Right ON!!
Posted on The Obama File-On January 11, 2012:
“Red Flags in Hawaii:
People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many. The same way these “birther” red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:
1. DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.
2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records – records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling ( http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm) of those records.
Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born – such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama – is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).
All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest. Non-certified copies, abstracts, and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited – which, according to Hawaii’s “Sunshine Law” (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .
Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.
3. Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries – a fact the DOH has known since the beginning. Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended at the very time he was considering a run for the presidency. Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.
When asked point-blank on Feb 22, 2010 whether the denial of access confirmed the existence of Obama’s amendment documents, the OIP refused to refute that understanding, saying (after 2 e-mails asking clarification) that they were too busy to address the question.
4. The combination of certificate number and filing date on the Factcheck COLB is not possible. The DOH has confirmed that the certificate number is assigned by them when they file the certificate. Observed certificate numbers corroborate this as well, and so does page 232 of the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report. The Factcheck COLB says it was filed at the DOH 3 days before the Nordkye twins’ certificates but has a later number than theirs. The certificate number is the same on a COLB as it is on an original, long-form BC, so it makes no difference that the Nordykes’ are long-forms and Factcheck’s a COLB. The DOH has refused to release the certificate number for Obama even though they are required by UIPA to do so.
5. Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement. This includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate– even that it’s a critical, very public forgery. The Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves. See no evil…
6. The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes. Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1, & HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee – as the DOH confirmed again on March 23, 2010. Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s office has confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named Obama, Dunham, Soetoro, or Sutoro.
7. Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony. If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos. The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is:
a) if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate themselves and erred, or
b) if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.
8. The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama. In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates. This is in direct violation of the current rules, without following HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes – the first of several such violations within the past year.
9. Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay. According to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence. Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits. He has refused – even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than risk a judge seeing his birth certificate. There is no process by which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.
10. Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.
11. The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years. The DOH says it no longer has the UIPA request or invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended. The DOH’s own “Rules of Practice & Procedure” (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested – August 2011 in this case. (Note: the invoices have met their retention period if they were created in 2006 so the HDOH would be correct to not have them any longer.)
12. Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses. Six days after Leo Donofrio’s blog said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama resigned from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits. He granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.
Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH and refuses to clarify what kinds of responses qualify as Glomar responses. All DOH responses contain deceptions #1&2, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates. They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms, procedures, and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc.. (Note: the retention period for the 1961 lists is past, so the HDOH is correct not to have them.)
13. Apparently in response to this blog post and a request for a legislative investigation of these matters, Hawaii State Senator Will Espero has introduced a bill that would allow the OIP to label people who ask too many questions as “vexatious requestors” who are then blacklisted from access to government records for 2 years. The net effect of the bill would be to overturn UIPA. They also want to fine “vexatious requestors”…
14. The DOH is falsifying the communication logs in e-mails to frame the requestor as what Cathy Takase calls ”mentally ill” - thus fit to label as a “vexatious requestor” and blacklist for 2 years.
15. The DOH claims that original records required to be retained permanently (original birth index and index of foreign births) don’t exist. Either they are lying or they have illegally destroyed permanent records.
Red flags. This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations. The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act. Red flags.
Hawaii AG Will Not Corroborate Fukino’s Statements:
The Post & Email is in receipt of a letter signed by Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, which affirms her email early last month to our Editor-in-Chief, Mr. John Charlton, stating that her office will not or cannot corroborate any of the Department of Health’s public statements regarding the alleged facts of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Hawaii.
Ms. Nagamine’s March 19, 2010 formal letter was sent in response to the Hawaii Petition Campaign’s request for Hawaii officials to release Obama’s birth records and proof that he is a “natural born” citizen, as required for the office of President by Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued a public statement which declared that Obama was “born in Hawaii” and a “natural-born American citizen.” She did not expound on how she arrived at her conclusions.
The office of the attorney general has now contradicted, in a formal letter, the content of an email sent by Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer at the Hawaii Department of Health, in which she responded to a student researcher that the attorney general, Mark Bennett, “had reviewed and approved” Dr. Fukino’s July 27 statement.
To what lengths are Okubo and Fukino willing to go to protect Obama? Why are they doing it, and what do they expect to gain from it? What do they fear they will lose if they do not continue their charade? There is no one else in Hawaii claiming that Obama was born there. No other public official will confirm it.
Continue reading here . . .
The Summary CNN Doesn’t Want You to See:
Butterdezillion’s blog says the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s Factcheck COLB is a forgery because:
1) They have made a statutory admission that his certification of Live Birth (COLB) has been amended, which is required to be shown on a legitimate COLB, but is not shown on the Factcheck COLB, and 2) Director Okubao has said that Oahu birth certificate’s have always been given the birth certificate number by the HDOH on the “date filed.” The Factcheck COLB has a “date filed” 3 days earlier than the Nordyke twins’ but was given a number later than theirs. This statement by Okubo rules out past explanations (hospitals numbering the birth certificate’s or being given blocks of numbers, or birth certificate’s sitting in piles at the HDOH for days before being numbered). This means that either the “date filed”, certificate number, or both have been altered on the Factcheck COLB.
Because Obama’s genuine birth certificate is amended, Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) says that it has no legal value unless it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and they rule the birth certificate to be probative. Obama has fought lawsuits to make sure that his birth certificate could never be presented as evidence, even though it is the only way he can have any birth facts legally determined.
The 20th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th, the Vice President elect is to “act as President” until a President qualifies.
Because the required procedure to legally determine Obama’s birth facts has never happened we know that Obama could not have “qualified” by January 20th, and anybody who certified his eligibility documentably perjured him/herself since even his age has never been legally determined and could disqualify him from eligibility for the Office of President.
The president elect becomes president automatically at noon on Jan 20th, but there are 2 Constitutional requirements that must be met before a sitting president can “act as president” or exercise the presidential powers: he must take the oath of office and he must “qualify.” Doing one of the 2 is not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.
Obama has “failed to qualify” and the only person the 20th Amendment allows to “act as president” is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies. All this is known simply because his birth certificate has been amended and he has never presented it as evidence so it could possibly gain legal evidentiary value.
These claims are documented here.
For the wider angle view on why this matters, and Butterdezillions’ motivation in addressing these issues, see the next item.
About Butterdezillion:
News reports stated that in Mexico, drug lords killed a rival member and sewed his face onto a soccer ball. The difference between Mexico and The USA is law enforcement. In Mexico law enforcement is sold to the highest bidder. If America ever reaches that point, guard your children because anything can happen to them and you can’t do a thing to stop it.
Obama’s eligibility is, and always has been about law enforcement, because our entire system of law enforcement of already-existing laws has utterly failed. This has nothing to do with politics.
It doesn’t much matter whether the guy with his face sewn on the soccer ball was a democrat or republican, or whether he favored or opposed healthcare reform or any other political issue. If there is nobody willing to enforce a law, that law doesn’t exist. Period. Why argue about what laws get made and by whom, if the laws we have are enforced like Mexico’s?
That is the issue here. You can say, as did our Senators a few years ago regarding perjury and obstruction of justice, “Tee-hee. It’s just about sex. It doesn’t matter.” Or in this case you can say, “The Birthers are crazy. Move on.”
The subject of the investigation is irrelevant; the fact that law enforcement refuses to investigate is the issue. When lawless people get control of a system and manipulate what gets enforced, you’ve become Chicago. Or Mexico. Today the subject not being investigated is the violation of open records laws and government cover-up of known forgery. Those crimes have allowed a person into office who has committed extortion (threatening anyone who would report on Obama’s eligibility, as well as lawyers for car dealers), and who violated bankruptcy law to steal money from secured investors and give it to unions instead. For a wider-angle view of Obama’s actions so far (with links) see here, here, and here. (I gave up on keeping score after 6 months).
You can laugh at extortion & government cover-ups of forgery and perjury if you think it’s just about—tee-hee—Birthers, but I’m telling you right now: If law enforcement doesn’t matter, then welcome to Mexico. I hope your children have a good time kicking your face when they see it sewn onto a soccer ball, because by refusing to address this you are consigning your children to that kind of world.
Butterdezillion is one of the two women that primarily caused the Hawaii legislature to pass SB 2937, the “Vexatious Requestor” bill—also known as the “Birther law”—that facilitates Hawaii’s conspiracy to cover-up the circumstances of Obama’s birth.
The bill wasn’t enacted becaue these requests were unusual and unreasonable. It was enacted because the “vexatious requesters” were, by their inquiries, uncovering the shenanigans of members of the Hawaiian government—especially the governor, Lyin’ Linda Lingle, and members of the Department of Health.
Certificate Of Nomination Summary:
Butterdezillion explains why Pelosi and Germond signed a different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii.
Based on the outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, Canada Free Press broke a story showing that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.
That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.
And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General, and the public at large need to know.
First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and has no legal value.
It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.
But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.
I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and 2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot.
A summary of the documents:
2000 DNC Cert - standard certificate with typed eligibility language added.
2000 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National convention and received at Hawaii Elections Office the same day (hand-delivered).
2004 DNC Cert - standard certificate, no eligibility language.
2004 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after th e National Convention.
2008 DNC Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language.
2008 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language removed. Signed during the National Convention one day before the DNC Cert was signed. Mailed to the Hawaii Elections Office by DNC Attorney Joe Sandler together with DNC cert and transmittal letter.
In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the Constitutional eligibility language removed – at the National Convention, on the day BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then apparently gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler, who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and Germond just for Hawaii (since the HDP refused to certify eligibility) and then sent both certifications, with his own letter of transmittal, to the Hawaii Elections Office.
So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.
The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?
A former DNC official allegedly said the DNC added the eligibility language to be cautious, but that doesn’t explain why the HDP took OUT their certification which had always been sufficient in the past. Being “cautious” would mean either doing it the way it had always worked before, or ADDING to what had always worked before – not trying out an experiment that had never been tried before. In 2000 the DNC added eligibility language to the cert they sent to Hawaii alone, leaving the language off their certificates for other states. They did that in ADDITION to the eligibility certification by the HDP for that election. THAT is an example of caution on the part of the DNC – adding more documentation than needed, just in case. In 2008, though, the HDP certification that had always worked was simply swapped out for a DNC certification that had never been tried before. That isn’t caution; that’s an experiment. In 2008 the HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did they do that?
Sandler had been counsel for the DNC in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and the Hawaii election law hasn’t changed since 1993 so there was no reason to believe the protocols always used weren’t sufficient. And if the DNC had questions they didn’t ask anybody about them; Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner didn’t remember anybody from the HDP or DNC asking about the requirement and said it doesn’t matter which of the 2 bodies certified eligibility.
I called the HDP headquarters on Nov 13, 2009, to ask who had authorized their change in procedures for 2008 and why. The person I spoke with had choice words for the “crazy birthers” but refused to answer questions about how the HDP’s 2008 certificate was created. I specifically wanted to know what legal counsel had approved the changes to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that information.
Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up, with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.
Brian Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at) Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s visit to Kenya shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.
The HDP refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility is bad enough as it is, but for the HDP’s usual legal counsel to be the very person who has probably seen Obama’s non-Hawaii birth certificate is explosive.
All this was presumably known by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond when they signed that special certification for Hawaii. It was almost certainly known by Joe Sandler when he had the special certificate drawn up, counseled Pelosi and Germond to sign it, and sent the letter of transmittal with both certificates to the HI Elections Office. Calls to Sandler’s law office have been unreturned.
The HDP refused to answer my questions because they ridicule “birthers”. I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler.
Dear Mr. Malcolm:
This is the text of an Email sent to Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times by Butterdezillion:
Dear Mr. Malcolm,
In an editorial regarding Luke Scott you mentioned that Obama—for whatever reason—refuses to release his long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).
The HDOH has already told us enough to know why he refuses to release it. Everything I say here is documented on my blog. I and my colleagues have been in contact with the HDOH itself and have the statements from them and other government offices, as well as the laws, rules, legal rulings on Hawaii’s open-records laws, etc to back up everything I am about to tell you.
Through official communications the HDOH has made a statutory admission that Obama’s birth certificate (BC) was amended/altered in 2006. As the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) form says, “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE,” and HRS 338-17 says that the probative value of an amended/altered and/or late BC can only be determined when it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body.
In other words, Hawaii has no legally valid BC for Obama. Look at the announcements by Fukino and Okubo and you will see that they are very careful to never say that what they have is legally valid. Fukino’s phrase was “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
It also means that the State of Hawaii cannot legally say where Obama was born. Fukino’s statement was that she had seen the VITAL RECORDS WHICH VERIFY that Obama was born in Hawaii. “Verify” means that they swear. Fukino has never, herself, said that Obama was born in Hawaii because the law doesn’t allow her to say that since the BC is amended. What she says is that the vital records swear he was born in Hawaii. Whch is legally irrelevant if those vital records are not legally valid.
The HDOH is required to release a non-certified COLB for any person to anybody who asks for it. And once an announcement has been made regarding records ALL the records that were used for making that announcement are also required to be disclosed to anybody who asks to see them. Fukino referenced content on Obama’s actual vital records; therefore all those records are supposed to be disclosed upon request, according to Hawaii law.
She refuses to follow either of those rules/laws. And she illegally hid the Administrative Rules until a year after the election. And the HDOH knows that what Obama posted online (which his lawyer requested Judge David Carter to take judicial note of in a legal proceeding) is a forgery. They have indirectly confirmed that to the public in 3 different ways:
1) by admitting that Obama’s genuine BC is amended, since amendments must be noted on a COLB but Obama’s amendment wasn’t noted on the FactCheck.org COLB; 2) by confirming that the BC# was given by the HDOH on the “date filed” for all Oahu BC’s (The FactCheck.org BC# is later than the Nordyke twins’ BC#’s even though the “date filed” was 3 days earlier. The HDOH statement eliminates previous attempts to explain the discrepancy); and 3) by just a few days ago disclosing an image of their official seal stamped onto a piece of paper (the seal does not match the one on the FactCheck.org COLB).
Janice Okubo told me in an official communication that Hawaii law forbids her to disclose to anyone—even law enforcement—what she knows to be a forgery. In truth, however, failing to disclose a known forgery is the federal crime of misprision of felony. And deceiving in matters of federal jurisdiction (such as not correcting the reports saying that you have confirmed that FactCheck.org is genuine when you actually know it to be a forgery) violates the Federal General False Statement Act.
So crimes have been, and continue to be, committed by government personnel in order to hide the fact that Hawaii does not have a valid BC for Obama.
That is the reason this issue won’t go away. This isn’t about Obama. It’s about the rule of law. And there are similar crimes being committed by other government agencies who are supposed to have records for Obama as well. The Selective Service Administration actually has a forged Obama’s draft registration, as seen by the ‘08 automatic date stamp on it (rather than ‘80). The Passport Office has submitted to a judge what is almost certainly a forged Department of State “cable” claiming that retention schedules were changed and passport applications destroyed without leaving any paper trail as required by law. Etc.
This is a huge story that the general public is aware of but the media will not report the facts. Just like the WikiLeaks stories, when this story finally comes out it will be no big surprise to the people, who knew all along the truth of everything that was leaked and that the government was lying to us about it all. We just didn’t have access to the proof.
The HDOH has already given us the evidence of Obama’s documentation problem indirectly. When the direct evidence comes out the question we all have will be brought to the surface: How was this able to happen in America? At that point it will be more than egg on the faces of those who perpetrated and abetted this fraud on the American public and Constitution. At that point there will be legal ramifications and those who have laughingly perpetrated this will be sitting in jail.
As the election revealed, Americans are not amused by the “fundamental change” being crammed down our throats, even if the media and politicians laughingly call us “Birthers” while they dismiss our demands for the rule of law.
I apologize for the length of this, but I’ve only scratched the surface of this story here. I do know how this was able to happen in America, and it involves much, much more treachery than you probably care to hear about. If/when America is out of the danger zone the whole story can come out.
For now, everything I’ve given you is straight from the horse’s mouth. According to the HDOH itself they do not have a legally valid BC for Obama and they know the FactCheck.org COLB is a forgery, but went along with a pretense of having a normal, valid BC for Obama. If it’s a conspiracy, it is a documented conspiracy.
If you have any questions or comments, or are interested in learning more, don’t hesitate to e-mail or call.
Hawaii’s Cover Up Continues:
Butterdezillion says that according to a recent report and an interview reported by Michael Isikoff, the Hawaii government is now claiming that not even Barack Obama himself could make a copy of his long-form birth certificate, much less get a certified copy. What I will document here is that Hawaii law REQUIRES ALL the records the Hawaii Department of Health (HDoH) has for a person to be available for inspection and copying, and that certified copies of the entire birth certificate—including even the confidential medical portion—are required to be issued when the registrant or anybody named on the certificate specifically requests it.
For the last 2+ years the HDoH has been claiming they won’t issue certified copies of long-form birth certificates, but there is a video clip and there are certified copies of long-forms issued during that time proving that what they said publicly and what everybody in Hawaii knew was really happening were two different things. They HAVE been issuing certified long-form birth certificates.
Enter Donald Trump, who very publicly wonders why Obama won’t just disclose his long-form. Not only has Obama refused to disclose it, but he has spent his own, taxpayers’, and concerned citizens’ money in court cases where he has argued he shouldn’t have to disclose his long-form because it would be “embarrassing” to him. He allowed a decorated military surgeon and veteran, Lt Col Terry Lakin, to go to jail and lose at least $3 million in savings, career wages, and retirement benefits rather than simply disclose his long-form.
Now, after 2 years of ridiculing “Birthers” and sending Lt. Col. Lakin to jail, the HDoH Director who replaced Neal Palafox (after Abercrombie, Janice Okubo, and the Attorney General’s Office did a hit-job to cover that Abercrombie asked him to resign) has decided to change the policies so they can say that Obama CAN’T disclose his long-form because he can’t even GET a copy of his long-form.
The problem for them is two-fold:
1) This doesn’t explain why Obama wouldn’t disclose the documents when the HDoH was still issuing certified copies of long-forms, or why he won’t disclose it in COURT, where a subpoena or judge’s order overrides the routine policies of the HDoH Director. 2) The policies they are implementing right now are illegal, and actually reveal that they are so desperate to cover for Obama that they will even break laws to give him an excuse he can use to the Average Joe who reads articles like Isikoff’s. This is the HDoH Director and the Hawaii Attorney General’s office, breaking the laws to cover for Obama in full view of everyone.
In summary: In a desperate, vain attempt to put the “Why doesn’t Obama just disclose his long form?” horse back in the stall after 2+ years of that horse galloping all over the country, the Hawaii government has decided within the past few weeks (since Trump raised the visibility of the issue) to openly break their vital records and open records laws—denying everybody else their lawful right to access their own records and get certified long-forms as required for a variety of legal purposes, all to cover for Obama’s refusal to simply show the long-form that supposedly has the same information as what he has already disclosed publicly.
Decide for yourself. Click here to see the Hawaiian laws and rules these Democrat bureaucrats are violating to cover up this conspiracy (begins on page 2).
On June 6, 2009, according to a now-scrubbed article in the Hawaii Star-Bulletin, the State of Hawaii, Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. The department only issues the “Certifications of Live Birth”, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said, and, “it’s only available in electronic form.”
That’s a lie. Here’s a long-form birth certificate issued on September 28, 2010. And here’s one issued in March, 2011.
Back in June, 2009, The Obama File discovered an item that demonstrates that Hawaii was actively participating in the conspiracy to support Obama’s usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States. Since 1920, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands only accepted a certified copy of the long-form “Certificate of Birth” to be accepted for eligibility for some Hawaiian state government programs. When questions about Obama’s eligibility surfaced, Hawaii changed the rules, and scrubbed their website sometime between June 8, 2009 and June 18, 2009 in support the Obama mythology—here is the story and indisputable evidence.
In January, 2010, the HDoH launched a defense against Obama birth queries. The Department of Health has posted a “vital records” Web page—“obama.html”—that says they aren’t answering any more questions about Barack Obama, the mysterious circumstances surrounding his birth, and/or what documentation is in their possession.
In May, 2010 the Hawaii legislature passed the “Vexatious Requester” law (SB2937/CD1), that amends the state law to allow for a state agency to refuse the release of government records under certain circumstances—like covering up for Obama.
Hawaii is run by Democrats. They filed fraudulent nomination papers to get Obama on the ballot, and have knowingly conspired to cover up their misdeeds ever since. THis is the greatest fraud in American history.
They have to. They have no choice. Can you spell “Leavenworth?”
Source:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Butterdezillion.htm
Note: Americans are waking up!
Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.
Sources:
http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375625/#f2cd597738
http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/natural-born-citizenship-and-history-timeline
Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.
Sources:
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-of-natural-born-citizen-pac
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-interviewed-by-post-email
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-ballot-challenge-in-new-mexico
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/complaint-to-remove-barack-obama-from-2012-nm-ballot
Word of Caution: Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.
So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.
Note: My following blog post contains numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:
The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/
Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/
Was there a conspiracy to put Obama in the White House?
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/was-there-a-conspiracy-to-put-obama-in-the-white-house-2/
Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?
Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.
“Food For Thought”
God Bless the U.S.A.!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related
Semper Fi!
Jake
Comments
GOOD WORK, KEEP GOING ~