Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the detective work of independent investigative journalists and imaging professionals in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate the Daily Kos, an extreme left blog site, and the Obama campaign, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance.
The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.
Without a valid birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President.
McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called OpenDNA.com and uses the OpenDNA screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
Dear Dr. Fukino, Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii, “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible’
I request an electronic copy of the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’ as required, for an amendment to be made to President Obama’s birth certificate. Please send the proof as offered or as filed if it was abstracted. If these records are already public, please give me directions on where to find them.
This request is a Hawaii UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request under section 92F-12.
Thank you, (Name WIthheld) ———-
Date: 2009/10/8
To: (Name WIthheld), “Fukino, Chiyome L.”
This request was already received a response.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 586-4442
Fax: (808) 586-4444
email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov From: Okubo, Janice S.
********
I asked Ms. Okubo to clarify that response and finally received a denial in a Notice to Requester sent to me on October 29. Ms. Okubo cited the following statutes:
********
NOTICE TO REQUESTER
(Use multiple forms if necessary)
TO: Jeff Goldman
FROM: Janice Okubo, Department of Health (808) 586-4442
(Agency/name & telephone number of contact person at agency)
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED: 10/8/09
DATE OF THIS NOTICE: 10/29/09
GOVERNMENT RECORDS YOU REQUESTED (attach copy of request or provide brief description below):
1. Request is attached
2. 3. 4. Notice is provided to you that your request:
☐ Will be granted in its entirety. ☐ Cannot be granted because
☐ Agency does not maintain the records. Agency believed to maintain records:
☐ Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested. Please contact the agency and provide the following information:
☐ Request requires agency to create a summary or compilation from records not readily retrievable.
☒ Is denied in its entirety ☐ Will be granted only as to certain parts based upon the following exemption provided in HRS § 92F-13 and/or § 92F-22 and other laws cited below (portions of records that agency will not disclose should be described in general terms).
RECORDS OR APPLICABLE AGENCY
INFORMATION WITHHELD STATUTES JUSTIFICATION
Vital Records HRS §338-18(b) Access to records is
§92F-13 (4) (Supp.1989) restricted by statute
REQUESTER’S RESPONSIBILITIES:
You are required to (1) pay any lawful fees assessed; (2) make any necessary arrangements with the agency to inspect, copy or receive copies as instructed below; and (3) provide the agency any additional information requested. If you do not comply with the requirements set forth in this notice within 20 business days after the postmark date of this notice or the date the agency makes the records available, you will be presumed to have abandoned your request and the agency shall have no further duty to process your request. Once the agency begins to process your request, you may be liable for any fees incurred. If you wish to cancel or modify your request, you must advise the agency upon receipt of this notice.
METHOD & TIMING OF DISCLOSURE:
Records available for public access in their entireties must be disclosed within a reasonable time, not to exceed 10 business days, or after receipt of any prepayment required. Records not available in their entireties must be disclosed within 5 business days of this notice or after receipt of any prepayment required. If incremental disclosure is authorized by HAR § 2-71-15, the first increment must be disclosed within 5 business days of this notice or after receipt of any prepayment required.
Method of Disclosure:
☐ Inspection at the following location: .
☐ Copy will be provided in the following manner:
☐ Available for pick-up at the following location: .
☐ Will be mailed to you.
☐ Will be transmitted to you by other means requested: .
Timing of Disclosure: All records, or first increment where applicable, will be made available or provided to you:
☐ On .
☐ After prepayment of fees and costs of $ (50% of fees +100% of costs, as estimated below).
Payment may be made by: ☐ cash ☐ personal check ☐ other .
For incremental disclosures, each subsequent increment will be disclosed within 20 business days after:
☐ The prior increment (if one prepayment of fees is required and received).
☐ Receipt of each incremental prepayment required.
Disclosure is being made in increments because the records are voluminous and the following extenuating circumstances exist:
☐ Agency must consult with another person to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under HRS chapter 92F.
☐ Request requires extensive agency efforts to search, review, or segregate the records or otherwise prepare the records for inspection or copying.
☐ Agency requires additional time to respond to the request in order to avoid an unreasonable interference with its other statutory duties and functions.
☐ A natural disaster or other situation beyond agency’s control prevents agency from responding to the request within 10 business days. ESTIMATED FEES & COSTS:
The agency is authorized to charge you certain fees and costs to process your request (even if no record is subsequently found to exist), but must waive the first $30 in fees assessed for general requesters and the first $60 in fees when the agency finds that the request made is in the public interest. See HAR §§ 2-71-19, -31 and -32. The agency may require prepayment of 50% of the total estimated fees and 100% of the total estimated costs prior to processing your request. The following is the estimate of the fees and costs that the agency will charge you, with the applicable waiver amount deducted:
Fees: Search Estimate of time to be spent: $
($2.50 for each 15-minute period)
Review & segregation Estimate of time to be spent: $ ($5.00 for each 15-minute period)
Fees waived ☐ general ($30) ☐ public interest ($60) <$ > Other $
(Pursuant to HAR § 2-7-31(B) )
Total Estimated Fees: $
Costs: Copying Estimate of # of pages to be copied: $
(@ $ per page.) Other $
Total Estimated Costs: $ For questions about this notice, please contact the person named above. Questions regarding compliance with the UIPA may be directed to the Office of Information Practices at 808-586-1400 oroip@hawaii.gov.
******** We can clearly see that the box “Agency does not maintain the records” is not checked. Therefore, Obama changed his ‘Date of Birth.’ Why?
* Obama Pledges “New Era of Openness” * Why Congress Was Reading Obama’s Speech * A Census of College Costs
Posted by misstickly Filed in Uncategorized 124 Comments » 124 Responses to “Lies, lies, lies.”
1. Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 11:15 am
She didn’t send a letter saying the requested documents, IF ANY, are confidential? That’s been her latest trick.
Did you have a lawyer involved with this? Maybe lawyers get different answers than us “stupid people”.
[She did. But then she cited a statue that requires they prove a frustration of their duties if they release the records. Therefore, they exist. And she also had to correct the first one she sent so I have two Notice to Requesters that deny access citing state law. It doesn't matter what she wrote in the email, what matters is the Notice to Requester. She did not check "The agency does not maintain these records."]
2. Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 11:24 am
So the letter she sends the attachment with is not her legal response and is used to obfuscate the real response? I had sent to the OIP a request for clarification on that.
And one of the crucial UIPA requests I made was answered ONLY by a letter and not by the form indicating whether my request had been granted in full. That was the time when the only index record they claimed where the name field had Barack, Barak, Barry, Obama, or Dunham was “Barack Hussein Obama II, male”. I told her I considered it unanswered since there was no form telling me whether my request had been granted in full.
What we know now, then, is that he TRIED to change his date of birth. Whether he succeeded, we don’t know. But to change his birth date he would have to submit proof of the whole thing – the entire circumstance of his birth.
[No, he was successful. They wouldn't retain records that were not accepted. They would return them to him with a denial.
And I believe he may have been born as Barrack. (I have my reasons.)
BTW, they have been more than forthcoming about records they don't have. There's no way I would believe that they are concerned about telling us certain records do not exist. ]
3. Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 11:42 am
This is more proof that what he posted online is not authentic – unless he changed his date of birth AFTER that COLB was received. I don’t think we can go by anything on that online COLB, though, because the DOH didn’t have anything for him before Aug 10, 1961.
Do you think the information they’re giving you is on Barrack Hussein Obama II?
[I don't know..have any of you received responses about name changes yet?]
4. Ladysforest said 11/05/2009 at 11:48 am
I guess I need more coffee or something. I’m not picking up why the DoH not checking the “does not maintain theses records box” indicates that obamas date of birth was changed. I was just on Leo’s blog and I think he got a similar/same response, however he didn’t post the actual response. He stated that it indicated that they do indeed have obamas birth record. But, I’m not making the connection with the response you received and the date of birth thing? While I wait for your response I’ll go get more coffee:).
http://www.meetup.com/Natural-Born-Citizen-Coalition-for-Legal-Action/
[MT: They would have had to check the box that says "The agency does not maintain the records' if they did not have them. Instead they cited TWO statutes that protect ACTUAL records. What statute protects records that don't exist? They've told me in the past when they do not maintain a record.]
the comments are here.
Any COLB they would print for Obama would have to have a note saying that the date of birth had been amended.
The original birth certificate would have to have a line drawn through the date and the corrected date written in if the date change was made before he was 2 1/2 years old.
Why would he change his date of birth? If it was a typological error by a hospital, doctor, nurse, midwife, etc, that would be a MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE amendment and wouldn’t require him to file for an amendment.
[It's only minor if the change is made within the first year. If the COLB represents an amended certificate not yet accepted by the state, it would make sense that it does not say 'Amended' AND 'Accepted'...yet.]
# Nelliesaid 11/05/2009 at 11:54 am
The rest of us are receiving worse than nothing. Although they finally posted PHR Chapters 8, 8a, 8b, and Chapters 120 and 123 – the items mentioned on the lt gov’s site as being in the process of being changed.
[I am sorry to hear that they are giving you the run around. I had to move on to investigate Obama's genealogy and the Dunhams/Singletary (Donham, Singleterry) and the Davises. They all come from Haverhill, Massachusetts. Basically, they founded the freemasons in this country circa 1642.]
# Opus64 said 11/05/2009 at 11:57 am
Ladysforest,
Try reading the request again (below) it should become quite clear.
“I request an electronic copy of the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’ as required, for an amendment to be made to President Obama’s birth certificate. Please send the proof as offered or as filed if it was abstracted. If these records are already public, please give me directions on where to find them.”
# Lizard said 11/05/2009 at 11:59 am
I posted reference to this on the other thread about the regulations in Chapter 8A, Sec. 2.5 B.
This section specifically deals with who is eligible for copies of birth certificates. It suggests that that an “Abbreviated Copy” of a birth certificate can be issued to ANYONE – specifically, it says in section (2) that: “A non-certified copy containing only such information as is listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.”
Do you think that this opens the door for anyone to get at least a non-certified copy from the DOH?
[DOB is one of those 'significantly' private items. I just can't see them issuing BCs without 'tangible interest.' But, who knows...]
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 12:03 pm
I think confidentiality laws have been passed since 1976 which would override those parts.
According to 3.2(c the state registrar can hold a request for amendment he/she has evidence to believe may be fraudulent until a court establishes the facts. Is there a place where they directly say that they don’t hold requests, or only hold it for a specified time and then send it back to the registrant? I think there might be something like that regarding original requests for a birth certificate, but this section is specifically for amendments to a non-delayed certificate.
As long as the amendment is made to a certificate already ACCEPTED (i.e. given a file number) the change has to be noted on the certificate. These regs really don’t discuss what has to be on the “abbreviated certified copy” (which is what the COLB of today is actually called in Chapter 8B.
Change of date of birth would be a major administrative change. If that change was made after 1976 (when Chapter 8B went into effect), it would require 1) an affidavit from the person requesting the change (i.e. SAD); AND 2) either documentary proof or an affidavit by someone else claiming to have knowledge of the event. (i.e. SAD and Madelyn Dunham).
We don’t have any administrative rules that went into effect before March 20, 1964, so anything done before Obama was 2 1/2 (according to an Aug 1961 birth date) we have no way of knowing what they would have done.
[Yes, I did read that. I believe it was in Att Gen 84-14. If an amendment is declined due to lack of support, the support is returned to the individual with a letter explaining the reasons for declining and an explanation on court action that the individual can take.
And, think of it this way: If he said he was born in 1961 instead of say, 1960...how would the DoH have any records for a child not even born yet? The whole thing stinks to high heaven. I can only see where he could legitimately make himself OLDER, but not younger.]
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 12:40 pm
If his birth certificate was not accepted by the state registrar it would not be given a certificate number, at least according to what Chapter 8B seems to say, effective in June of 1976.
If this is still how they note this, it would explain why Obama had the cert# blacked out. His may not HAVE a cert#. It would also explain why they won’t give us the index data for the cert# on the Factcheck COLB.
If Chapter 8b is truly in effect and COLB’s posted online which show how amendments are noted are true, then the only way Obama would have a COLB that didn’t note an amendment would be if the birth certificate had not been accepted by the state registrar – in which case the COLB would not have a certification number.
[Interesting analysis...it would explain a few things..]
# misstickly said 11/05/2009 at 12:45 pm
“…based upon the following exemption provided in HRS § 92F-13 and/or § 92F-22 and other laws cited below (portions of records that agency will not disclose should be described in general terms).
…Access to records is restricted by statute §92F-13 (4) (Supp.1989) …HRS §338-18(b) ”
Here is §92F-13 (4): Exception 4 – The Law or Order Exception (§92F-13(4)) An agency may withhold access to records that are protected from disclosure by a state or federal law or by a court order, for example, tax return information required to be kept confidential by statute. The term “law” does not include administrative rules, county charter provisions, or mayoral orders.
Here is (§92F-22):
The Exemptions from Disclosure (§92F-22) The personal records section of the UIPA contains its own set of exceptions, which differ from those for general governmentrecords requests. Generally, these exceptions protect:
(1)Criminal law enforcement agency records; (2)Confidential source records; (3)Government exam records; (4)Investigative materials; and (5)Records protected by law
[Notice that the word 'Nothing' is not listed as being protected by either of these statutes.
And, as I said earlier, the response I posted was a correction of yet another that cited the agency's 'frustration' as a reason to not disclose the records.]
That’s what I was thinking too. If they already had records of him in 1960 saying he was born in 1960 and then he wanted to change it to say he was really born in 1961, they couldn’t explain having records before he was born.
He says his birth was filed on Aug 8th, 1961, but the DOH had nothing by then. He must have had something filed after Aug 8th.
Since what he filed online is not genuine in any way, shape, or form, we have no idea when his birth information was first filed. It could have been the day before he decided to run for president, for all we know – and then he forged a filing date and blacked out the cert # to hide the fact that there was none.
[I agree, I put no stock in a single thing listed on that COLB now. I had to push to get a clear response on the Date of Birth question--what else have they lied about that I did not push the issue on?]
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 12:54 pm
What was the exact wording of their response saying they didn’t have to give the records because they are frustrated? I’m not sure I’m understanding this.
# 7th swan said 11/05/2009 at 12:56 pm
Could the Amendment be of the Identity of the Father, and not of the Birth Date?
[I asked about Date of Birth. Perhaps someone else has asked about parents...I haven't]
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 1:01 pm
So MT, was there a lawyer involved in getting this answer from them? Keith has suggested that we pool together to get an attorney to sue for the low-hanging fruit, where there’s really no doubt of what the DOH is required to give. I’m wondering if we have to give the OIP 10 days to cough it up before we can get the State of HI to pay legal fees used to get them to obey their own laws.
I’m still wondering if the use of the “IF ANY” phrase is supposed to give legal wiggle room to say they never checked on whether the records they are refusing even exist. I’d like OIP confirmaton of what their combination of statements means from a legal standpoint.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 1:04 pm
I wonder (and asked the OIP) what query term they use when they (or we) refer to “President Obama”.
I don’t trust them on anything. Their non-answer on my query for all index records containing various first and last names leads me to believe that they are hiding something with the names too.
I haven’t heard back from the OIP on that. How are you feeling about the OIP right now? Are they going to get us answers or are they just dithering now too?
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 1:10 pm
Does anybody remember there being a discrepancy between whether his birth date was Aug 2 or 4th? What were the sources for the 2 different dates given?
I’m wondering if he had to try to change the date because the “proof” he submitted actually had a different date on it than the “proof” initially submitted. If we knew where the claim of Aug 2nd came from and where the claim of Aug 4th came from, it could give us clues as to what documentation he tried to submit first and then amend.
# Susan said 11/05/2009 at 1:21 pm
misstickly, Obama’s half brother Mark Ndesanjo gave an interview to WorldNetDaily, he claims BO senior was a wife beater and he was also beaten. Some very good information here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115064
Nellie said: Unfortunately, after all is said and done, what has been posted online never applied to Obama’s original birth certificate if it was not a delayed certificate. Those regulations were put into effect March 20, 1964. If Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961 then these didn’t go into effect until 2 1/2 years after he was born. If his birth was registered in any way before he was 2 1/2 years old then nothing in here applies to the original certificate.
____________________________________________________
1964 is just the latest revision. These rules originated in 1937 and have been updated periodically. I have a copy of the 1955 Revised Law of Hawaii which was in effect when Barry was born. RL 57 (equivalent of HRS 338) handles amendments, late registration (after 30 days), and delayed registration (after 1 year) pretty much the same way.
Also MT said something about amended certificates not having to be marked as such. According to PHR Chap 8B 3.9 c, if the birthplace or birthdate is amended, the authority for doing so must be on the face of the certificate.
Another point, 8B, 3.9 B states that the amended b/c as a result of adoption,legitimation, or paternity , must contain the same birth date and place of birth, attendant, birth number, and original filing date. If any of these are amended, I interpret it to mean that the b/c must be identified as amended or altered.
Also, if the Fact check b/c number and filing date is valid, then all records as a result of an adoption would contain the same information except for registrant name and parentage. This is probably why Okubo won’t release index data based on a number only. Adoption records are sealed and I assume this includes the related index data.
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 1:30 pm
MT — Good job! :-)
One thought: Remember the odd comment by Laurence Tribe in his & Ted Olson’s Memo of Law produced for the 511 Resolution re: McCain? Tribe said something to the affect that: denying McCain’s citizneship status b/c he was born in Panama . . .would be as ludicrous as “concluding that Obama was not a citizen if he had been born in Hawaii when it was a territory.”
I remember thinking that odd b/c Obama was not part of the Memo at all and Obama had been born (to our knowledge) after HI became a state. . .and Panama was never a territory of the US anyway. In other words, WHY bring into the discussion any reference to “territory” at all? Besides, that is true. Several POTUS’ were born in US Territories before they became states and it has been decided, I believe difinitively, that such persons would be eligible to be the POTUS. Of course, those POTUS’ didn’t lie about it.
Perhaps the key, somehow, is that since Obama was born a dual-citizen to one US citizen parent and one Foreign National parent then his NBC status is further complicated if he was born in HI before it even became a US State?
If Obama was also born on “sovereign crown lands” before HI became State, it would be important to know what the legal status of those lands were prior to HI statehood.
RE: “FILED by Registrar” v. “ACCEPTED by Registrar” — in another post, I discovered what seems to be a “pattern” after reviewing 4 COLBs on Phil Berg’s website all produced on the HI DoH COLB form in effect as of 11/2001.
1. Persons born in Hawaii in 1930, 1977 and 1983 all had COLBs (that they most likely ordered from DoH in 2007/2008) had “Date ACCEPTED” on their COLBS.
2. 2 COLBs — Obama’s (born 1961) and a girl born in 1990 — had “Date FILED” instead of “accepted.”
3. Logically, Obama’s COLB should have said: “Date ACCEPTED by Registrar” because he was BORN in 1961.
4. Thus — it appears that EITHER the girl born in 1991 has some issue w/her COLB . . .OR . . .HI DoH changed their policy from using “Date Accepted” to “Date Filed”
5. We need to find out IF, and then when, HI DoH changed that “status” name on their COLB forms. It was before 2001 b/c the girl born in 1990’s COLB says “Date Filed” like Obama’s does.
6. If a policy change occurred, it would have occured during a 7 year period — between 1983 and 1990.
7. Let’s say, for example, that HI DoH changed their policy re: “status” from “Accepted” to “Filed” in 1987, then we know that Obama’s current COLB must have ORIGINATED after 1987. . .but it could have originated ANY TIME after 1987. It could originated in 2007.
8. However, that is a big problem for Barry b/c supposedly he was born in 1961. How come he’s got a new BC/ COLB ORIGINATING — being created — after 1987. Actually, the earliest Obama’s current COLB could have originated is 1984 and in 1984 Obama would have been 23 yrs old.
9. What you’re saying, MT, is that you have managed to extract by out-smarting HI DoH that: Obama changed the DATE OF HIS BIRTH at some point. And, I would say that most likely that change would have occurred AFTER 1983 . . .and it could have occurred right up to 2007.
10. Again, the key is to obtain several more COLBs from Hawaii born citizens/persons — just one per year is needed — from 1984 to 2007. That’s just 23 people who’d need to order their COLBs and we most likely wouldn’t need that many.
11. We just need to figure out the YEAR Obama changed the Date of his birth and we can do that, to some degree, by at least figuring out what year “Date ACCEPTED” was changed to “date FILED.”
12. And we do need to know, for certain, that HI DoH actually did change their policy “status language” from “accepted to filed. We only have one other published COLB that shows “filed” instead of “accepted” like Obamas and that person was born in 1990. Her COLB is available for inspection on Berg’s site. There may be other similar COLBs floating around.
13. Obviously, the American people had a right to know why a POTUS candidate changed the date of his birth as an adult — after 1983.
Thanks, Epicurious.
I have to say how impressed I am with this group and how thankful for all of you. It’s a tough road; I’m glad none of us is totally alone in the search for the truth.
# Shez ZK said 11/05/2009 at 1:38 pm
Leo put up an new post a couple of hours ago:
Hawaii Update: DoH Confirms They Maintain A Birth Record For Obama Dated From August 1961 http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/hawaii-update-doh-confirms-they-maintain-a-birth-record-for-obama-dated-from-august-1961/
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 1:41 pm
Karen, I think we have to forget about any conclusions arrived at based on Obama’s online COLB. It’s a fake. Nothing on it is reliable.
If we had something that was GENUINE we could derive things about what Obama’s done based on what’s on the COLB, but if we had what was genuine we wouldn’t need to derive anything because it’s already required by law to be on there.
We’ve found out from Leo’s request, though, that we can use any alleged informaton on the online COLB as a reason to ask the DOH for documentation regarding that piece of information. That is the one use that COLB has for us.
I think the most helpful thing right now – besides a suit from Leo winning the disclosure of the AG opinion letter to approve Fukino’s July 27 release – would be access to the physical index lists from 1961. We need to find out WHEN and UNDER WHAT NAME Obama first entered the Hawaii DOH records. If we can find that out, then we can use the various revisions to guide what information we ask for.
# Pink said 11/05/2009 at 1:43 pm
Just found out something interesting.
“Up until 1972, the first three numbers of a social security number were an indicator of which state the applicant lived in when he had his card issued. After 1972, the first three numbers only indicate the mailing zip code to where the card was sent.”
http://www.genealogysoup.com/articles/socialsecurityrecords.php
I’m about to research the zip codes in Hawaii and California to see if the “042″ matches up with anything. That might give us an indicator as to when his SS number was assigned.
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 1:53 pm
RE: QUO WARRANTO
1. It’s really quite clever that “sworn testimony” to facts is necessary to bring the quo warranto suit but, in reality, we don’t have any actual proof — no paper COLB — and you can’t offer “sworn testimony” that Obama was born in HI based on an image of his COLB on factcheck.
2. And, as I recall, no congressman/senator — no one — ever admitted to SEEING the actual COLB. Remember how congressman would blow off our requests for proof by directing us to the online image? No one actually ADMITTED to seeing or verifying the authenticity of Obama’s 2007 COLB including HI DoH
3. Correction — FACTCHECK did see the actual COLB. They admitted that they took photos of the COLB. Let’s depose factcheck.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 1:55 pm
Okay, Karen, I take it back. lol.
Leo’s latest post shows that after all the wobbling and misdirection, the DOH affirms that the “Date filed” on Obama’s online COLB would not have to be forged.
BUT having proof now that he amended the date of birth, the online COLB could only be genuine if it was never accepted by assigning a file number – because once a document has received a file number, amendments to the date have to be noted on the face of the document.
Unless we’re missing something altogether, there is no way that what Obama posted could be from an ACCEPTED long-form birth certificate. Either it is a forgery, with the amendments deleted, or else it is a COLB resulting from an original birth certificate which was never given a cert# because it was never accepted as proven.
The DOH has said they have an index record for a male named Barack Hussein Obama II but they won’t say what the event is. I wonder if they keep an index record for all names submitted but won’t index an event that they haven’t yet “accepted”.
Any ideas how we could find that out?
# Pink said 11/05/2009 at 1:57 pm
Found this: Tujunga (City of LA) 91042
[Occidental.]
Occidental was 041, though. Doesn’t really matter, I guess. It only points to the fact that he never got a social security number until college. I’m assuming that was because of financial aid?? What types of ID did you have to have back then to apply for a SS #? Just the birth certificate?
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 2:12 pm
Pink, I’m looking at my kids’ 4 social security cards. None of them have first 3 digits which match our mailing zip code at any time in our life. In fact, none of the digits in any of the 3 numbers match any of the digits in the state where we lived. Not one number matches.
# Pink said 11/05/2009 at 2:13 pm
And furthermore, how did he get into the college and get financial aid w/o the actual number if it was indeed mailed to California?
# Pink said 11/05/2009 at 2:16 pm
Nellie, I think this is another Obama grey area. I was born in the late 60s and my no. reflects my state. My kids are the same way (born in the mid and late 90s), BUT, I filled out all of the paperwork right when they were born.
Therefore, if Obama’s grandparents or parents never bothered with his, he would have had to go to an office somewhere and provide some ID. Then, it would have been mailed if he was locationally in limbo (state-wise).
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 2:19 pm
We got social security cards for our kids immediately when they were born. Three were born in Minnesota while we lived there (and received their social security cards) The one born in 1994 has first 3 digits of 469. The two born in 1996 and 1997 have 471 as the first 3 digits. At the time our zip code was some mixture of the letters 36558. The only number in common was one 6.
Our other child was born in 1999 in Nebraska – all of whose zip codes begin with 68xxx. Her SS# begins with 506, as does mine. I was born before 1972 so the criteria for the first 3 numbers hasn’t changed between my birth in the 1960’s until 1999 when my daughter was born. Neither set of 3 digits matches ANY of the digits in Nebraska’s zip codes.
I think there is some serious disinformation going on here. I wonder if that site has been changed recently.
# ImagePhreak said 11/05/2009 at 2:24 pm
I am Jeff Goldman!
Funny how she left my name in the same form she sent you! Here was the request that caused her to respond with the form
——————————————————– RE: UIPA requestFriday, October 30, 2009 1:39 AM From: “Okubo, Janice S.” View contact detailsTo: “Image Phreak” Message contains attachments1 File (67KB) Aloha Mr. Goldman,
Records that would be responsive to your UIPA request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4). Please see attachment.
To the extent that this question seeks a verification of the existence of a certificate of live birth, state law (HRS §338-18) prohibits the disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records to people other than those specified in HRS §338-18, and the UIPA protects such records from disclosure (HRS §92F-13). We cannot send you an electronic copy or otherwise make available to you a vital statistics record which is protected from disclosure by state law.
Janice Okubo Communications Office Hawaii State Department of Health 1250 Punchbowl Street Honolulu , Hawaii 96813 Phone: (808) 586-4442 Fax: (808) 586-4444 email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
——————————————————————————–
From: Image Phreak [mailto:redacted@redacted.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:11 PM To: Okubo, Janice S. Subject: UIPA request
Dear Dr. Fukino,
Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii , “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible’.
I request a copy of the Delayed Birth Certificate of the president of the United States known as Barack Obama. If possible, please attach a copy in reply of this email.
Thanks
Jeff Goldman
—————————————————-
HOWEVER! This was only 1 of 3 request I sent on the 9th and 10th of Oct, the other two request were responded to within 1 day with the following: “The dept has no records responsive to your request”
But funny it is that this UIPA request which took 18 days for DOH to respond to must have gone through several hands and obviously a decision to attach a form. This is very interesting. SOUNDS LIKE BHO HAS A DELAYED BC CAUSE JANICE W
“Ideally, each person has only one Social Security number. When you apply for a number, the identifying information you provide on the application form (your name, date of birth, place of birth and parents’ names) is matched against all of Social Security’s records to see if you already have a number. If we find a match, we issue you a replacement card with that number. If we don’t find a match, we assign you a new number. In Social Security’s early years, these matches were done manually, and our local Social Security offices typed and issued the cards. Now the matches are done electronically, and we issue the cards from Social Security headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.
Over the years, some people have been issued more than one Social Security number. This usually happens when the information entered on one application doesn’t match the information on a later application. Perhaps the name is shown differently or a nickname is used, the date of birth or place of birth is not the same, or a stepparent’s name is given instead of a birth parent’s. Sometimes this happens when a parent gets a number for a young child and the child later fills out an application as part of a school lesson on Social Security. Whatever the cause, if the information on the applications does not match, we may assign a new number.
We also could inadvertently assign more than one number if a person sends in two applications within a very short time. If the first application is not yet processed and on the record when the second one comes in, the system will not be able to identify a match.
When Social Security can determine that more than one number belongs to the same person, we cross-refer those numbers in our records. Then when we select one of the numbers to issue a Statement, we combine the information from all the cross-referred numbers to display the year-by-year earnings and calculate the estimated benefits.
You don’t need to take any action about the other numbers shown on your record. You should continue to use the one under which you are currently working. However, if you have more than one number and we have not shown them all on your Statement, you should report this to us so that we can cross-refer the numbers and make sure that you get credit for all your earnings.”
I know I read that he had many SS numbers…wonder if this could be why?
# ImagePhreak said 11/05/2009 at 2:25 pm
I am Jeff Goldman!
Funny how she left my name in the same form she sent you! Here was the request that caused her to respond with the form
——————————————————– RE: UIPA requestFriday, October 30, 2009 1:39 AM From: “Okubo, Janice S.” View contact detailsTo: “Image Phreak” Message contains attachments1 File (67KB) Aloha Mr. Goldman,
Records that would be responsive to your UIPA request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4). Please see attachment.
To the extent that this question seeks a verification of the existence of a certificate of live birth, state law (HRS §338-18) prohibits the disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records to people other than those specified in HRS §338-18, and the UIPA protects such records from disclosure (HRS §92F-13). We cannot send you an electronic copy or otherwise make available to you a vital statistics record which is protected from disclosure by state law.
Janice Okubo Communications Office Hawaii State Department of Health 1250 Punchbowl Street Honolulu , Hawaii 96813 Phone: (808) 586-4442 Fax: (808) 586-4444 email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
——————————————————————————–
From: Image Phreak [mailto:redacted@redacted.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:11 PM To: Okubo, Janice S. Subject: UIPA request
Dear Dr. Fukino,
Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii , “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible’.
I request a copy of the Delayed Birth Certificate of the president of the United States known as Barack Obama. If possible, please attach a copy in reply of this email.
Thanks
Jeff Goldman
—————————————————-
HOWEVER! This was only 1 of 3 request I sent on the 9th and 10th of Oct, the other two request were responded to within 1 day with the following: “The dept has no records responsive to your request”
But funny it is that this UIPA request which took 18 days for DOH to respond to must have gone through several hands and minds and obviously a decision was made by someone to attach this form. This is very interesting. SOUNDS LIKE BHO HAS A DELAYED BC ON FILE!
[I hope you don't mind me posting this, but it's too funny and good to pass up. Let me know if you want me to pull that down for you!=)]
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 2:31 pm
ImagePhreak, do I understand that they sent you both a letter with the “IF ANY” comment and the form denying your request?
I REALLY want confirmation from OIP as to which statement constitutes their legal response.
Do you mind telling us what your other requests were for, that they immediately responded to by saying they didn’t have what you wanted?
Right now I don’t trust a word out of their keyboards.
[You go with the Notice to Requester because that's what an individual would send on to the OIP for appeal. You can't appeal the email response of "...if any...." THEY HAVE TO TELL YOU IF THE RECORDS EXIST. Because EVERYONE has a right to appeal the department's rulings.]
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 2:37 pm
Anybody else getting an Error Message 405: Method Not Allowed ? I’m only getting it here.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 2:41 pm
They supposedly did a search of the name fields looking for Barack, Barak, Barry, Obama, and Dunham and came up with “Barack Hussein Obama II, male”.
I asked them whether their previous index data of Ann Dunham and Barack Obama as bride and groom was an error.
There is no way they did a real query and came up with what they sent me. No way. They are lying through their teeth.
I need to know when their answer is legally binding, such that they would be guilty of perjury if they lie. That’s the only way to get the truth out of these people.
I also think that their waffling serves a purpose. I sent a letter to Hawaii officials based on the response to Leo’s UIPA #5 that he posted. Then they waffled around for a while, and now they come up with a totally different answer than they gave before. So now the Hawaii folks are going to think I cried wolf.
When can I be certain I’m not crying wolf, because the DOH can absolutely be pinned down legally to be accurate in what they’ve said, or else face the threat of perjury? Until we can give law enforcement something legally binding, we’ve got nothing. I need to know when the DOH has given an answer they can’t play games with.
# ImagePhreak said 11/05/2009 at 2:47 pm
No problem, I forgot to mention that the box was checked for “denied in it’s entirety” Obviously they are refusing to release the “delayed BC for BHO”
The other 2 request were:
1: Aloha Dr. Janice Okubo Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii: I do hereby request a copy of the Application or any state form used to register or record a person for the purpose of issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth for Barack Hussein Obama. If possible, please attach a copy in reply of this email. Thanks for your time regarding this matter.
Mahalo Jeffrey Goldman
2: Aloha Janice,
Thanks for your very quick response. I only have two other UIPA request for your office, one of which was sent previously but not yest responded to. The two request are of the following:
Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii:
1. I do hereby request a copy of the Late Birth Cerificate or Delayed Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama.
2. I do hereby request a copy any or all documentary evidence in support of registration of a late certificate of birth for Barack Hussein Obama.
If possible, please attach a copy in reply of this email. Thanks for your time regarding this matter
Mahalo
Jeffrey Goldman
————————————————— She responded with no records responsive to your request. Now that contradicts the form she sent with the box checked. I had forgotten that I had added the first request again since she had not responded to it. So, your right Misticky, they are lying. Now maybe I have a court case? HA!
# Pink said 11/05/2009 at 2:50 pm
MT, it certainly jives with a bunch of changes on a BC, doesn’t it? It’s no wonder he won’t release it. I cannot imagine what all has morphed over the years, DOB, parents, adoption?….what a clusterf__k.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 2:52 pm
I think they’re playing games with us and my time is too valuable for me to be amused. I want them to look deep in the eyes of justice and realize that nobody but them is laughing – but they won’t be laughing for long.
So now what can you say? Does he have a delayed or late birth certificate or not?
Do they have nurse’s, midwife’s, or doctor’s signatures submitted as proof for an initial birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II, or not? That’s what I asked them.
They’re lying. Pitiful, pathetic liars.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 3:00 pm
ImagePhreak, was your latest request, which got the form response, for Barack Hussein Obama II, or just Barack Hussein Obama?
I’ve asked OIP to clarify what terms they mean when they refer to “President Obama”. I have a feeling we have to be very, very specific in our requests, which is why their obfuscation of the names they have index records under is so crippling.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 3:06 pm
President of the US known as Barack Obama. That would distinguish him from Obama Sr. And they said they denied you access. That SHOULD mean they’ve got a delayed birth certificate for him.
It should tell us also that we need to add the II on the end of Barack Hussein Obama or else refer to him as the president.
When I’ve made my specific requests, I’ve used the name of Barack Hussein Obama II. They always respond by referring to “President Obama”. I really, really wonder if there are names besides “Barack Hussein Obama II” which they refer to as “President Obama”.
[Barack Hussein Obama Jr.]
# ImagePhreak said 11/05/2009 at 3:09 pm
That could be the difference.
A delayed birth certificate is one applied for a year or more after the child’s claimed birth. If the DOH had birth records for Obama by Aug 8, 1961 and it was a delayed birth certificate, then Obama had to have been born before Aug 8, 1960.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 3:27 pm
If he had to be born before Aug 8, 1960, then his birth date would had to have been changed to Aug 8, 1961 to get the COLB he posted online. That would explain the date change. And there would be good reason to want the date of birth to be closer to the time the birth info was filed – to hide that it was a delayed birth certificate.
If he had been born in a hospital the hospital would have been required to send to the DOH the documentation of the birth. A delayed registration would never be for a hospital birth or a birth attended by a midwife.
I wonder if they would have accepted a newspaper announcement of birth as “documentation”. But for the DOH to recognize it as a delayed certificate they would have had to claim his birth was in 1960 so any birth announcement they would have used would have been from 1960. I wonder if there’s any newspaper announcement for Obama in 1960.
AND if he was born sometime before Aug 8, 1960 that blows the whole story/chronology of his books and everything written about him.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 3:30 pm
If he was born sometime before Aug 8, 1960, the possibility of Malcolm X or somebody else being the father – or maybe even somebody else being the mother – takes on added credibility.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 3:34 pm
It would blow Barack Hussein Obama as the father out of the water, wouldn’t it? My mind is turning to mush. Barack Obama Sr arrived in Hawaii in 1959? And that’s when there’s supposedly this photo of Stanly Armour Dunham meeting him there. Maya and Obama have both referred to Madelyn as having lived in Hawaii since 1959…
Hmm.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 3:44 pm
Of course he could have been born in 1961 and they only claimed it as a delayed certificate so they wouldn’t be required to have the same evidentiary standards.
Epicurious, do you have Chapter 8, Section 14? It was repealed in 1964 and has been totally blacked out in the document posted online now. But it would have been in effect for Obama’s delayed birth certificate, which is what the DOH told ImagePhreak he can’t see.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 3:51 pm
For a non-delayed certificate, the birth needs to be filed within 7 days.
# ksdb said 11/05/2009 at 4:14 pm
Evidently HRS 338-18(d) has been revised at some point. At some point it said:
“Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public.”
Now it says:
“Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.”
The revision omits the age, date and file number of the registrant. Since that’s part of the index data, then those should be searchable and requestable fields. What might not be clear is what happens when one of those fields is amended? Maybe a new date of birth would require a new certificate number??
It might be worth an index data request to get a list of all birth entries for Aug. 4, 1961 and/or Aug. 8, 1961 to see if Obama is on the list.
And I still think we should be pressuring the DOH to release the index data for the Fact Check certificate number. Someone mentioned that adoption might have forced the records to be sealed, but it’s not clear if that applies to index data. Okubo has said nothing to indicate that the index data is sealed or that it doesn’t exist.
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 4:20 pm
Seems like until 1964 the definition of “delayed certificate” was one filed 30 or more days after the birth. That part was crossed out on the online posting. So in 1961, if Obama’s birth was indeed filed on Aug 8th and was a delayed certificate then he had to have been born before July 8th of 1961. But then why change his birthdate to Aug 4th? When was the earliest time he said his birthdate was Aug 4th?
Or he could have been born on Aug 4th but they didn’t have a doctor or nurse to sign for it so they claimed Obama was born in July so they could call it a delayed registration, which had a lower standard of evidence. Then they amended the birth date later when they had other records that could be used in addition to affidavits, such as school registration.
But the only way they wouldn’t have had any independent documentation for the birth is if was somebody else’s child, or neither mother nor child was seen by a doctor, midwife, or nurse after the birth.
I’m sorry guys. I’m thinking out loud, hoping somebody with a fresher brain can help me make sense of it all.
FWIW, my DOB is incorrect on my original long-form BC. I was born at 11:59 p.m. in 1969. My BC shows me being born at 12:01 a.m. the following day/early morning. The reason why is that my parents would have had to pay a fee for the nursery stay even though it would have been technically for one minute. The doctor and my parents agreed to change it to the next day to save money.
What I take from that is that doctors and parents had more of a personal relationship and weren’t so “letter of the law” about documenting things.
# Meep said 11/05/2009 at 4:31 pm
I’m starting to get a picture here, what is the name of the ship Sr. drifted into Hawaii on? The photo could be of Dunham welcoming another freemason from the hostilities in Kenya. Surely there would have been some refugee children on board. SADie would have been in high school which would mean she didn’t give birth, and that explains why she died of uterine cancer. Uterine cancer has a higher rate for women the don’t have children.
Why wouldn’t the Dunhams take in a refugee from the evil capitalistic colonials?
My guess is the birthday is going to be August 8, 1959. Three weeks before Hawaii became a state.
[MT: Very interesting thoughts Meep. Thank you, my brain is just not connecting everything that I have for some reason. The Freemasons are a major factor here. Particularly looking at Singletary/Donham and Haverhill Mass.
I believe the Freemasons on the Dunham's side may be 'Magna Carta people.' Nothing wrong with that in my book, but there is so much more in terms of 'plan.' There was a group of families that all became freeman together in Plymouth and then seem to have stuck together even til today.
I can tell you that when I first stumbled on these very deep masonic lines I was concerned, but the more I read about them, the more I am simply just very interested to learn more.
I am wondering about your moniker: "Meep." That word refers to this (from Wikipedia) Meep (or MEEP) is a free finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulation software package developed at MIT to model electromagnetic systems, along with our MPB eigenmode package.
Does your choice of name have anything to do with that because I would love an explanation of 'FDTD' that I can understand...]
# Marty said 11/05/2009 at 4:57 pm
I still think about Marshal Davis writting about raping that 13 year old girl in his book.
It would make sense that Stanley Ann got pregnant by him and the reason to change the DOB on Obamas BC.
Cover up.
[The Davises and Dunhams: Thomas Davis signed the original land deeds for Haverhill Mass and the families have been together since. That was 1642. Richard and Johnathan Singletary Dunham bought land in Haverhill at about the same time.]
# Pink said 11/05/2009 at 5:11 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/barackobama.uselections2008
“The Obama siblings in Kenya grew up hearing stories from their father about their half-brother who remained in America, a boy they knew as “Barry”.
“That’s what my father always called him in front of us,” said Auma Obama, a no-nonsense woman who returned to Kenya last year from the UK, where she ran a children’s trust. “When I finally got to meet Barack in America, the first thing he told me was: ‘Don’t call me Barry! My name is Barack!’
“A few years after that meeting in 1987, Barack made his first trip to Kenya, travelling to the village in Kogelo that his siblings had always called “Home Squared”: their second home.”
[Which, btw, was likely either part of Uganda, the British East Protectorate or independent at the time Obama's grandfather was born in 1895-96. Uganda recognizes both the son and grandson as Ugandan citizens.]
# Bemused said 11/05/2009 at 5:16 pm
You’re all so good— My two cents: 1. He is hiding the true BC because it would definitely, without question, disqualify him.
2. There are several things that could disqualify him or make him liable for impeachment if they aren’t what he says there are. For instance, if his name was ever not Obama, he perjured himself on his bar application and many other papers. Trivial maybe, but in my view more sinister than over-sexed people getting in a position to do what comes naturally, because it is a big, lifetime deception of persona. However, that isn’t it because he was trying to hide the BC before the election.
3. The place of his birth and the age of his mother are critical. If she gave birth when Hawaii was a territory, it wouldn’t be the territory part that would be a problem, it would be that she wasn’t old enough and hadn’t lived in a state long enough to pass her citizenship.
4. At that time, many forms of ID could be obtained with a baptismal certificate, easily forged, but once you have something it’s easier to get more documents, so to answer someone upstream, yes, it is possible that someone could use a little “social engineering” and a less-than-wonderful document, and end up with a SS I’m sure. I have met people who routinely do things like that as part of their lifestyle (so they can be “other people” and escape responsibility); trust me, honest people are hard put against them.
5. If he tried to change his race, it would destroy a lot of his mythos and ruin him in many ways, but it wouldn’t be a complete fail–he’d have a good story. So that isn’t it either. Wouldn’t put Gramps and Grammy past some Hawaiian claims, but again my judgement is based on a type of person that takes advantage of coincidences, like having the same family names, to create some new “opportunities.” So race isn’t it.
6. If he is older than he claims, he may also have gone to Indonesia earlier, and the whole kindergarden in HI is a concoction. This school thing will be as closed as VS, though. Read an interesting speculation this morning on that and the implications for his adoption; if SAD actually married Lolo when BO was about 2-1/2 (whenever that was), his adoption would have been automatic as I understood it, and his citizenship automatically changed to Indonesian. If the adoption happened after he was 4, it would have been more of a process to change his citizenship. Now that would definitely, positively ruin him.
This may be the key. It would only improve his eligibility to be born later than Aug. 1961. It would only hurt it to be born earlier. And if he is Malcolm X’s son (or someone in NOI at least thinks he is), well, that would explain more. And why he is 52 on Facebook. And how his hair could get so very gray after he let the color wear off during the campaign. (although we still can’t rule out two “Obamas.” ;) )
It’s interesting that Obama’s half-brothers from Obama’s wife Ruth actually look like him, unlike the other half-siblings. Could Barry be Ruth’s child and maybe Mark was the baby born Aug. 4, 1961??
# Roy Bleckert said 11/05/2009 at 5:42 pm
MT sez
“Dunhams/Singletary (Donham, Singleterry) and the Davises. They all come from Haverhill, Massachusetts. Basically, they founded the freemasons in this country circa 1642.]”
Have U seen this
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[I have looked at enough on my own to know he's a freemason. That's all I have been studying for the last two weeks. I've take a bizarre journey 33º west. But, I am not ready to disclose what I have found just yet. I am trying to figure out what it all means. I CAN say that I have run into MANY land trusts beginning in New England.=)]
# charlene4 said 11/05/2009 at 5:43 pm
I think that bo (or whoever he is) would have been issued a SS# whnever SAD applied for the food stamps he stated they lived on?
I KNOW there is something to the spelling of BaRRack vs.BaRack.
It is possible that each stste was issed a range of numbers for SS#. Between my kids and ex’s 297 – 300 may have been Ohio’s. Mine is 300 from 1953. This just all SMELLS like the sh*t he must be!
# Lisa C. said 11/05/2009 at 5:55 pm
Leo’s has updated his blog today with his results confirming they do maintain a record for the 1961 birth event.
# charlene4 said 11/05/2009 at 6:09 pm
I still don’t understand Free Masons. My Grandfather was one, I was in Rainbow Girls,a friends Father was the highest Degree. We are all decent people! Pretyy scary!
# SEO said 11/05/2009 at 6:22 pm
Bemused, Which brings us back to the 1990 newspaper article on his apppointment to head the Harvard law review, in which it says he was born in Hawaii, and moved to Southeast Asia when he was 2. It also says when he returned to Hawaii he attended public schools, which Punahou was not. Are we to believe that everyone who ever wrote about him just didn’t get their facts right?
# ksdb said 11/05/2009 at 6:26 pm
I’m still really curious when 338-18 was changed. Did it happen soon before Obama released his birth certificate?? Read this again:
“Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public.”
A year ago, if this was still in effect, the state of Hawaii could have looked up the index data for Barry and GIVEN us his name, date of birth and certificate number. By doing so, they could have immediately affirmed his claim of birth in Hawaii. What has significantly changed that the DOB and cert. no. can no longer be revealed??
# SEO said 11/05/2009 at 6:30 pm
Belfast Telegraph; October 28, 2008 ; Daniel Howden; 700+ words… college graduate, once as a professor and again as a senator, Barack Obama has returned to his ancestral home. Now everyone is waiting … the ghost of Mr Obama’s father, a man he barely knew. Obama Snr attended the University of Hawaii on a scholarship in 1952 …
Im trying to find this actual article!!!! 1952????
# Phillip said 11/05/2009 at 6:43 pm
Test
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 6:46 pm
12 soldiers murdered; 31 injured @ Ft Hood, US Army base in TX. Soldiers were to deploy to Iraq. Supposedly, from what Shep Smith and Kay Baily Hutinson said a moment again: the name of the shooter (a soldier) is one we will know.
I wonder if this has anything to do with Obama’s eligibility to be C-in-C?
I do bellieve that our servicemen/women have a right to know, for certain, that the sitting C-in-C is truly the C-in-C espeically when he has the authority to send Americans to their deaths.
The primary killer (2 other possible accompliices) was an officer. Supposedly the officer killed other soldiers who were to deploy.
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 6:48 pm
correction: 9 dead; upwards of 20 injured. 3 shooters; 1 shooter killed
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 6:50 pm
It does appear — since no one will disclose the reason and the base is in lockdown (possibly communication lockdown) — that the reason for the shooting is not one they are willing to disclose; sounds sensitive.
Wow!
Per Drudge Report: The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 6:57 pm
I don’t recognize the name “Malik hassan” except that I do recall there is a “Malik” in BHO II’s book “Dreams” — a Pakistani with whom he roomed in college. Don’t believe this Malik would be the same person though. Besides, this “malik” is a major in the USArmy which doesn’t make sense if he was in college back in the 80s
ABC and other news media have disclosed the name but FOX is refusing to do so until they receive confirmation from the Pentagon.
# Mike_Atlanta said 11/05/2009 at 6:59 pm
Welcome to Freemasonry.org
http://freemasonry.org/
# Mike_Atlanta said 11/05/2009 at 7:00 pm
Secret History of the Freemasons (Part 1 of 9)
"http://www.youtube.com/v/Pa-mdPb77K0
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 7:03 pm
Counter-terrorist unit won’t disclose whether this was a “terrorist-related/motivated” shooting.
# Meep said 11/05/2009 at 7:05 pm
“I am wondering about your moniker: “Meep.” That word refers to this (from Wikipedia) Meep (or MEEP) is a free finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulation software package developed at MIT to model electromagnetic systems, along with our MPB eigenmode package.” -TK
I don’t know about all that. I picked it because that’s the sound my goldfish makes when he’s hungry.
Another thing I have noticed, and this could just be my own bias, but when they accused Sarah Palin of having her daughter’s kid– well it seems like a bit of projection there. I mean how would someone even dream up such a thing? Well now we know.
I too know several masons and they all claim their organization is for the betterment of society and to help children. Like the Shriner’s Hospital and such. I don’t know really that much about them as they keep their secrets to themselves. They do have a way to identify each other just by the way they stand. And a signal for when they need help.
“Have you ever been East” requires a reply of “that’s where the sun rises.” it continues to setting in the west with references of cradle to grave. I forget how it goes. It’s probably just a giant pyramid scheme. They tell me it goes back to the Crusades and the Knights Templar. I take that with a grain of salt.
I sure would like to see that photo of Obama SR. getting off the boat. Can you link it or e-mail it?
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 7:21 pm
Malik Hassan (the shooter) was a doctor (mental health professional) who systematically shot, execution style, 9-12 soldiers being deployed to Iraq. It appears the shooter selected his targets. He wasn’t shooting wildly & randomly. . .at least not re: these 9-12 soldiers he murdered.
Well, it does look like the attack was possibly/likely “terrorist-related” even if not part of some larger network.
Apparently, the shooter used “handguns” and shot his victims up-close.
Very sad.
# Mike_Atlanta said 11/05/2009 at 7:29 pm
A mental health professional with a mental disorder…
Why Why Why
"http://www.youtube.com/v/J7prm
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 7:44 pm
No, not a random act. It sounds like the shooter was attempting to stop professional soldiers from deploying to Iraq. Shooter was a psychiatrist which means he may well know exactly why he chose to stop these specific 12 soldiers from deploying to fight a war in Iraq. I think we can all guess what that reason MIGHT be.
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 7:45 pm
It sounds like the shooter was attempting to stop professional soldiers from deploying to Iraq. Shooter was a psychiatrist which means he may well know exactly why he chose to stop these specific 12 soldiers from deploying to fight a war in Iraq. I think we can all guess what that reason MIGHT be.
# charlene4 said 11/05/2009 at 7:52 pm
Karen.I am brain dead.please explain *what that reason may be!* Thanks, My brain has not worked this hard in 50 plus yrs!
# Karen said 11/05/2009 at 7:57 pm
can’t – won’t say. Sorry Charlene. We’ll have to wait for the US military/Govt to report the reasons for the shooting.
# bdaman said 11/05/2009 at 8:00 pm
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/11/congressmen-ask-for-obamas-birth.html
Steady Drip has been reliable
# Pink said 11/05/2009 at 8:01 pm
Karen, I work in an ancillary medical field. I can without a doubt tell everyone that most psychiatrists (mental health ‘experts’) are foreign-born as well as have mental conditions themselves.
I really don’t like to make sweeping generalizations and detract other professionals in my field, but honestly I find this to be a fact.
# Mike_Atlanta said 11/05/2009 at 8:49 pm
Specialists…covert ops? Prep for action against Iranian nuke sites???
# Mike_Atlanta said 11/05/2009 at 9:06 pm
You Might Be a Birther if…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2379569/posts
# Paulajal said 11/05/2009 at 9:19 pm
If they are including the words “if any” (legalese) then they are saying that they won’t tell you if such records exist or not. Someone needs to call them on it through the OIP. Nice work MT and all of you. This blog is fascinating!
# Ruby Tuesday said 11/05/2009 at 9:45 pm
http://www.sisley.ws/Familys/Bishop%20Info.htm
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/b/l/o/Peter-E-Blood/FAMO5-0001/d21.htm#P3720
http://www.ncgenweb.us/bladen/reports/descendents/young.david.pdf
# Keith said 11/05/2009 at 9:46 pm
Nellie said:
BUT having proof now that he amended the date of birth, the online COLB could only be genuine if it was never accepted by assigning a file number – because once a document has received a file number, amendments to the date have to be noted on the face of the document.
I would agree with your assessment if the registration of the birth was attempted after 8A came into fruition. However, the 8B version had lots of changes to it so I do not think you can conlcude that no certificate number was assigned in August-1961.
# Ruby Tuesday said 11/05/2009 at 9:49 pm
http://www.sisley.ws/Familys/Bishop%20Info.htm
# Ruby Tuesday said 11/05/2009 at 9:51 pm
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/b/l/o/Peter-E-Blood/FAMO5-0001/d21.htm#P3720
# Ruby Tuesday said 11/05/2009 at 9:52 pm
http://www.ncgenweb.us/bladen/reports/descendents/young.david.pdf
[I hadn't seen the NC crew...thanks!]
# Nellie said 11/05/2009 at 10:30 pm
Epicurious, is there any way we can see what you’ve got for the regs in place in 1961?
# Drew said 11/06/2009 at 12:30 am
[SEO said - 11/05/2009 at 6:30 pm ... Belfast Telegraph; October 28, 2008 ; Daniel Howden; 700+ words… college graduate, once as a professor and again as a senator, Barack Obama has returned to his ancestral home. Now everyone is waiting … the ghost of Mr Obama’s father, a man he barely knew. Obama Snr attended the University of Hawaii on a scholarship in 1952 …
Im trying to find this actual article!!!! 1952????
_______
Same article, apparently:
Back in Kenya, Granny Sarah looks forward...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/back-in-kenya-granny-sarah-looks-
Nellie,
I don’t have them. I cancelled my request after the DoH posted it on line. The library charges $1.25 per page and then it is snail mailed.
In regard to your question about Chapter 8, Section 14, it was repealed because of the change of terminology only. In 1972, the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was discontinued and the following changes were made in Chapter 8A:
Chapter 8 Delayed registration = registration of birth after 30 days but before one year. Chapter 8 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth = registration of birth after one year.
Chapter 8A Late Registration = registration of birth after 30 days but before one year. Chapter 8A Delayed Registration = registration of birth after one year. Chapter 8A Certificate of Hawaiian Birth = repealed.
I hope this helps.
# Drew said 11/06/2009 at 1:00 am
oops, just sent a message that didn’t post…
MT, was it caught in the spam filter?
______________________________________________
Wonder what the “forbidden” word was this time?
# epicurious said 11/06/2009 at 1:15 am
ksbd said: I’m still really curious when 338-18 was changed. Did it happen soon before Obama released his birth certificate??
_____________________________________________________
ksbd,
The change occurred in 1997 or earlier. The last time this section was officially revised was in 2001. Here is the language in the 2001 HRS 338-18 d:
Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
It is identical to the current HRS. Ditto 1998 HRS and 1999 HRS. This is far back as I can trace on the SOH Legislature archive.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/archives/archives.asp
Years 338-18 was revised: [1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
# Nellie said 11/06/2009 at 1:20 am
Thanks, Epicurious. Is there any way of knowing what the 1955 regs were, and how the 1964 revision changed things?
Specifically, what was the evidence required for a delayed certificate, how would the delay be recognizable on the original birth certificate, and did amendments need to be noted/visible on the face of the document?
I just noticed in the private workspace that someone sent in a nearly identical request for proof offered to support an amendment to the date of birth for Barack Hussein Obama II. But the response given to her was that there were no records responsive to her request.
I just really, really wonder if they’re relying on the “IF ANY” phrase to absolve them from the duty of saying whether what was requested exists. Unless they’re playing games with “President Obama” versus “Barack Hussein Obama II” (which they’ve tried to tell me is the only name they’ve got index records for), they’re telling one person they have the proof submitted to amend the birth date and telling another they don’t have it.
I just don’t trust them. Too many contradictory statements, too much inability to comprehend basic language, and too much stalling.
# Kathy said 11/06/2009 at 1:27 am
I don’t know if any of this is important or not, but I’m going to post a couple of links that I found interesting. I wish I could get my hands on this book. Also, do you think the Charmain of the Hawaii Republican Party, Jonah Ka’auawi, is part of the Royal line. His name comes up in the second link to the book Modern History of Hawaii. This book has lot’s of interesting information.
http://www.gophawaii.com/index.asp
http://books.google.com/books?id=RW3EViwTvTwC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=jonah+ka‘auwai&source=bl&ots=PJox9S5KMc&sig=g9L6Ts4alMAKvSp_RueiQxrtQqA&hl=en&ei=27HzSrjLBsKztgex9M2-Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=jonah%20ka’auwai&f=false
# Kathy said 11/06/2009 at 1:31 am
Oops, I forgot to post this out of the book. I can’t copy it, but look at the bottom of page 57 and the top of page 58 where it talks about them leaving Hawaii and traveling Europe and Africa and in Germany there being comments about his dark color.
# epicurious said 11/06/2009 at 1:32 am
Nellie,
I don’t think we are going to get any more clarification than this. Chapter 8 was written in 1962 but not approved until 1964. No clue whay it took so long. This document was first written in 1937, who knows what changes were made between 1937 and 1962. I could not get a definitive answer from the state library or the U of H library. The state library had a pre 1961 copy with loose pages inserted and the U of H library had a 1937 copy plus Chapter 8A and 8B. Only the DoH really knows and look how helpful they are.
I will email you the RLH Chapter 57 circa 1955 and a 1965 addendum (last two pgs.).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.