Was Obama an Indonesian citizen? [Evidence raises concerns over presidential qualification]

Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.

Obama's American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.

In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.

Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the "child" of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.

Jerome Corsi’s new book, "Where’s the Birth Certificate?", is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

The divorce records state: "The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education."

"Mother resides with youngest child in 4-bedroom house provided by mother's employer," continues the divorce documents.

... At this late date I don't think I can stand the embarrassment if he is illegal...

AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT! THE EMBARRASSMENT! EVERYONE ON THE FOLLOWING LIST IS HIDING BEHIND A BARRICADE.

HALL OF SHAME

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,"

Statement by the Dishonorable Judge James Robertson (U.S. District Court, DC ) in his decision in Hollister vs. Soetoro aka Obama. Imagine a citizen actually having the gall to ask a court to decide a legal matter !!! Instead the "learned" judge leaves the question as to the eligibility of the President of the Untited States up to blogs. Unbelievable !!! - but not unexpected. Look at his background:

Appointed by Clinton. From 1965 to 1969, he was in private practice with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as chief counsel of the Committee's litigation offices in Jackson, Mississippi, and as director in Washington, D.C. Judge Robertson then returned to private practice with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where he practiced until his appointment to the federal bench. While in private practice, he served as president of the District of Columbia Bar, co-chair of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc. Now Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering is also known as WilmerHale LLP. ( the 23rd largest law firm in the world ) They donated $119,245 to the Obama campaign. Also, Obama served on the board of the Chicago branch of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Here is an excerpt from an article on what the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law does :

Uses the courts to bypass the electorate and its officials in order to gain what it perceives as desirable and just outcomes Today LCCR uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and academia. Its major objective is to use the skills and resources of the bar to obtain equal opportunity for minorities by addressing factors that contribute to racial justice and economic opportunity.Given our nations history of racial discrimination, de jure segregation, and the de facto inequities that persist, LCCR elaborates, the Lawyers Committees primary focus is to represent the interest of African Americans in particular, other racial and ethnic minorities, and other victims of discrimination, where doing so can help to secure justice for all racial and ethnic minorities.

Judge Robertson was responsible for dropping two charges against Clintonista and Friend of Hillary, Web Hubbell.

"By contrast, Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotIy contested presidential primary in living memory."

Statement by the Dishonorable R. Barclay Surrick ( Pennsylvania Eastern District Court ) in his decision in Berg v. Obama. There was never any evidence presented to the court about excessive vetting of Obama. As a matter of fact, that was part of the suit against the DNC - produce any materials as a result of any vetting they did. Did the DNC produce anything to you without showing it to the opposing side ? If they did and you did not inform the other side, is that not judicial misconduct ? If they did not produce anything , please tell me your justification for the statement who underwent excessive vetting

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen contends that there is no basis for mandamus relief because the Secretary of State has no 'ministerial duty' to demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates," said Judge Michael P. Kenny. "The court finds this argument persuasive."

Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Michael P. Kenny (California Superior Court ) in his decision in Keyes v. Bowen. This inane ruling by this "learned" judge leaves open the option for anybody ( resident, non-resident, citizen, non-citizen ) to run for the Office of President in the State of California. He ignored the fact that in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President. But the then Secretary of State, Frank Jordan, determined that, according to Mr. Cleavers birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, not the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for President and was not allowed on the ballott.. Therefore, there was precedent in the state for the Secretary of State denying somebody entrance to the ballot because they did not meet the qualifications to be President.

This judge was appointed by Gray Davis. More on him at this link: Link

"The court finds that plaintiff has not presented any evidence to this court that irreparable harm will occur if the records are not provided to the plaintiff. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the public interest supports the granting of the relief sought. The plaintiff does not have a direct and tangible interest in the vital statistic records being sought, namely the birth certificate of President Obama

Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Bert Ayabe (Hawaii Circuit Judge ) in his decision in Martin v. Lingle. November 21, 2008

So this judge thinks that someone who is not constiutionaly qualified to be sitting in the office of the President could not cause any irreparable harm or that the public interest isn't served in releasing his birth certificate ( which by the way Obamas people claim they have already released ) in order to verify that point ? Also, this judge should read the Constitution. He elevated Obama to the Presidency before the electoral college voted and before he was sworn in on January 20, 2009

In his ruling, Land states in a footnote that Obama defeated seven opponents in a grueling primary campaign that cost the contenders more than $300 million. Obama then moved on to the general election, where he faced Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who Land states got $84 million to wage his campaign. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought ,said Land

Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Clay Land (U.S. District Court) in his decision in Rhodes v. Obama. September 16, 2009

Judge, those are some of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard in a judges ruling ( Judge Robertsons being the most idiotic ) Do you even know what the law is in Hawaii ? Do you listen to the evidence presented to you ? How can there be "ample opportunity for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought" when there are only two ways to get that evidence ( a birth certificate ). The first way is for the person in question to release it. To this date, Obama has not released one. The second is through a court order to the State of Hawaii, but it seems that judges of your ilk are very reluctant ( or should I say scared ) to allow that to happen by letting a case go forward. Why is that so ? I do have to agree with one snide comment you made : Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so That is true. To date,Obama has only said he was a natural born citizen. He has never offered any proof. So,in your words ( well actually those from Alice in Wonderland - is that where you get your legal research ? ) simply saying so does not make it so. .

Judge David O Carter - United States District Judge

For a more detailed detailed explanation, click on the link. Link

The FOIA claim fails for several reasons. The first and most important of which is that she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. As the government notes, Ms. Taitz appealed the Social Security Administrations denial of her request on March 15, 2010 and the Social Security Administration has twenty business days from the date it received her notice to consider the administrative appeal. See 5 U.S.C. !¡Ó 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). Even if the SSA received her appeal on the 15th of March, the period cannot have run until at least April 9th. A plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review of a FOIA claim. Wilbur v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 675, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because Ms. Taitz has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies,3 her claim will be dismissed.

Statement by Judge Royce C. Lamberth (U.S. District Court, Washington, DC) on his decision in the Quo Warranto case of Taitz v. Obama April 14.2010 Though I don't have a contention with what he said in the above statement, I do have a contention in what he failed to address - both in that statement or anywhere else in his ruling.

Pursuant to US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1 , 4 - Misprision of Felony, Dr. Taitz, as an officer of the court, fulfilled her duty under this statute by reporting knowledge and submitting evidence of the actual commission of a felony to the court ( the illegal use of a Social Security number - see top of page ). At that point, request for access to those records was no longer in her purview. That control then passed to the court. By law , having been informed of the commission of a felony, it is incumbent upon the court to request these records in order to investigate the matter. The court has no other choice. It would be both a violation of the law (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1 , 3. Accessory after the fact ) and of judicial ethics for the court to ignore this matter. Thus, her initial FOIA request and the subsequent denial of both the FOIA request and the Writ of Mandamus are moot. It is now the duty of the court to obtain the necessary records from the Social Security Administration by court order. The relevant statutes can be seen HERE

Tell me your honor, why did you choose to ignore both your obligations under the law and under the canon of judicial ethics to investigate the commission of a felony ( specifically a crime committed against the United States ) ?

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain

"it's the responsibility of the states to make sure political candidates are eligible for the offices they seek" He believes President Obama "meets the constitutional requirement to be president,"

Senator Tom Coburn R- Oklahoma

Excuse me , Senator. It is also the responsibility of a sitting Senator, when the electoral votes are being counted in a joint session of Congress, to object to such vote when his constituents have raised questions about the constitutional qualifications of the candidate. I don't recall you making such an objection. You say that he meets the constitutional requirements to be President.Do you care to expound on that and show the country what evidence you possess to support such a conclusion ?

"Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."

Senator Jon Kyl R- Arizona So Senator. You rely on Snopes.com to do your research for you. For an issue as important as whether or not the man holding the office of the President of the United States is constitutionaly qualified, you rely on a website to decide the matter for you. Do you even know what Snopes.com is ? It is not a huge research organization with hundreds of employees checking facts and cross checking each others findings to come to a consensus as to whether something is an "internet rumor" or not. Snopes .com is a website run out of the home of 2 people. The husband does the web design. The wife is the "investigator". She alone decides what is rumor or not. Info on Snopes

"The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics." She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.

Rep Ginny Brown-Waite R-Florida

Rep. Brown-Waite meet Sen Kyl. You both obviously use the same research assistant.

"Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."

Senator Mel Martinez R- Florida

Senator. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Maybe you should read it sometime. Popular vote does not override a violation of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constiution.

"President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."

Senator Saxby Chambliss R- Georgia

Senator. Obama has NEVER released a copy of his birth certificate. What he released was an altered scanned image of his certification. (COLB). He continues to fight any release of his actual birth certificate or the COLB for that matter.

"Now that the election is over and the campaigns have ended, I think it is important that the politicians and the citizens of our nation put the fierce partisan rhetoric aside so that we can work together to come up with real solutions to our country's challenges."

Rep Kay Granger R- Texas

So now that the election is over and you have been re-elected, we should just ignore any possible crime that has been committed and continues to be perpetrated upon the United States.

"I further understand that the director of Hawaii's Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. ...he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic."

Rep Wally Herger R- California

Congressman. Here is what the Director of the Department of Health actually said:

she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

She did not say original Hawaii birth certificate. Under Hawaiian law (338.17-8), he could have applied for a Hawaii birth certificate at any time after 1982, provided he could show his mother was a resident of Hawaii one year prior to his birth. Part of that process is submitting your original birth certificate. So therefore, in accordance with state policies and procedures , they would have his original birth certificate on record. It does not mean it is a Hawaii birth certificate. The scanned image he put online has NEVER been authenticated by the State of Hawaii. NOBODY in an offical capacity in Hawaii has EVER confirmed that he was born there.

[ A side note ]: Some people like to point out that Janice Okubo ( more on her below ) verified that the online image was authentic . They point to this statement she made in response to a question from Politifact.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us

She made that statement because she recently ordered a copy of her own and they looked the same. Notice, she refers to it as a birth certificate, which it isn't. It is a certification. Now, they always fail to mention what she said later on

"When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it." Still, she acknowledges: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."

So, she is NOT verifying it is an authenntic COLB. Link to Politifact article

"The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health and the state's Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency."

Sen Mike Crapo R- Idaho

Senator, I suggest you read the US Constituion before you take an oath to uphold it. The Constituion requires a person be natural born, not native born. Those are two very distinct things. By reading the framers intent when drafting the Constitution, they relied heavily on Emmerich de Vatells: The Law of Nations.Natural born is clearly defined as being born of two parents that are citizens ( Obamas father was not a US citizen ).This term can be further seen in the Nationailty Act of 1790 and the reason for its removal in the Nationality Act of 1795. Congressmen up through the mid 1800's also made reference to natural born having to have both parents as US citizens. As to the Director confirming he was born in Hawaii, see my above.

"The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen.The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu."

Sen Charles Schumer D- New York

Senator, no courts - federal or state- have ever ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. No state official in Hawaii has ever said that he was born a US citizen in Hawaii ( see above ) and certainly no court has ever ruled on that either. I challenge you Senator to show me where any court has made that determination. .

"President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."

Sen Sherrod Brown D- Ohio

Senator, he has provided NOBODY with a copy of his birth certificate - not even news organizations. All that he has ever shown was the scanned image of his certification and supposedly a paper copy to a website. That is it. Nobody else has ever seen it. And no, people born in Hawaii after its admission are considered native born ( if one parent is not a US citizen ) not natural born and that applies to every state. As far as Hawaii verifying the authenticity of his birth certificate ( or the COLB he put online ), that is false. See above.

"The claim that President Obama was born outside of the United States, thus rendering him ineligible for the presidency, is part of a larger number of pernicious and factually baseless claims that were circulated about then-Senator Obama during his presidential campaign. President Obama was born in Hawaii."

Rep Rush Holt D- New Jersey

The Congressman provides no documentation for his statement.

"President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America.."

Rep Paul Hodes D- New Hampshire

The certification he posted on his website confirms nothing of the sort..

"On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department's system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. ... Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."

Sen Arlen Specter D- Pennsylvania

Sigh. Where to begin. Senator, you are a former prosecuter and should know better.

"the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Departments system"

Are you serious ? That is a laughable statement. Hackers dont use the file number to break into a system. Once a system is broken into, a file can be accessed by a file number. But it can also be accessed by name and date of birth.

...the State places the seal on the back of the certificate

You , as a former prosecutor should know better than that. The seal is an embossed seal. It it placed on the front ( with the raised edges visible on the front ) and can be seen on both the front and the back.

"The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles ..." ...

They were not high resolution photos. They were large photos, but the DPI ( dots per inch ) was not what is considered high resolution. Add that to the fact it was taken with a digital camera and, in some cases, standing two feet away from the document. That does not provide you with a high resolution image. If they were truly honest, they would have taken a high resolution TIFF ( no jpg compression ) scan of the document ( both front and back ). They declined to do so. I wonder why ?

Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."

By whom, Factcheck ?

"The President.. He is a citizen of the United States."

Rep Mike Castle R- Delaware --- June 30, 2009 at a townmeeting in Georgetown, Delaware

So, you know he is a citizen of the United States. Have you seen his birth certificate or passport information? If so, that is very interesting since nobody else has ever seen it. By the way, Congressman. You also should read the Constitution that you swore an oath to. The Constitution requires being a natural born citizen, not just a citizen, in order to hold the office of the President. Obama claims his father was a British citizen. By his own admission he is NOT a natural born citizen. That requires BOTH parents to be US citizens (though they do not have to be natural born )

"President Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States, and children of American citizens are conferred citizenship at birth, meaning that Barack Obama was born a citizen of this country regardless of the location of his birth"

Rep Tim Johnson D- South Dakota --- in a letter to a constituent

You are a lawyer. Don't you research the law before you make such an idiotic comment such as that ? Here is the law that was applicable at the time of his birth. You can check it out yourself at the US State Department:

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

She did not live in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 before he was born. If he was born overseas, not only would he not have "natural born" citizenship, he would not have US citizenship.

Thank you for getting in touch with me. It's nice to hear from you. I appreciate knowing of your concern over a rumor that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. Since President Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen. He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts. Following Obama's overwhelming and undisputed victory in the 2008 presidential election, the Supreme Court has considered challenges to his citizenship and dismissed them as being without merit.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance to you again in the future.

Sen Barbara Mikulski -- in a letter to a constituent

I have never seen so many lies and such disinformation put out by a politician in one single paragraph until now.

Point 1.

The issue is not whether he is a citizen, but a natural born citizen. One would expect a US Senator to know the difference. Apparently not. The Fourteenth Amendment deals with citizenship, not natural born citizenship, or are you equating the two ? Here is the relevant section of the Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

So Sen. Mikulski, if you believe that this means these citizens of the United States are Article II natural-born US citizens - which is what you imply in your letter - then you could substitute the term citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment with the term natural born citizens. Doing so gives this :

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

So, if the two terms citizens and natural born citizens are interchangeable, as you seem to believe, then that would imply that naturalized citizens - those born overseas and later granted US citizenship - are eligible to become President of the United States. Even elementary school children know that is not possible and was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps you need to go back to elementary school and take a refresher course in civics and U S history.

While on the subject of the Fourteenth Amendment, here is a statement made by John Bingham - the father of the Fourteenth Amendment- on the floor of the House in 1866:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

So Senator, even if Barack Obama was born on the steps of the U S Capitol, he would not be a natural born citizen since his father was not a US citizen and owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.

Point 2.

He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts. First of all, he has never released a copy of his birth certificate ( which is called the Certificate of Live Birth by the State of Hawaii.) He has only released a computer generated abstraction ( which is called the Certification of Live birth -or COLB - by the State of Hawaii) to a website called Factcheck.org. Who are these experts you refer to that examined the COLB ? They are two employees of Factcheck :

Joe Miller - who has a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy

Jess Henig - who has an M.A. in English Literature.

Senator, perhaps you should check on the qualifications of people you refer to as experts before you call them that.They have NO QUALIFICATIONS AT ALL to examine a document and determine its authenticity, let alone be called experts.

Point 3

...the Supreme Court has considered challenges to his citizenship and dismissed them as being without merit. The biggest lie of all in such a small paragraph.The Supreme Court has NEVER heard any of the cases on its merits. All the cases have been dismissed due to Lack of Standing NOT because they are without merit. Lack of Standing means that the plaintiff has not suffered a particular injury - he is injured the same as everybody else and therefore has no right to sue. The courts are saying that even if all the merits of the case were valid ( which they have never looked at - contrary to the Senator's assertion ), since everyone is affected the same as a result of him being put in office, no individual has the standing to sue, since to have standing, you must have a particular injury.

The state 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 "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii,

The Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,"

Statements of Janice Okubo, Communications Director for Hawaii State Department of Health - Star Bulletin June 6, 2009

Janice Okubo and the Department of Health continue to make misleading statements about what the Health Department issues in regard to birth certificates implying that the "longform" Certificate of Live Birth is no longer available.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past,

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii,

The Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.

All of the above are TOTALLY MISLEADING

From the Department of Hawaiian Homelands Site:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout)

When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it "ForDHHL Purposes," and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your request form, please fill in "For DHHL Purposes" in the "Reason for Requesting a Certified Copy" section. (See example on page 6.)

So you see, even the Homeland department won't accept the computer generated short form ( COLB ). They require the longform. So she is either intentionally misleading people in her above statements, or she is totally incompetent and doesn't even know the forms her own department issues.

Up until a few days ago, the document that the above quote came from was available on their website. They took it down and replaced it with an updated online version ( the original was published in 2000 ).That wording no longer exists in the current document. However, it does not negate the fact that you can still request a Certificate of Live Birth. Here is the link to the new rules.

New Rules

Now about the "new" rules. They are basically the same as in the old document. What they changed ( they left it out ) was telling people the process of how to request a Certificate of Live Birth. You can still request one. It is just hidden in the new rules. Here are some excerpts:

"The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a persons birth."

Well, they got that wrong . It is totally the opposite. It is the Certificate, not the Certification that provides more detail, such as witness and doctors signatures, hospital, place of parents birth, etc., which is backed up by the next statement from the document.

"Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth"

True, they no longer issue if requested in the normal manner. That does not mean the original longform is not on file. They are playing semantics when talking about issuing birth certificates. That is not the point here. The point is having access to the longform that is on file. This talk about what the department now issues or does not issue is a red herring. They are being misleading if they insist that the DOH doesn't have copies of the longform and those copies cannot be accessed.Copies of the longform are kept on microfiche or microfilm. Now it may be different for those born after 2001 when they went to their electronic system. But we are talking about a birth in 1961.

"The state Department of Health, the state Archives, and the state Bureau of Conveyances are just a few places where you can look for and obtain primary and secondary documents. Certified copies of records can be obtained for a fee."

How do they define primary documents?

"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification."

So, you can see. You can still request a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. In the new page, they just omitted the detailed process ( as described in the old one ) of how to do it.

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,"

True. That is done every year. However, it doesn't matter what it looks like today, or 10 years ago. It matters what it looked like in 1961. Here is the national standard from the CDC that Hawaii followed in 1961. It is a big document ( the form is on Section 5, page 4 figure 5-1 )

Form

I do have to give her credit for one statement though:

"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.

That is what the electronic record and the COLB is used for. Same-day certified copies. For the more detailed, you have to go back into the microfiche which takes longer. Just because the electronic record for fast one day service exists, it does not mean the more detailed record does not exist.

Finally, she makes this statement:

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

That just proves that all the information in the original Certificate of Live Birth is still available. How do I know this ? It is the law in Hawaii. From the Hawaii Revised Statutes:

92-31 Disposition of original record. A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same. Thereafter, a public officer, after having first received the written approval of the comptroller as provided in section 94-3, may cause such record, paper, or document to be destroyed. The comptroller may require, as a prerequisite to the granting of such approval, that a reproduction or print of such photograph, microphotograph, or reproduction on film, or electronic form of the record be delivered into the custody of the public archives for safekeeping. The comptroller may also require the delivery into the custody of another governmental department or agency or a research library of any such record, paper, or document proposed to be destroyed under the provisions of this section.

So, either the original microfiche copy is still available or a complete reproduction of it in electronic form is available. To put something in electronic form and not copy all the data on the original document would be against the law. Where these files have to be accessible and provisions have to be made for examining them, it would be misleading for the Department of Health to say that the information on the original Certificate of Live Birth is no longer available. Under Hawaii Revised Stautes 338-18, those with a direct and tangible interest in the record are permitted inspection of public health statistics records. That would include either the microfiche or electronic copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth.

Email to Janice Okubo on June 27, 2009. I am still awaiting a reply

Ms. Okubo,

In the June 6, 2009 issue of the Star Bulletin, you are quoted as saying that the department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii. While all of that is true, Hawaii only ISSUES certifications and it is the OFFICIAL birth certificate issued, are you saying that a person cannot access or get a certified copy of his/her own Certificate of Live Birth ? Because if that is the case, then the department is in violation of Hawaii Law.

You said that ""At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," Now according to Hawaii Revised Statute 92-31:

DISPOSITION OF ORIGINAL RECORD.A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same. Thereafter, a public officer, after having first received the written approval of the comptroller as provided in section 94-3, may cause such record, paper, or document to be destroyed. The comptroller may require, as a prerequisite to the granting of such approval, that a reproduction or print of such photograph, microphotograph, or reproduction on film, or electronic form of the record be delivered into the custody of the public archives for safekeeping. The comptroller may also require the delivery into the custody of another governmental department or agency or a research library of any such record, paper, or document proposed to be destroyed under the provisions of this section.

I make reference to this part of the statute:

A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same.

So, either the original microfiche copy of the Certificate of Live Birth is still available or a complete reproduction of it in electronic form is available. Under Hawaii Revised Stautes 338-18, those with a direct and tangible interest in the record are permitted inspection of public health statistics records. That would include either the microfiche or electronic copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth.

Also, from the DHHL site on applying for Homeland status it says :

The state Department of Health, the state Archives, and the state Bureau of Conveyances are just a few places where you can look for and obtain primary and secondary documents. Certified copies of records can be obtained for a fee."

Primary documents are defined as :

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification."

So from all of the above, it seems one with a direct and tangible interest CAN obtain a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth.

My question to you is this: Is your statement - that the "department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii - meant to imply that one cannot receive a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, or does it mean that one can obtain a copy - just not in the regular manner ?

AND AT THE BOTTOM, YOU WILL FIND ANOTHER ANALYSYS OF THE MOST RECENT FORGERY PRESENTED AS A 'BIRTH CERTIFICATE'

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.