Overview of Birth Certificate Problem
Summary: The Hawaii DOH has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate was amended in 2006 and is therefore not legally valid. Obama could not have “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009 as required by the 20th Amendment since his birth date, birthplace, and parentage have not been legally determined (unless he has a BC from somewhere else). The HDOH has also confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery. HI Governor and friend to Obama, Neil Abercrombie, concurred, telling Mike Evans that there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii. Former HI elections worker, Tim Adams, has also signed an affidavit saying he was told by his superiors that it was common knowledge that Obama has no birth certificate in Hawaii. No Hawaii official has ever claimed that Hawaii has a LEGALLY VALID birth certificate for Obama; the HDOH has said they can’t reveal the legal status of a birth certificate nor reveal anything about a birth certificate, including anything from a BC that would expose a forgery.
- Why any of this matters:
- How the lawlessness matches the pattern of Obama’s first 6 months in office, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
- Why it doesn’t matter that Obama was already installed
- What we know about Obama’s legal problems
- Transcripts and links to Mike Evans’ audio statements #1 and #2. Abercrombie’s statements to Star Advertiser reporter.
- Incompatible Certificate Number cert# given by registrar on “date filed“, COLB and long-form #’s the same, corroboration
- BC amendment confirmed but not noted on COLB Index post, all records denied, complete HDOH response, Joesting won’t correct Terri K, clearer Joesting appeal response, Joesting counsel
- Details on amendment 2006, denial of access to supporting evidence, fee records denied, no legal name change order
Summary: Two different people claimed to acquire the Advertiser birth announcement copy independently – one from the Hawaii State Library and the other from the Advertiser office – but they are actually the same image and NOT from the Hawaii State Library. Three different people claimed to acquire the Star-Bulletin copy independently – again, one from the Advertiser office and the other 2 from the Hawaii State Library. But they are all identical scans and NOT from the Hawaii State Library. We were told a lie about where those images came from.
We were also told that the announcements had to come from the Vital Records Office because the lists are identical, but in reality the lists only APPEAR identical because the Star-Bulletin image was truncated to leave off the extra 26 announcements it had that were not included in the Advertiser’s list. The more concise report is here. A few more details included here. More info will be coming.
Democratic Party certification mess
Summary: Neither the Democratic National Committee (DNC) nor the Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP) has asked to see Obama’s vital records or receive a letter of verification for Obama’s birth facts. The Hawaii Democratic Party was so eager to get rid of the “Constitutionally-eligible” language in their standard Certification of Nomination that they took out a whole line of text including the only thing they were required by HI law to include. Because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, the DNC was forced to certify that to get Obama’s name on the Hawaii ballot, but did so without even asking to see any documentation and knowing that the HDP had refused to certify eligibility. The lawyer who had represented the HDP in past lawsuits was the divorce lawyer for Obama’s mother and may well have seen a birth certificate from someplace besides Hawaii.
- Index post:
- Supporting documents: No letter of verification, No DNC or HDP Requests
- Certs: 2004 HDP, 2004 DNC, 2000 HDP, 2000 DNC, 2008 Letter of Transmittal
- Notes from call to Deputy AG Schulaner
Summary: In response to Chris Strunk’s FOIA request and lawsuit for passport records for Obama’s mother, the Passport Office disclosed passport records from 1967 and later, but submitted an affidavit and alleged Department of State “cable” claiming that the retention period for records had been changed in the early 1980’s and millions of passport applications had been destroyed, thus explaining why they can’t find Ann’s earlier records. But there are none of the required records of the disposition changing, no required records of disposal, the records we have strongly suggest that the “cable” is a fabrication, and records that should have been destroyed according to the criteria mentioned in the cable have been disclosed for someone else. It very strongly looks as if the Passport Office and their lawyer have committed fraud and/or perjury in order to hide Obama’s mother’s records. In addition, index cards showing all passports issued to her -which are required to be microfilmed in alphabetical order and are permanent public records – have been requested well over a year and a half ago and the DOS has not disclosed them.
- Index post. Update.
- Supporting documents: Galovich cable, GAO discrepancies , PRISM passport microfilming, PIERS electronic indexing of passport records, Jacobsen passport photo, Strunk response 1, Jacobsen’s Stunk Response 1, Jacobsen sur-reply affidavit, DOS first reply
Summary: In 1981 when the vital records were being converted to electronic, it was decided that the handwritten paper index of births was to be retained permanently. When asked for the copy of the handwritten 1961 birth index the HDOH responded that there is no handwritten index but the requestor could get a computer printout of 1961 births for $98.75. The requestor sent in a request with a money order for $98.75; the same day as the money was in the HDOH office HDOH spokesperson, Janice Okubo, gave an interview saying the HDOH could disclose the 1961 birth index for $98.75 but nobody had sent in the money. The HDOH then sent the money order back, claimed they had never received a request for the computer-generated index at all, and now says they CANNOT print out a 1961 birth index.
The birth index is of particular interest because in March of 2010 Obama’s name was not in the 1960-64 birth index book at the HDOH office but by June 2010 the HDOH presented a birth index book they claimed was the 1960-64 index which had Obama’s name in it. The name above Obama’s is “Obado, Duplicate Mae”. If there was a duplicate record for Mae Obado the other record for her should have been right where Obama’s name is now posted. If Abercrombie is correct and there is no birth certificate for Obama at the HDOH, the birth index in March was correct, the birth index in June was manipulated to insert Obama’s name falsely, and the HDOH was most probably refusing to show the genuine computer printout because they knew it would not have Obama’s name in it.
- Index post:
- Supporting documents: no handwritten index, no AG communications, claims never got my request, cease and desist letter, evasion, request to see my request, returned my money order, HDOH admits they got my request, request for UIPA responses, AP reporter communications, Niesse Facebook message, Niesse UIPA response, HDOH request to re-send, delivery confirmation, my request, Notice to Requestor
- Investigation of illegally-destroyed records: Nothing to see here.
- Refusal to investigate crimes, report crimes to law enforcement, or correct HDOH’s inaccurate justifications
- Hiding of the Administrative Rules
- Unlawful rule changes #1 and #2
- Destruction of permanent records
- Index post
- Failure to retain records the required period
- Obfuscation on birth certificates Dr Conspiracy on BC’s , Hawaii BC requirements, standard BC, late BC and foreign birth Alteration of communication history, e-mail history , HDOH deleted e-mail
- Refusals to make required disclosures: Certificate numbers, July 27 announcement substantiation, non-certified abbreviated BC
- Failure to keep required documentation: #1, #2, #3
- Refusal to clarify (obfuscation)
- Denial of requirement to report forgery
- Suspicious timing of OIP Director Tsukiyama’s resignation and promotion from Fukino’s corp: resignation, promotion, Takase explanation
- Refusing statutory duty to hold agencies accountable
The Media Mess
Summary: There is evidence that in October of 2008 the major TV and radio companies were threatened by Obama’s representatives if they reported on the eligibility issue – evidence including a signed statement by a media personality who was threatened, handwritten notes by a secretary at one of the meetings, corroborating information and statements about the meetings, etc. Since that time both the conservative and liberal media have been either refusing to report on the subject at all, or reporting inaccuracies and refusing to correct errors when made aware of the inaccuracies. Most often they just don’t acknowledge receiving the correct information.