose of 92F-12(a)(2) – aka “the law of the agency” – is to prevent “secret law” from being issued:

Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 92F-12(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, were adopted in their entirety from section 2-101 of the Uniform Information Practices Code (”Model Code”) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The UIPA’s legislative history directs those construing its provisions to consult the Model Code’s commentary, where appropriate, to guide the interpretation of similar UIPA provisions. See H.R. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2580, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. H.J. 969, 972 (1988). The commentary to section 2-101 of the Model Code states:

Under this section, the “law of the agency” must be made available to the public. In other words, an agency may not maintain “secret law” relating to its own decisions and policies. This section is similar in general requirement to Sections (a)(1), (2) and (3) of the federal Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), (2) and (3). . . . The affirmative disclosure responsibility extends to agency policies, rules and adjudicative determinations and procedures. (Emphasis added.)

OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 then goes on to discuss what specific actions taken by an agency fall under the no secret law of the agency provision of 92F-12(a)(2):

Additional guidance in determining the meaning of the term “order” for purposes of the UIPA, may be gleaned from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws’ State Administrative Procedure Act of 1981 (”Model Act”). Section 1-102(5) of the Model Act defines the term “order” as:

[A]n agency action of particular applicability that determines the legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities, or other legal interests of one or more specific persons.

Model Act  1-102(5) (1981). (Emphasis added.)

Please note that an “order” is defined above as “an agency action that determines “the …legal interests of one or more specific persons.”

Applying that definition to Fukino’s July 27th statement, it is clear the press release was an agency action - issued on DoH letterhead directly from her office and bearing her title of DoH Director- which determined Obama’s “legal interest” concerning his (publicly disputed) eligibility to be President. The press release did this by stating that Fukino’s review of Obama’s “vital records” determined that he was a “natural-born American citizen”.

By taking official agency notice of Obama’s vital records and issuing an official opinion as to his Presidential eligibility, Fukino’s actions fall under “the law of the agency” pursuant to 92F-12(a)(2). And by refusing to inform the public concerning how she came to define the term “natural-born American citizen”, she is guilty of making “secret law”.

OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 provides further guidance on this issue:

In our opinion, the definition of the term “order” set forth in the Model Act provides a more practical and workable definition of this term. This definition clearly describes the action of an agency when acting in a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory capacity, by determining the legal rights, duties, privileges or other legal interests of specific persons. In our opinion, an agency may act in such a quasi-judicial, or adjudicatory capacity, in contexts other than”contested case” hearings under chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes…

[W]e agree with the decision of the court in Sigler, that like section (a)(2) of the FOIA, by its terms, nothing would support a conclusion that section 92F-12(b)(2), Hawaii Revised Statutes, only applies to “adjudications pursuant to a formal hearing.” Sigler, 390 F. Supp. at 792.

Accordingly, DoH Director Fukino’s July 27th press release is covered by 92F-12(b)(2). The only remaining issue is whether the exception listed therein as to 92F-13(1) applies:

§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;

Generally, no exceptions listed in other provisions of the UIPA (Chapter 92F of the Haw. Rev. Stat.) apply to 92F-12. But as to subsection 92F-12(b)(2), the above exception from 92F-13(1) is explicitly included. However, please take note that the 92F-13(1) exception does not apply to our analysis of required disclosure under 92F-12(a)(15).

Regardless, as I have limited discussion in this section of the TerriK Investigation report to disclosure issues attached to records pertaining only to the definition of “natural-born American citizen” incorporated by DoH Director Fukino (and approved by Attorney General Mark Bennett) in her July 27th press release, the privacy exception of 92F-13(1) does not apply.

There can be no privacy interest as to the definition of the term “natural-born American citizen”.

The very notion is absurd.

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

October 1, 2009
........................................................................................

ImagePhreak Says:
October 1, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Leo
Great work, checkmate, release the long form or they surely risk a suit charging AG and Fukino are breaking HI law. Man…
........................................................................................

Texo Says:
October 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Leo, you have the spotlight. Shine, the light of truth on this issue!

Anything we can do to help?

http://www.dixhistory.com/

[ed. post it far and wide. if you guys work as hard reposting all of this as I have in preparing it, the chances of it having a proper impact grow exponentially.]
........................................................................................
HMTKSteve Says:
October 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm

When can we expect the documents/records/opinions to be released?

[ed. all the uipa requests must be responded to by 10 business days, and if no response then we can ask for OIP opinion letters and/or appeals... not sure how long those would take. We don't have to wait for them though, we can go straight to the judiciary for an expedited calendar. Hopefully, we are going to see a release of records before that. Anything going to trial under the UIPA shouldn't take more than a few months... I'm just guessing, but 3 to 4 months at the most seems plausible. It helps alot if those of you reading this will apply PR pressure by reposting and keeping this story front and center. it's a team effort.]

.......................................................................................

A team effort. Team Donofrio. TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!

Lets expose the imposter obama and the diapers he is wearing.