Posted on 01/08/2010 7:30:02 AM PST by rxsid
In part...
"MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF HAWAIIAN TERRITORIAL STATUTES, THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57, “VITAL STATISTICS,” AND THEIR EFFECT
I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE EFFORT TO THIS POINT
The appellant John D. Hemenway previously asked the Court to take judicial notice of certain matters of public and official record, including a statute of the state of Hawaii that was enacted in 1982, § 338-17.8 of the revised laws of Hawaii of that year, and which was entitled” “Certificates for children born out of state.”
...
We thus asked to the Court to take judicial notice of the fact the laws of Hawaii, as late as 1982, and continuing into the present day, allowed then and do allow to this day for a child born out of state to receive something called a “birth certificate,” even though the child was not in fact born in Hawaii but was born outside Hawaii. Thus a Hawaii official might assert that a person had a “birth certificate” that was on file with the state or had been on file with the state but that assertion doesn’t prove that a child was born in Hawaii.
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not respond to our motion (It originally was filed by the undersigned on behalf of both himself and appellant Hollister) within the time allowed by the Rules of the Court for responding to a motion. On October 20, 2009, the Court, through the Clerk, issued a Show of Cause to the appellees Soetoro a/k/a /Obama and Biden because of their failure to oppose our first Motion for Judicial Notice with the time allotted by the Rules for a response, saying that the appellees were required to file and show by October 30, 2009
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not comply with the October 20, 2009 Order of the Court by showing why they had ignored the Court’s Rules and failed to respond to the initial motion for judicial notice in a timely fashion. They offered no reason for why they had ignored the Rules. Instead they filed a document which badly misrepresented both the law and facts of the historically verifiable meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and attacked the submissions that we put forward as not being eligible for judicial notice, with the single exception of the statute quoted above. As to that one request, our asking that the Court take judicial notice of the 1982 statute, they did not attack that statute and thereby admitted that it was deserving of judicial notice or at the least waived any right to object to it.
...
In that first motion for judicial notice when we pointed to the above-quoted law of Hawaii of 1982, which is now unopposed and thus acknowledged as appropriate for judicial notice by the appellees, we stated that it was the same as the laws of Hawaii in effect at the time of the birth of the appellee Soetoro/ a/k/a Obama. At that time we were unable to locate, either on the website of the state of Hawaii or in the law libraries of the local law schools a copy of the territorial laws as they were in effect at the time of Soetoro a/ k/a Obama’s birth before the major revision of the state of Hawaii’s laws in 1982. Since that time the undersigned’s support staff has been able to locate a set of those territorial laws of Hawaii as they were published with the authority of the Territory of Hawaii in the years before the birth of the defendant Soetoro a/,k/a Obama and as they continued in effect up through the year that he was born.
II. THE TERRITORIAL LAW 57 AND ITS SIMILARITY TO THE 1982 LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
We attach to this new motion for judicial notice a copy of Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics,” the law concerning these matters as it was in the Territorial laws in question. The statute of the Territory thus attached is from the Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii 1955 in Three Volumes as published by the authority of the Territory of Hawaii by the Filmer Brothers Press, 330 Jackson Street, San Francisco, California. These three volumes comprise the statutes of the territory including the acts passed at the regular session of 1955 and the special session of 1956 as consolidated, revised and annotated. As can be seen, because we attach it also and request judicial notice thereof, these three volumes of the statutes of the Territory are certified by the chairman of the compilation commission of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955 as appointed by the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii under Act 179 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1953.
...
In our earlier motion we were wrong on one point, although the error is in the favor of appellants. The error that we made was due to our not at that time of the filing of the first motion being able to locate a copy of the territorial statutes as in effect before 1982. Upon locating and being able to review the applicable territorial statute we found that it was not exactly the same as the act set out in the major revision and codification of 1982, although similar. What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless. After an initial discussion of that authority we will then request additionally that the Court take judicial notice as a legislative fact of the Act which put into place the 1982 statute which is still in place and which replaced the territorial acts.
...
The specific Act of the state legislature which brought the attached territorial statute up to date and incorporated it into that Code was Act 182 H.B. No. 3016-82. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of that Act as thus passed in 1982 at this time. The actual Act 182 says, inter alia:
Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.In this way, to quote further from the Act, “state policies and procedures” of Hawaii accommodate even “children born out of State.”
We believe that the Court is obligated to take judicial notice of the attached territorial statute and, in doing so take judicial notice that there are ways that a “birth certificate” can have been obtained for a child under that statute that are allowed greater latitude for such a “birth certificate” to have been obtained that would be restricted under the present statute, so that the present statute allows for a child to have been born outside the state and still have been issued a Hawaiian “birth certificate,” but does so without the same breadth of possibilities for that having happened as was possible under the attached territorial statute.
For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate. We ask the Court to take notice of the latitude for inaccurate information that is thus created. Further, § 57-9(b) allows there to be a filing of a certificate of birth on which required information is simply missing and can thus be filed by a “supplementary report” and yet the filing of initially unsupplied information by a “supplementary report is not considered as causing that report with information that was not supplied at the outset to be treated as “delayed” or “altered.” It must be noticed that this creates great latitude for mistakes or even abuse of requirements. Thus, although § 57-18 gives the same time frame—one year—that was incorporated in the 1982 state statute, for a “delayed” or “altered” certificate, the procedures give greater latitude for there to be mistakes and abuse of the procedures and for incomplete information.
This great latitude that allows for mistakes, misinformation, incomplete information and even abuse in turn extends into the requirements for what is put on the birth certificates, or required to be put on them, how they are to be kept and disclosed and all the other aspects of the system."
Complete motion, with HI Territorial Law 57 attachment, here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57
For more Obama mysteries. As I was looking for old records on this, I came upon a maybe a mystery involving obama’s driver’s license. The DL image is gone due to some violation on photobucket. Still interesting. Why did Obama get a CONT. on his license he renewed months before he won Illinois senate?
Name change? Or just let it lapse?
http://art2sect1clause5.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-illinois-drivers-license.html
This is the webpage I was looking for. It details how foreign born Sun Yat-sen’s application became a true “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”
AND
As the decades passed, the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” Application and Certification process became more formalized. For example, this is the 1946 “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” application from Masayoshi Mitose, credited for having brought Kenpo martial arts to the US in the 1930s
http://art2sect1clause5.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-missing-link-hawaiian-birth_28.html
http://art2sect1clause5.blogspot.com/
Here are some comments of the Kenyan Parliament from Nov. 5, 2008, on the morning after Barack Obama win of the US Presidential election on Nov. 4
Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama's win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled. Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request!
The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. Musyoka): … As we do, as you said from the Chair, this is a sovereign country. We know we can learn a lot. To be able to support that blood relation, I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure that we have a peaceful country as Kenyans; a country that will uphold the true principles of the rule of law, democracy and tolerance between ourselves At the beginning of this year, Senator Barrack Obama called me at midnight and told me: "Mr. Vice President, could you make sure you sort out this problem?" I want to assure him that the problem has since been sorted out.
57,58,59
oh, bruddah!
Here is the form that could have been used with just a photograph attached of his likeness.
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate
In this Typewritten Certificate of Hawaiian Birth dated March 14, 1904, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen signed an affidavit that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24, 1870 (in reality he was born in China in 1866).
Of course, this is not true bec Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, was born in China.
Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau).
After receiving a few years of local school, at age thirteen, Sun went to live with his elder brother, Sun Mei, in Honolulu.
Sun Mei, who was fifteen years Sun Yat-sen’s senior, had emigrated to Hawaii as a laborer and had become a prosperous merchant. Though Sun Mei was not always supportive of Sun’s later revolutionary activities, he supported his brother financially, allowing Sun to give up his professional career.
Sun Yat-sen studied at the prestigious Iolani School where he learned English, mathematics and science. Originally unable to speak the English language, Sun Yat-sen picked up the language so quickly that he received a prize for outstanding achievement in English from King David Kalakaua.
He became a citizen of the United States and was issued an American passport. It is unclear whether or not he maintained his original citizenship as a subject of the Qing empire.
After attending Iolani School in 1882,[2] Sun enrolled in Oahu College (now Punahou School) for further studies for one semester, from which he graduated.[3]. He was soon sent home to China as his brother was becoming afraid that Sun Yat-sen was about to embrace Christianity. While at Iolani, he befriended Tong Phong, who later founded the First Chinese-American Bank.
Next thing you know we will have people running around acting like they are President of the United States. /s
I understand your point and most of us don’t actually care what we are called.
We do want to what to call that guy in the White House.
Thanks bitt. I started out following this closely but kinda gave up when it was one disappointment after another. Now I am so far behind in ‘information’ that I’d hesitate to even ask a question, lol.
“But as the evidence suggests, she was unable to obtain an actual CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE because she had no supporting documentation.
“So the APPLICATION remained FILED.”
I agree. The fact that this application was filed with an “unknown” allegedly Kenya birth location could have opened the door for Obama to come in some time after 1982 (whenever it was advantageous for him to do it) and request an amendment to show a Honolulu birth location based on “new evidence” perhaps provided by his mom or grandma.
This explains how the amendment that D’Onofrio believes he established in the vital record index release could have occurred solely to change the birth location without any need for an adoption related change. The document appears to have been unaltered from the date filed up to the time that the 1982 statutory notation was made, which seems to preclude any adoption amendment to the record during the period prior to 1982 when a Soetoro adoption would have occurred.
The next question is how to get the person who has this document (Ohio lawyer, was it?) to turn it over to a lawyer who can get it in front of a judge. Hemenway's Hollister case is a long shot. D'Onofrio's quo warranto discovery might force HI to produce the original, if D'Onofrio gets standing.
Now to find that 'Ohio Lawyer' who was he?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24001567/Obama-BC-GMom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2405994/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
still looking for the Lawyer.
here we go...
The Blaine Document
October 19, 2009 by John Charlton
WILLIAM BLAINE RELEASES PURPORTED OBAMA CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH
by John Charlton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2366539/posts?page=161#161
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2366539/posts?page=164#164
http://lawyers.legalhelpmate.com/OH-Lawyer-William-Blaine-88782.aspx
The good news is that it is in the hands of John Charlton who is currently wired directly into D'Onofrio (back together after a big dust-up for which D'Onofrio apologized). D'Onofrio and the Chrysler dealers may have access to a copy of this document as backup for their quo warranto discovery effort, depending on the degree to which Blaine can provide provenance.
In the Post & E-Mail story at the link (below) is a statement from Kerchner that he and Apuzzo believe this is a hoax, but they appear to fail to understand that bureaucrats can fish a document out of the file long after it is placed in the file to add statutory notations, such as the one for the 1982 statute.
And there is a clear reason for this notation being added after 1982 as a footnote to the Honolulu "birth location" to clarify that the actual birth hospital was in Kenya, per the hospital field entry.
From the link to the story at your link:
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/the-blaine-document/
Commander Charles Kerchner, issued this statement:
"Atty Mario Apuzzo and I believe it is a forgery and a fraud … probably done by some Obot to get our side scurrying around with it. The biggest reason we think it is a fraud is because the Hawaiian statute cited in the lower right corner as the version with the “.8″ amendment on the end, i.e., 338.17.8 did not exist in 1961. It was added to the statute in 1982. That jumped out at me right away. 338.17.8 did not apply to Obama in 1961 because it did not exist in the law books yet. But the registration of out of state children was permitted in 1961 under older laws such as the one in 1911 and another in 1955, as I recall off the top of my head. But since this doc is citing 338.17.8 it cannot be the initial or original birth registration document."
” FILED “ and “ ACCEPTED “ has 2 different meanings ...
Yeah, sure does. Just look at Barry's world famous, alleged, short form.
Say's FILED and not ACCEPTED.
Pretty exciting stuff. Slow and steady wins the race. The legal process is slow and tedious; unfortunately, we have a form of national ADD.
Over the past many months it’s been so frustrating seeing banner headlines proclaiming: Judge sets trial! When that was merely an administrative action. Or an attorney running around saying she’d be deposing Obama in 30 days. All of it nonsense. (I am STILL getting the occasional email forward that there’s a trial later this month in CA).
It will be interesting to see what happens from here. If Soetoro/Obama’s attorneys didn’t answer the earlier motion for judicial notice, will they respond to this one? Did they count on this old law never being found? Why isn’t it available online either at the official HI website or Cornell’s? Or, apparently, in any of the DC law school libraries? And, how will the court deal with it?
I’m with ya - BUT...
we seem to be getting closer to TSHTF moments...(gee, I like that shortened expressive bunch of letters!)
so start paying attention to the pings - I’ll send to you if there’s something really cool you’re not reacting to...
Yes, typically if a motion is not opposed, whatever the ‘relief’ being sought might be, is granted.
BUT, in reading the above excerpt, it sounds like Soetoro/Obama didn’t answer an earlier motion for judicial notice. The court ordered them to ‘show cause’ and explain why they didn’t respond. According to Hemenway, they filed something called a show of cause, that wasn’t actually a show of cause. So, having not answered, presumably because they had no objection, the court still required them to respond, rather than granting the ‘relief’ sought. It seems they were offered another ‘bite of the apple.”
I don’t think the Soetoro/Obama team has much cared to date about what is filed. So far, they have been aided not only by the courts, but by some of those challenging his eligibility, who were more visible than others. They are convinced that no judge will take on a case about the eligibility of this historic president, and that’s all they need. Hopefully, some judge or judges will force the issue and not be concerned with the political aspect so much as the legal.
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.