23. Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration
HRS 338-16 allows a certificate of birth to be issued
ONE YEAR OR MORE AFTER THE DATE OF BIRTH,
and it allows an ALTERED certificate of birth to be issued.
338-16 was written into law in 1949 .
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
HRS 338-16 allows a certificate of birth to be issued ONE YEAR OR MORE AFTER THE DATE OF BIRTH.
Hi! I hope Mr. Stephen Pidgeon will have a look at my website and use any ideas I have been thinking about regarding his case.
I read one blog where they claimed that the Hawaii Revised Statutes did not apply because they were not in effect at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.
For example, if you look at the Certification of Live Birth which is allegedly Obama’s, look in the lower right hand corner in tiny fine print, it gives a required legal notice:
[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
HRS 338-19 is a Hawaii Revised Statute that explains that the original documents are so old or otherwise in such poor condition that they can’t be used to certify the facts, so they issue this certificate based on those old or otherwise
in poor condition documents and claim that the certificate is valid. It is either a poorly worded statute, or it makes no sense, to say that the originals are so old or in such poor condition that they can’t be used to verify, so they make this new certificate and claim it verifies the original facts, that they just said can’t be verified?
HRS 338-13(b) states that it is SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
338-16, 338-17 and 338-18.
Now, for example,
338-16 was written into law in 1949
so that OTHER blog that claims it was not in effect then is spreading fraud.
HRS 338-16 allows a certificate of birth to be issued
ONE YEAR OR MORE AFTER THE DATE OF BIRTH,
and it allows an ALTERED certificate of birth to be issued.
Please read
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
on the right
Hawaii Revised Statutes
and use various search phrases
certification of birth
birth certificate
certificate of birth.
If you keep trying, you will find at least 41 statute sections
that allow a person born in a foreign country to receive
a Hawaii birth certificate,
but it is supposed to say the person was born in a
foreign country,
but then the person can apply
to have an altered birth certificate with
the original information changed,
there are two main ways to do this,
one is Hawaii Rule 803 Hearsay Admissible
where you get any one to say that the original
facts and information need to be changed
because they were in error,
and you get the original birth certificate
sealed and a new one issued,
another way is under
HRS 338-17 where there are various sub-sections
like 338-17.5, 338-17, 7, 338-17.8
and under one of those any Law enforcement agency
can certify that for the safety of the birth registrant
the original information has to be changed
and new information put on the certificate,
and it is strangely worded because first it
says the new birth certificate will have a new number
but the original will still stay in the file
and then in the next part of that sub-section
it states that the original will be sealed and the
new birth certificate issued,
so the statute subsection contradicts
itself, and if you only read part of it,
and not the whole thing,
you will think the original birth certificate
is still on file with the old number
as well as the new certificate with
the new changed information and the
new number, so if you don’t keep reading,
you will miss the next part that says
the previous birth certificate will be sealed.
So, the sneaky thing about Hawaii Revised Statutes
is to read the whole entire text down to the very bottom
and you will see the date the law was enacted at the bottom.
I am hoping that Attorney
Stephen Pidgeon will ask this Question to the Court
when he files the appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S.
and I certainly hope he files an appeal FAST!
Shall the Supreme Court of the United States
take JUDICIAL NOTICE of all of the Hawaii Revised
Statutes regarding certificates of birth and birth
certificates and certification of live births,
and also take Judicial Notice of
Hawaii Rule 803 Hearsay Admissible,
and take Judicial Notice in particular of the
HRS 338-17 subsection which allows
(either 338-17.5 or 338-17.7 because 338-17.8 allows
a person born in a foreign country to receive a Hawaii
birth certificate)
“LAW ENFORCEMENT” TO CERTIFY that a new
birth certificate with new information is necessary for
the protection of the birth registrant;
and
SHALL the Supreme Court of the U.S.
determine that
Hawaii Laws are unconstitutionally vague
and unconstitutionally overly broad
and therefore deny registered voters
the material facts they need to be
certain that any Presidential candidate
with a Hawaii birth certificate
was actually born in Hawaii and/or
any other fact stated on the certificate of birth
because once “Law enforcement” changes
the facts then there is no way of knowing
if any of the facts are correct,
and also, because Hawaii Rule 803
allows hearsay evidence,
anyone could say a person was born in Hawaii
and in conjunction with
HRS 338-16 any adult could get a Hawaii
certificate of birth ONE YEAR OR MORE AFTER
THE DATE OF BIRTH
which could mean that you could get a Hawaii
birth certificate AT ANY AGE over one year;
7- Hawaii Government Statutes
After my first quick look at this certificate I believed it to be false. Much of my opinion was based upon the first two signatures which at a quick examination appear to be written by the same hand. I printed the certificate and drew a 1/32 grid over the copy. From the age of the grandparents they would have been taught penmanship in the 5th, 6th and 7th grades just as I was. From the capital letters it is obvious that both of the signatories were taught Palmer Method handwriting which was the standard for the age of the grandparents. The grid reveals that there are three separate signatories to this document and the first two are signed by different people. The first down stroke in the “N” is the most obvious indication this was signed by separate people. The second signature has 3 “Ns” and all of them are short stroked whereas the in the upper signature the “Ns” are not and are level with the lower part of the other letters.
This document fits in with all the other documents which are as follows:
- The Kenya short form certificate (the original that had been folded).
- The Kenya long form certificate obtained by bribery in February. Both certificates list his birth in Kenya on the 4th of August. Both appear to be genuine.
- A third Kenya certificate is reported to exist with a three letter agency of the government. It is said to contain the prints of the mother and the child and multiple signatures. This document was to identify a specific child as belonging to a specific woman. This was to prevent mix-ups at the hospital and identify a child if stolen.
- The certified document from Immigration and Naturalization that his mother signed upon her (Stanley Ann Dunham’s) arrival in Hawaii with a new born child on August 8, 1961.
- The newspaper announcements of his birth in the Hawaii newspapers on August 10th, 1961.
- The contents and the form of the document appear to be to the letter of the law in Hawaii at the time of his arrival.
- It is obvious he was born in Kenya on the 4th of August, he arrived with his mother from Kenya on the 8th of August, the certificate below was filed on the day of his arrival in Hawaii and the newspapers were given the information on the day of his arrival which was then printed on the ninth and then the papers were circulated on the 10th.
- The DNC is clearly aware of his foreign birth and altered the certification of eligibility forms to the states so Pelosi could sign them without committing perjury. There is no other plausible reason for altering the certification of his eligibility. Although she did not commit perjury with her signature, she committed treason.
- This also concurs with all the Kenyan newspaper articles about their native son’s rise to fame in the Senate.
- No one in Kenya is denying he was born there.
I believe the problem at hand is we are dealing with what will be a criminal matter in civil court. I am not a lawyer but I believe what is slowly coming forth is a preponderance of evidence that he was born in Kenya. The civil court needs to allow discovery to begin as specified by the rules because it must end 30 days before trial. In other words discovery closes on this coming December 26th. However, since this is a civil matter, if Obama’s defense has not presented any evidence to the contrary (a genuine certified birth certificate that he was born elsewhere) then the court can accept the Kenya certificates and declare Obama an illegal alien. In other words absent of any evidence to the contrary the Kenya certificates are the only documents containing seals and certifications. It is at the courts discretion to accept or deny the existing certificates of birth. However the certificates are obtained does not alter their authenticity if there is a chain of custody that is not broken. I believe specifically that the long form certificate from Kenya is genuine. The fact that a guard was bribed to allow the hospital administrator to copy the certificate, place the seal upon it and then certify it by his signature does not make it false. If the chain of custody is not broken the document can be accepted by the court with an affidavit of continuous custody. That affidavit is in the record at this time.
The certificate in question here fits in with all the other evidence. I would consider advertising in the local paper to obtain identical certificates issued at that time. Or if I understand the Hawaii laws birth certificates are public domain. I would hire a PI to get a certificate registering a foreign born child in Hawaii from a few days before the certificate is dated and one from a few days later. If the certificates match the document is most likely genuine and admissible if the chain of custody of whoever furnished this document cannot be broken.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
Where did this certificate come from? Who discovered it? What is it's provenance, as they say about artworks.... One wants to know everything! If ONLY it's authentic! How to prove that?
ReplyDeleteHRS 338 was not enacted until 1968. Revised Laws of Hawaii were in effect until then. Vital records laws were defined in Chapter 57. This certificate is a fake. The statute that was referenced on the BC was not adopted until 1982.
ReplyDelete