Lolo Soetoro U.S. Records - Allen v DHS State and Allen v USCIS - FOIA Releases Final 7-29-10

US State Department ^ | 29 July 2010 | unknown

[bushpilot1]

Recent FOIA documents reveal Obama may be Born in Hawaii.

[MHGinTN]

See post #40, asshat. You’re probably as fake as the bastard you’re playing apologist for.

[Jedidah]

Stanley Ann was living with her parents. That $50 was likely just her meager contribution to household expenses/food/rent.

[Jedidah]

Stanley Ann was living with her parents. That $50 was likely just her meager contribution to household expenses/food/rent. They supported her and the child, not the other way around.

[Jedidah]

I don’t think manual typewriters had balls. Each key operated on a separate arm.

The IBM Selectric was, I believe, the first typewriter to use the ball design.

Someone as old as me correct if I’m wrong.

[centurion316]

So, we have an opinion that the documents are fake. Are they? I don’t think that we know that yet. Not exactly a Buckhead moment.

[El Gato]

I see nothing requiring two citizen parents in S. Res. 511.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens (plural!) on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

[El Gato]

I see nothing requiring two citizen parents in S. Res. 511.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens (plural!) on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

[FreedomCalls]

From page 8 of the Scribd documents from the Director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service:

In deciding the disclosure disposition of those documents containing personal details lifted from the lives of private individuals, the documents were closely scrutinized in an effort to identify any public benefit to be gained from their disclosure. It was ultimately determined that no discernable public gain would be achieved from the disclosure of the information subject to this review. On the other hand, the potential private harm that could be suffered as a result of the release of this information was found not only to be tangible, but also significant and reasonably probable. In the case of these documents, the potential private harm stemming from their release was determined to clearly outweigh the total absence of any public benefit to be gained from such disclosure. Consistent with this analysis, it has been concluded that the release of the subject information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the individual(s) to whom it pertains. The USCIS, therefore, must deny your request for access to this information under the authority of FOIA exemption (b)(6).

So there probably is information in the original BC that is derogatory. There it is plainly stated by those who have seen related documents. In no uncertain terms.

[Cheburashka]

It says plural parents. It says that because that is the fact situation with Sen. McCain. It does not say anywhere that one American parent would not be sufficient. It also does not apply to Obama, since no one says he was born in the Canal Zone. If anyone wishes to read more into the resolution (which by the way is of doubtful legal validity anyway) more than the actual words say, that is their lookout.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nothing can stop the birther inquisition.

Obama could just release his birth certificate like the rest of us.

[rosettasister]

I believe this was before FOIAs came to light.

Uploaded July 29, 2010

Phil Berg: The Latest on Lawsuit Showing “Barry Soetoro” is Obama’s Legal Name – Alex Jones Tv

1/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFA-WRvSXvQ

2/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ2jhKrcFlA

Anyone know if we’ve heard from Berg since new info came to light?

Thanks.

[Domangart]

Of course they didn't have balls. They had hiccup's and damaged fonts. That first copy is of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.

[jdirt]

Do you know if the actual copy of the birth and the marriage index data was ever put on the internet?

I followed your link which took me to a letter from HI that typed the data out in the letter itself.

Also wasn’t it figured out that despite the birth index, there is reason to believe that his birth record was amended??

thank you in advance

[par4]

Why would Mix's initials be on a document signed by John O'Shea. Business etiquette calls for the typist (the cs after the colon) to use the initials of the author of the document in caps follwed by the typist in lower case.

In other words, if this letter were from John F. O'Shea, it should read JFO:cs. There is no reason to use another person's initials on a letter that they are not the author of.

[Fred Nerks]

all I know is stated at the link I provided, information was supplied which had not been asked for...and since when does Hawaii supply anything gratis?

From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM Subject: RE: Request for information

Aloha..,

Index data referred to in HRS 338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu . The Director in accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.

In response to your request the following index data is being provided:

BIRTH INDEX
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

CHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
M

MARRIAGE INDEX
SORTED BY BRIDE
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN

BRIDE
DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…

---

Your second question:

“Also wasn’t it figured out that despite the birth index, there is reason to believe that his birth record was amended??”

May I suggest you go to the Home Page of freeper butterdezillion, it’s all there.

[bushpilot1]

Mix could be the writer of the document.

Cannot see the document (memo for file) going forward to a higher headquarters in its sloppy condition.

The memo for file document could be the attached document using Mix initials and the typist.

[bushpilot1]

A natural born citizen is born to two parents who are citizens.

[El Gato]

t says plural parents. It says that because that is the fact situation with Sen. McCain. It does not say anywhere that one American parent would not be sufficient

Whereas....citizen parents...military...therefore Natural Born citizen.

The "military" in effect substitutes for "born in the country" in the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" well known to the founders, and that exception was also known to them.

Never had a simple logic class?

[Cheburashka]

I won't bother to respond to your insults by insulting you. I regard your insults as an admission that you have run out of arguments. Since you have no arguments left I have no further interest in anything you have to say.

However, for your edification I post the following link to the U.S. Statute which covers the citizenship of children born to American citizens in the Canal Zone. Note that it requires only one parent to be an American citizen in order to confer American citizenship on the child. Since no one contends that the Obamanation was born in the Canal Zone it has no application to him and is totally irrelevant to his situation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1403.html

[jamese777]

A natural born citizen is born to two parents who are citizens.
—
That is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it and welcome to vote accordingly.

However: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

---

“To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”—Supreme Court of the United States ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark(1898)

---

“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)