Date Accepted by State Registrar (1930)
Another Date Accepted by State Registrar (1977)
And of course, Barry's Date Filed by Registrar
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
So, who will let them know they have been mistaken?
Yes. Unfortunately, the work of an inexperienced lawyer...who definitely has a "big heart", but is just too green with the whole process.
"Did they count on this old law never being found?"
I suspect they thought it wouldn't be located in a timely fashion.
"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?"
Great questions. IMO, it appears to be a relatively obscure legal book, that most would not normally pay too much attention to. Not too much call for that book, outside this issue. Many folks concerned with this issue have been searching for it, for some time now.
That all changes now with being able to point to the specific law on the books that WOULD apply to a 1961 Barry birth.
The truth eventually makes it's way to the light of day. Hopefully, more truth will do so sooner rather than later.
Date Accepted by State Registrar (1930)
Another Date Accepted by State Registrar (1977)
And of course, Barry's Date Filed by Registrar
Posted: January 08, 2010
8:34 pm Eastern
President Obama's official spokesman deflected a question today about the president's alleged place of birth.
At the White House press briefing, Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent there, asked, "While he was in Hawaii, did the president visit the hospital where he was reportedly born, which is which one?"
Spokesman Robert Gibb deflected.
"I don't believe I saw any pool reports of hospital visits," he said.
..."
I first got an OR driver’s license in 1982. It lapsed at some point, and in 1992 I got another one. It has the date 1982 as the first time I got an OR licenese (can’t remember what the exact wording is). So even though it lapsed, it still says the first date I got an OR license. I’ll have to look at another state DL I have to see if it’s the same on that one.
It sounds as thought 1995 is the first IL DL he got with that name.
Its unavailability made me wonder if Sandy Berger was on the case!
I suspect this may be a bit of psy-ops by Apuzzo and Kerchner to create the impression that they don’t take it seriously. It seems too obvious to me that the footnote and reference to the 1982 statute could have been added later. Amendments and corrections are to be made to the face of the document in the file per the statute.
At this point, it is not Apuzzo and Kerchner or Hemenway and Hollister that matter, but D’Onofrio and the Chrysler dealers. p>
D’Onofrio was in the dual citizen-only camp claiming that non-US birth was CT, but he suddenly became extremely interested in the birth location a few months ago. Going back to last March Apuzzo and D’Onofrio were aligned briefly against trying to gain release of Obama’s HI BC:
D’Onofrio quoted from The Right Side of Life:
“I contacted Mario after both reading his pleadings in the Kerchner v. Obama case, and listening to his interviews. I was impressed by the level of detail his pleadings brought forth. The intelligence and passion for the Constitution shown by Mr. Apuzzo and his plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, were evident in the interviews they have given. They both recognize that the main issue is centered on Obama being a British Subject and that the birth certificate issue, while important, is ancillary to Obama’s admission that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii.”
Hmmm...D’Onofrio’s interest in Obama’s BC may well have started at about the same time this Blaine BC appeared! Could the Blaine BC, provided to D’Onofrio by Charlton, have inspired D’Onofrio’s sudden interest in the HI vital record index?
In my expectation, Hemenway’s Law 57 request for judicial notice, while important to get on the record, won’t get him standing. Only D’Onofrio seems to have a chance to gain quo warranto standing (per Judge Carter...refuted by DOJ), so I am daring to get a bit hopeful that D’Onofrio has the Blaine BC and is prepared to use it or gain discovery of it.
PTL for that!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2422326/posts
Read the first paragraph after the elipses. It says that the judge below acknowledged having jurisdiction (i.e., Hollister had standing) based on interpleader laws. That is subject to review/reversal by the Court of Appeals, but at this time, (as I understand it) Hollister DOES have standing.
Maybe a lawyer can clarify, but that is my understanding.
interesting post
Hey Sven, the whole Indonesian deal, as salacious and evidentiary of our man’s fraudulent character as it may be, has nuthin’ to do with nuthin”.
My understanding (not a lawyer) is that jurisdiction is the ability of the court to hear the matter while standing is the eligibility of the plaintiff to bring the matter to that court. These are two distinct, separate gates that a case must get through. One is applied to the court, the other to the plaintiff.
When a court rules it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, that has no effect on whether a particular plainfiff has standing to bring that subject matter against a particular defendant. That is a separate matter for the court to decide before the case can proceed to trial.
Prior to inauguration, lots of courts decided that they had jurisdiction to hear eligibility cases, but none to my knowledge, granted standing. Either the plaintiff was ineligible or the defendant was the wrong defendant or the court was unable to fashion a remedy, or the issue “wasn't ripe” because the electors hadn't voted etc.
Now that the inauguration has passed, and no challenge was perfected (filed and served) in the two weeks or so between when the electors voted and the inauguration, one federal judge, Judge Carter says that only a quo warranto in the DC Circuit is available as a jurisdiction to challenge Obama’s eligibilitiy. That quo warranto jurisdiction, if accepted by the DC Circuit, will then still require a separate assessment by the Circuit as to whether any plaintiff has standing to bring the quo warranto.
Read the first paragraph after the elipses. It says that the judge below acknowledged having jurisdiction (i.e., Hollister had standing) based on interpleader laws. That is subject to review/reversal by the Court of Appeals, but at this time, (as I understand it) Hollister DOES have standing.
Maybe a lawyer can clarify, but that is my understanding."
Right. Attorney Hemenway show's in their reply brief why/how the lower court found standing and thus jurisdiction. The case was dismissed for "lack of claim."
Regarding Donofrio...I read a response from him early on that on the Chrysler case...he was only proceeding with the clients "best interest's" in mind and that they (the clients) were not primarily concerned with the eligibility issue. As I read it, a QW would only be filled IF the BK case did not result in the dealers having their dealerships re-instated. We heard some chatter out there that this past week was going to be the week that the QW was going to be filed. It appears that didn't happen, as it also appears that the QW will only be filed after the BK case(s) fails to result in the dealers getting their business back (or perhaps some other "deal" for compensation).
“Lack of claim” is an element of standing applied to the plaintiff, not an element of jurisdiction applied to the court.
Once jurisdiction is accepted by the court, to gain standing, one of the elements the plaintiff must show the court is a claim in controversy that the court can remedy. “Failure to state a claim” is legal shorthand for failure to request a remedy or lack of remedy that the court can apply within its jurisdiction.
It appears to me that once Obama was inaugurated, the court where Hollister filed lost jurisdiction. Only a limited category of plaintiffs (not appearing to include Hollister) can currently have standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility in quo warranto in the DC Circuit.
When my son gets up I will look at his. He accidentally let his lapse. Moving and stuff.
I think you can drive on a out of state DL for a certain period of time usually. Cont. could mean continued from out of state license?!
What I find interesting is the timing he decided to get his Illinois DL. Maybe the name was Soetoro too.
I have been worried about this. If the government, acting to protect Obama, offered a sufficient cash settlement and the dealers took it, quo warranto would almost certainly be dropped by the dealers as a condition of the settlement.
BTW, The dealers don't want to reopen their dealerships, they want settlement money, per the lead plaintiff. The Chrysler dealerships were shut down immediately, unlike the GM dealerships that are on a phased schedule that can be canceled by arbitration.
It is possible that the quo warranto has been put on hold and kept as a threat to motivate a cash settlement, but Anderer, the Chrysler dealer seen on Cavuto really seemed to want to punish Obama and didn't seem likely to settle for a few pennies on the dollar for having his franchise given to a competitor who was a Democrat contributor.
It is not at all clear how meaningful funding for a settlement could be obtained from the legal entity that is still in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy judge would have to admit a huge mistake (a fraud on the court said D’Onofrio) and the redistribute the assets of the bankrupt entity taking away assets allocated to other creditors and giving them to the Chrysler dealers. I just don't see the wherewithal for a settlement there for the Chrysler dealers.
At a minimum, any settlement would take time lots of court proceedings. D’Onofrio was fully aware of this when he said he would file the quo warranto right around New Years Day. If you look at the 12-29-09 interview with Anderer on Cavuto that game is very much on and I thought I saw a “quo warranton” gleam in Anderer’s eye.
There could be many reasons why D’Onofrio might want to delay quo warranto for a few days or weeks to tweak it to make it better. Also for maximum publicity impact, the world isn't really back from the holidays until this Monday. Quo warranto isn't much good as a threat to pressure for a cash settlement unless it can actually get filed in the DC Circuit with arguments that some portion of the Obama DOJ team regards as credible. So I fully expect that it is coming soon.
The other night however, I noticed the wording on the 1982 revision which also included territorial Hawaii. Then I realized at any point in time Obama's parents could have filled out forms for Obama's citizenship. Not natural born citizenship, but citizenship.
provided that 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.
Thanks for your posting of this by the way.
Perhaps this has already been discussed, but, if so, I missed it:
I find it very interesting that the purported source of this document is named “Blaine,” which is also the middle name of one of those who signed it.
Relatives? Could the signatory still be alive and have access to the original?
Long shot, but very interesting.
Ethically speaking, Donofrio is obliged to represent his clients. If they are made whole in an out of court settlement, The WQW would not be necessary, nor necessarily in their best interests. This one's about car dealers' money, not about usurpation of office
The fact that the threat of a WQO might work to spring the cash might be useful in a future case.
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.