Replies

BP2, I know you are one of the HEAVY HITTERS on FR, but if this is true, it really hurts ! Could these DU’ers have been so clever as to date the Kenyan doc Feb 1964, right between the application for divorce and the divorce settlement ? Seems too ingenious ?

Few people know the prima facie facts tied to the Obama’s mother’s 1964 and 1980 divorces as well as a handful of us here on Free Republic. I know it probably better than most.

When I started looking at the date (Feb 17, 1964) on this new Kenyan birth certificate, I immediately started comparing it with the dates of the 1964 divorce between Obama's mother and father – TRYING to REFUTE the Kenyan birth certificate. Was it at all PLAUSIBLE, at least based upon what we know as prima facie facts, confirmed by an independent source – such as a judge in a divorce case? If you wish to refer back to this initial comparison, the information is on Post 2,222 of the Free Republic thread "Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.)".

There’s been a fair number of fake Obama documents surfacing in the days and weeks leading up to the release of the Kenyan birth certificate, quickly debunked, designed to create confusion of prima facie – so, many of us are naturally suspicious. You can cry “wolf” only so many times before others stop believing you, even though later there may truly be a wolf. That said, I'm not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate – but I can connect dots.

Although ANY document can be faked, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a sneaky pro-Obama “operative” came up with a fake document that also plausibly MATCHES the timeline of the 1964 Obama divorce and other events, as well as the new Kenyan birth certificate does. Anything is possible of course, but I see the Kenya birth certificate as a believable document – for various reasons that I’ll outline below.

Not all of the deductive reasoning used in Post 2,222 came from 13-page divorce decree. For example, information regarding the 10-day "knock and nail" notification for Obama SR in Boston came from work with a local Private Investigator and a clerk in a Hawaii Court records office (who will remain nameless to eschew FURTHER harassment to them from the Left). These “contacts” also explained that Marriage and Birth Certificates are NOT Public Record in Hawaii, but divorce decrees ARE Public Record. However, documents that are NOT Public Record have occasionally “popped-up” mixed in with Public Records upon modern review, due to sloppy record-keeping decades ago, as well as changes to Hawaiian privacy statutes since the cases were judged.

Additionally … there's the issue of the missing page from the 1964 divorce papers … page 11 …

In assisting with the retrieval of the initial 8 pages a couple of weeks before Obama’s Inauguration, I and a few other researchers subsequently discovered from the clerk in Hawaii that there were 6 MORE pages, or 14 total pages total. The clerk read the index information directly from the microfiche machine over the phone when the request was placed. “14 pages total,” she said, very clearly, repeating the answer when queried several more times on the page count.

I mailed off a check for the other 6 pages to be sent. Imagine my surprise a few days later when I opened the envelope and only saw 5 pages – page 11 was missing – bringing the total page count to 13.

See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):

I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records – she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 – page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.

I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.

I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he'd run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, he’s still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY – the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obama’s past hidden from the American people.

This missing page – page 11 – very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.

The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable "8" on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 – almost as if it were an undocumented “Exhibit B”.

Here’s a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:

Jan 20 (Mon) – divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama
Jan 23 (Thur) – divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers (note – if the judge, or Ann Dunham’s attorney, told her to order the Kenya birth certificate, it would have been mailed 10,000 miles away, to the “Coast Province” Registrar’s office of the “Republic of Kenya”, likely arriving around the first week of February 1964 to be processed)
Jan 28 (Tue) – Gail A. Watanabe, presumably an assistant of Ann Obama attorney George Kerr, mails the notification for trial to Obama SR (her affidavit is signed Feb 3 and filed)
Jan 30 (Thur) – via Air Mail, notification of trial arrives at Obama SR’s Cambridge, Mass, address. The 10-day "knock and nail" notification would have expired on Sun, Feb 9. Therefore, the next trial date would have been automatically set, per Judge King’s instructions, for the first Tuesday, 30 days later, on March 3
Feb 10 (Mon) – allowing for a 10-day “knock and nail” notification for trial, Obama SR's trial notification would have been retrieved by the US Post Office on this date, to be mailed back (as events turned out – UNSIGNED by Obama SR) to Hawaii as an exhibit for trial
Feb 17 (Mon) – the Obama Kenya birth certificate is signed by the “Coast Province” Deputy Registrar, to be mailed back to Hawaii for receipt by Ann Obama and/or her attorney (note: mail time would have ranged from a few days (Air Mail) to a couple of weeks (ship), arriving back in Hawaii in the last week of February to first week of March 3 (Tue). Based upon Judge King’s Jan 23 orders for the next trial date, "at 9:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday after thirty (30) days have elapsed from and after the date" that Obama SR would have been served with the notice of trial. That notification came back, unsigned, by Obama SR, so Ann’s attorneys surely requested, and received Default Judgment for the divorce in her favor for “grievous mental suffering”
Mar 5 (Thur) – trial takes place in favor of divorce in Hawaii, placing custody of Obama JR to his mother by default (note: the trial was likely rescheduled 2 days after the automatically set date of Mar 3, possibly for the convenience of the judge and/or parties)
Mar 20 (Fri) – the divorce decree is signed by Judge King

In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.

To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the “Republic of Kenya” came into existence as a republic have been “un-bunked.” Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate – they’ve been un-bunked as well.

Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and it’s chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if it’s real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” or FactCheck.org websites.

No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obama’s true, 1961, original long-form(s) “Certificate of Live Birth” and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obama’s online COLBs.

Hawaiian law would have allowed for Obama to have been born in a foreign country. The “Certification of Live Birth” can’t confirm if Obama has EVER been eligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief, based upon loopholes in pre-statehood, transitional and current Hawaiian statutes. Inconsistencies, such as conflicting hospitals in Hawaii that Obama, his friends and family have publicly-stated he may have been born only add to the confusion. Obama’s abstract “Certification of Live Birth” doesn't tell us if there were ANY "certifying officials" present who independent verified the "facts" of his birth – it's anyone's guess.

Obama himself cannot guaranty that he was born on American soil – really, who can remember their own childbirth?! Furthermore, his mother’s whereabouts are unconfirmed, inconsistent, and unknown, from the time of Obama’s conception, until a few weeks or months after his birth.

Thus is the purpose of Medical Doctors, Nurses, Midwives and Registrars, acting as "Certifying Officials" of a birth, to ensure the integrity – or chain of evidence – of the birth certificate to be properly recorded within Vital Statistics archives. Judges presiding over divorces ALSO produce a verifiable paper trail, as we can see on the 1964 Obama divorce.

At this time, both Birth Certificates from Kenya and Hawaii lack a publicly-exhibited, independently-verifiable chain of evidence – and chain of custody. As such, the Obama Kenyan birth certificate is as strong and believable a document as the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”. However, Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate possesses something the Certification does not – plausibility, based upon independent prima facie facts – the 1964 Obama divorce decree.

Thank You...for all your hard work on this and keeping us informed!

I find it interesting that after Madelyn retired from the banking field, in 1982 I believe, she either volunteered or worked in/for the courthouse. Just came across that tidbit the other day in an article from a few years ago.

As a genealogist I find these words to be very telling,

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.

1. She said vital records, plural, meaning there is more than one document. Could suggest a name change or adoption record that would be included with the birth record.

2. She is NOT saying that SHE is verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii. She says that she has seen the VITAL RECORDS VERIFYING Obama was born in Hawaii.

However, the birth records could have been amended.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html

BP2,

Wow, awesome work! I’ll bet the BC is that missing page.

BP2:

As always, EXCEPTIONAL work. You are truly a credit to Free republic!

DE

I join the others and say "GREAT post, BP2!"
So it appears Dr. Taitz' Kenyan BC remains valid?

I think that at this point, Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is as valid as his "Certification of Live Birth" – based upon other external and independently-verifiable “prima facie” facts known.

The Kenyan birth certificate's plausibility can be directly tied to the events surrounding prima facie facts, recorded in the 1964 Obama divorce, as outlined in Post 6,799 and Post 2,222 of the Free Republic thread "Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.)".

As for Obama's "Certification of Live Birth," its plausibility is anecdotal at best. Nearly all of the accounts of his mother’s whereabouts in the months immediately before and after Obama JR's birth comes from personal accounts of one person: Susan Blake [Botkin].

You may recognize Blake as the former Mercer Island city councilwoman and high school friend of Obama’s mama, Ann Dunham. Blake said that Ann stopped by to visit with Obama Jr when Obama was just 3 weeks old in late-August 1961.

She was interviewed by the Seattle Times, the Chicago Tribune (video), and others. In August 2008, Michael Patrick Leahy spoke with Blake in doing research for his book, “What Does Barack Obama Believe?” In the book, Blake says that when she got married in 1964, Blake sent Dunham a wedding invitation to Dunham’s last known Hawaii address, but it was returned with no forwarding address.

Leahy brings up a couple of interesting questions that others have queried about Dunham’s visit with Blake:
“Why does an 18-year-old mother take her 3-week-old baby on a plane trip from Honolulu to Seattle if her parents and husband were in Honolulu?"
"What would be sufficient motivation for such an action?”

Therefore, to delve deeper into the rabbit hole of Obama’s birth, below are notes from a NEVER BEFORE RELEASED telephone interview conducted by a fellow investigator (from an adjacent "research team" who must remain anonymous) with Blake a week before the Inauguration.

It should be pointed out that the interviewer was very thorough and accurate in capturing highlights of the hour-plus telephone interview with Blake. However, he said that in interviewing her, at times it was difficult to discern what was truth, half-truth, embellishment, or misremembered from Dunham's brief and unexpected visit that took place nearly 50 years ago.

These raw notes show some new information and inconsistencies that seem to both AID while HINDERING Blake’s believability as a “witness” to Obama Jr and his mother’s whereabouts from 1960-1962.

1. Susan has been contacted now by many individuals especially in the last 2 days. One of her first contacts was back in August or so of 2008 by Michael Patrick Leahy, writer of the book "What Does Barack Obama Believe" available from Amazon. Much of what Susan has heard about her other interviews she feels has been distorted.
2. She was friend and confidante of Stanley Ann during her High School years, knew Stanley (she went by STANLEY not Ann) and that she was a very forward, articulate woman who shared much of her thoughts with her friends.
3. Stanley left in spring of 1960 and wrote cards and letters from Hawaii over a year or so that she was there. She sent a Christmas card to Susan stating she was dating a Kenyan student and was 'in love'. In spring of 1961 Stanley sent another letter stating she had been married and was expecting a baby.
4. Susan had gone on vacation to Santa Cruz in summer of '61, had returned mid August because she remembered the fires around Santa Cruz at that time which caused her to return home. Soon after she was back, her mother told her that Stanley was coming to visit. Stanley had the newborn Barack Obama, roughly 3 weeks old. To Susan's best recollection it was sometime around Aug. 25th to Aug 30th.
5. Stanley told Susan she was only in Seattle for a short visit, going on to Boston to find residence and a job, because she intended to go there for BO Srs. graduated studies. She was to fly to Boston shortly after their visit.
6. Her understanding was that Stanley had waited until the baby was old enough to fly according to what Stanley said of the doctor. She was very much "in love" with Barack Obama Sr, happy to have the newborn, although not proficient at changing a diaper, which Susan did. "My claim to fame is that I changed Barack Obama's diaper".
7. She thought that Stanley was going to fly to Boston, establish her domicile etc., then return thru Seattle to Hawaii. She said SHE NEVER SAW HER AGAIN, although she knew through another mutual friend John, and Maxine Box, that she was again in Seattle in spring 1962. She said from what she's read that Stanley was a correspondence student at the UW in fall 1961, but that she didn't necessarily have to be there to be a correspondence student. However she knew Stanley was there in spring 1962.
8. Susan didn't understand why all the distortions or "mystery" that is being purported, she thinks it’s all very straight forward, that Stanley had BO in Honolulu, married BO prior to that, they were in love. She also mentioned that she's received calls from bewildered teachers/other students from interviewers asking about communist activity and other strange behaviors which she personally knows nothing of.
9. She states that while Stanley was there she stayed with a friend of Stanley Ann's mother, even borrowed a car to come see Susan. Didn't know who that was or where they lived.
10. Sadly, Susan hung up on me after the conversation deviated to why all the controversy surrounding his birth, his citizenship. Her understanding is that BO was a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of Stanley being a US citizen at time of birth IN HONOLULU. She did know that BO SR. was a KENYAN national, that according to Stanley "he was being groomed for political office" and that Barack Obama was a dual citizen but it didn’t matter, he was an NBC. When I stated what I firmly believe, that BOTH parents must be US citizens the phone clicked and she wasn’t on the other end.

In adding this information to the body of knowledge regarding Dunham and baby Obama Jr, it also helps to prove a point made in Post 6,799 ...

Personal experience tells us that conversation between friends can be fickle, and memories can change over time. For example, Blake says Dunham was only passing through the Seattle area on her way to look for a job and residence in Boston in August 1961 to join her husband in graduate school. However, it wasn't until Spring 1962 that Obama Sr received two fellowships: one to pursue a doctorate in economics at the New York School for Social Research in New York City; the other for Harvard. As Obama SR did not graduate from Hawaii University until June 1962, and makes no mention of his bride and infant child in a June 22, 1962, interview with the Star-Bulletin the day he left Hawaii , one must wonder if other memories of Blake's meeting with Dunham match relatively-established, critical statements of dates and locations.

Personal memories fade, but prima facie facts, such as that from the 1964 Obama divorce decree, are STATIC – well, for the most part, anyway. Pages can be removed from divorce decrees, to protect privacy, leaving the remaining information intact. In stark contrast, abbreviated details and questionable accuracy are the very watermark of weaker documents, such as Obama’s Hawaiian-issued “Certification of Live Birth”.

Clearly, not all prima facie is created equally.

For example, Hawaiian birth certificate law, codified in HRS §338, can allow for a:
“Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”, terminated in 1972 after Obama’s 1961 birth, to be substituted for a ...
“Certificate of Late Birth”, thence a ...
“Certificate of Live Birth”, thence a shortened, abstracted ...
“Certification of Live Birth”, which wasn't first issued until Nov 2001

It would seem that like memories, prima facie can fade TOO – at least in the vaults and archives of the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office.

SO, when I say “at this point, Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is as valid as his 'Certification of Live Birth' – based upon other external and independently-verifiable 'prima facie' facts known” – I’m not trying to be cute or coy. I’m actually quite exact in my analysis.

I am speaking as a lawyer with 40 years of experience and who tried hundreds of divorces.

A couple of points.

1. I have never seen a court require the filing of a birth certificate in a divorce except where the defendant/father/husband denies in his answer that he is the father. Since Obama Sr. did not file an answer, the averment in Ann’s petition that Sr. was the father of Jr. is taken as admitted by default.

2. You did not mention the case’s docket entries. If a birth certificate had been filed separately, there would be an entry in the court docket identifying what was filed (i.e. a birth certificate) and the date it was filed.

3. If the document showing up on the Internet is a jpeg copy of the document filed in the divorce court, there are two problems: (a) There are no staple holes at the top from where it was stapled to a blue binder, which was required by all courts. (b) Depending on the way it was processed and mailed there would be no folds or 3 folds on the document. Under no circumstances would there be all those multiple irregular folds as shown.

You people are grasping at straws. You convoluted reasoning reminds me of a bowl of spaghetti, all twisted together in a pile.

I believe that you birthers want him out of the White House by any means whatsoever, legal or illegal. I have seen lies, forged documents, intentional misinterpretations of the law, attempts to intimidate judges and government officials, the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government (this is treason punishable by death, remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg).

You Birthers are a disgrace to America.

“Samuel P. King, Judge and Critic of Hawaiian Charity, Dies at 94”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/us/12king.html

He seems like a good guy. A Republican who gave a few RATS a swift kick in the behind. Also of note, he gave a bird standing which is more than a US citizen can get in today’s courts.