On October 1, New York Assemblymember Fred Thiele changed his party registration from “Republican” to member of the Independence Party. See this story.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
On October 1, New York Assemblymember Fred Thiele changed his party registration from “Republican” to member of the Independence Party. See this story.
Thank you, Rep. Fred Thiele! Each time that the Republican Party loses a member, things come closer to my prediction that the GOP will be minor-sized by 2012.
A $500 check from Frank MacKay ??????
Don Lake, via December 2007 Sacramento meet in John Bambey’s apartment.
–and when and if the 2008 presidental election with two non-nbc candidates is shown to be a fraud both major parties should be banned from ballot access nationally for ten years.
billvanallen-It is YOU who are the fraud. You guaranteed Obama would leave office by July 4, 2009. It will be Ocyober 4th tomorrow and he is still there.
You are a liar, a sham and a fool whose opinions on anything are worthless.
calm down and just start getting over it.
What is “Ocyober 4th”?
or rather maybe don’t just get over it. I suggest you stay here at Ballot Access News and be closely tuned into the real universe during the next 72 hours for what is happening in California and Honolulu.
and from naturalborncitizen blog (Leo Donofrio)
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist.
Posted in Uncategorized on October 2, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
I’m not sure what you want people to “get over” when it’s you that can’t get over that the election is over.
The indisputable fact from which you can bob and weave all you want, is that you issued an unqualified guarantee that President Obama would leave office by July 4, 2009. He is still in office. Therefore you are a liar and nothing you say has any validity. You are a fraud, sir.
You and your ilk promise every week some startling revelation, but the honest truth is there are NONE, because the President was born in Hawaii and under the law is a natural born citizen. Period. End of story.
By the way fraudster vanallen, congratulations on being named Time’s Person of the Year
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i60700
— ballot access news blog has just a few days more until we will help you “jerry” get over it — as in natural born citizenship — or the lack thereof
Letter of Inquiry by Atty Apuzzo Sent to Judge Simandle 1 Oct 09 re Delay
in Deciding 2 Motion Decisions Since Jul 09 and Judge’s Response 2 Oct 09
Letter of Inquiry by Atty Apuzzo Electronically Sent to Judge Simandle on 1 Oct 2009 About No Decision Having Been Made Yet for the Two Motions Before Him Since July 2009.
Letter of Inquiry, Kerchner v Obama & Congress, Filed October 1st 2009:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20480245/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Doc-39-Inquiry-Letter-to-Judge-Simandle-FILED-10109
Response from Judge Simandle to Atty Apuzzo’s Letter of Inquiry, Filed October 2nd, 2009:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20547848/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-40-Judge-Simandle-Response-to-Atty-Apuzzo-Letter-of-Inquiry
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/taitz-files-surreply-in-response-to-cardona/
Taitz files Surreply in response to Cardona
October 1, 2009 by John Charlton
EMPLOYS INCISIVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST CARDONA’S DEFENSE OF USURPATION
by John Charlton
(Oct. 1, 2009) — Attorney Orly Taitz, esq. has filed a Surreply to acting Attorney General George S. Cardona’s arguments in defense of his own Motion to Dismiss in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al..
Dr. Taitz’s reply is an elegant and incisive legal argument against the points of law cited by Cardona, lead counsel for the Defense.
Attorney Cardona had attacked Taitz Opposition Brief by claiming that the Plaintiffs reliance on the 9th Amendment was misplaced. To this, Dr. Taitz counters in her Surreply, explaining that Cardona’s authorities in support of his claims are weak:
In support of this assertion, the Defendants cite not one single Supreme Court case, but instead a line of 9th Circuit Cases which goes back, ultimately, not to any text of the constitution itself, but to Lawrence H. Tribe’s 1998 textbook entitled American Constitutional Law. Tribe’s quoted statement concerning the Ninth Rule as a rule of constitutional construction inexcusably contradicts the Supreme Court’s repeated holdings (relevant to the construction of Article II, Sec. 1 qualifications for President, as well as the Ninth Amendment, both of great importance to the resolution of this case) that, “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.†Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 2 L.Ed. 60; 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803). In interpreting the Constitution, “real effect should be given to all the words it uses.†Myers’ Administratrix v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 151; 47 S. Ct. 21; 71 L. Ed. 160 (1926)(the Myers case addresses whether Congress may enact legislation withholding the removal power of executive branch officers from other branches of government, see below).
Then Dr. Taitz argues that there exists a more sound legal interpretation of the 9th Amendment, which has been accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
More consistent with the Federalist Papers and Marbury is the theory of the Ninth Amendment advanced by Professor Randy E. Barnett. Barnett takes the position that the Ninth Amendment operates as an active source of rights and cannot be “void where prohibited by lawâ€. Plaintiffs submit that Barnett’s 2004 learned treatise Restoring the Lost Constitution: the Presumption of Liberty, published by the Princeton University Press, is both admissible and susceptible to judicial notice pursuant to FRE 803(18) and Plaintiffs ask this Court to take judicial notice of Barnett’s significant contribution to Ninth Amendment jurisprudence. Accordingly, Plaintiffs incorporate Barnett’s book by reference as if filed as a matter of record as supplemental argument in support of their contentions in this case.
Taitz then explains why Dr. Randy E. Barnett’s approach is more sound:
Based on the Ninth Amendment, Barnett proposes to reverse the modern trend by applying a philosophy of judicial review true to its Constitutional origins: a presumption of liberty, which questions every exercise of power. Barnett concedes the need for reasonable restrictions on some actions; for example, when such regulations “are shown to be necessary to prevent the future violation of rights of others.†When a court is faced with a hard case, he feels that in order for the rule of law to be maintained, society must accept the outcome even when the ending is not a “happy†one.
And then applies this view of the 9th Amendment to her case:
Such exactly is the case of Barnett v. Obama, a hard case whose proper result society must accept even if the ending is not a happy one, at least not for most of Obama’s supporters in the last election. In the present case, the need for reasonable regulation is that which was established in the Constitution, namely that the President must be a “natural born citizen†as that term was interpreted and understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which incorporates Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations†as one of its own internally extrinsic sources (Article I, §8, http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm). Plaintiffs also cite and rely upon Vattel’s Law of Nations, at the website cited above, and would both offer it into evidence under Rule 803(18) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and ask the Court to take Judicial Notice of this ancient treatise as well, on the grounds that the definitions contained therein regarding Natural Born Citizen are those upon which this court must rely in deciding the present case.
Since the Defendants have cited a line of cases originating with a law professor’s textbook, however, there is no reason why Plaintiffs should not equally rely on legal academic texts, and Plaintiffs prefer the writings of Barnett to those of Tribe, and ask this Court to take judicial notice of Randy E. Barnett’s equally learned treatise published in 2004, along with his earlier law review article: “The Ninth Amendment and Constitutional Legitimacy,†64 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 37 (1988). The fundamental relevance of Barnett’s treatise on the Ninth Amendment is that where the Constitution creates a rule as clear as the citizenship requirements of Article II, the Court should presume and infer that the Ninth Amendment (taken together with the First Amendment “right to petition for redress of grievances) not merely affords guarantees a remedy belonging to the people and justiciable, and redressable in the courts. Defendants completely fail to address the First Amendment aspect of Plaintiffs’ rights to enforce the constitution, to enforce every clause and provision, including Article II, §1, Clause 5 re: “natural born†citizenship.
Taitz then shows how the 9th Amendment has been employed by the Supreme Court:
Even more significant than Barnett’s work, however, is the vitality of the Ninth Amendment as a key factor in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783; 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). While the Ninth Amendment was indeed used in that case as an analogy for rule of construction and interpretation, the Court upheld the independence of the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments as sources of independent, individual power by writing: “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective†rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.†128 S.Ct. at 2790, 171 L.Ed.2d at 650.
D.C. v. Heller involves “substantive due processâ€, because it addresses substantive rights protected by the Constitution, even though the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are not precisely cited as central rules of decision in that case. When the Defendants, however, state at p. 1, ll. 22-24, and p. 2, ll. 2-7, that “…the Ninth Amendment does not independently create a constitutional right for purposes of stating a claim†and “the Ninth Amendment is ‘not a source of rights as such’â€, the Defendants are ignoring the key role and importance of the Ninth Amendment in modern cases recognizing substantive due process rights starting with Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479; 85 S.Ct. 1678; 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), wherein (according to a search on Lexis) the Ninth Amendment is cited 55 times (see especially the Ninth-Amendment centered concurrence of Justices Goldberg, Harlan, Brennan, and Earl Warren) at 381 U.S. 486, 85 S.Ct. 1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516).
She then deftly employs the cases used by liberal progressives, to counter Cardona’s arguments about the 9th Amendment not being a basis for rights asserted by citizens:
As is well known, Griswold v. Connecticut stands as the starting point of a very long line of cases, including most notably Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645; 92 S.Ct. 1208; 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113; 93 S.Ct. 705; 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833; 112 S.Ct. 2791; 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S. Ct. 2054; 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000); and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558; 123 S.Ct. 2472; 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003).
In each of these cases (with the sole exception of Lawrence), the Ninth Amendment played a significant if not decisive role in conjunction with the Fifth and Fourteenth to establish a “broad statement […] of the substantive reach of liberty†(Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 564, 123 S.Ct. at 2476) into subjects such as contraception, abortion, sex generally, and family structure in particular regarding which there is no express language in the Constitution whatsoever. How much stronger is the inference that there is an actionable “liberty interest†under the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments in the enforcement of the expressly protective clauses of the Constitution e.g. the “natural born citizenship†requirements of Article II, Section 1?
Attorney Taitz then rebuts Cardona’s claim that her Opposition Brief did not address the redressability point of the standing doctrine, in context of his arguments on the Political Question doctrine, namely that the Courts cannot intervene in discretionary decisions of the executive and legislative branches:
Myers’ Administratrix, cited above, is another “root†case giving rise to a long line of cases, most notably Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986) and Morrison v. Olsen, 487 U.S. 654, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988). The relevance of these cases, concerning the removal of executive branch officials (all cases relating to officers lower than Cabinet level positions, and none having to do with the express terms of Constitutional eligibility of any particular officer), is—even assuming Defendants were correct that Congress had ever intended to deprive the judiciary of power to adjudicate the Constitutional eligibility of any elected officer—-whether Congress actually possesses the power to limit the removal of any executive branch official to itself by and through the impeachment process. The answer would seem to be a resounding “NO.â€
“Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment. To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control over the execution of the laws.â€
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 726, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 3187-88, 92 L.Ed.2d 583, 596 (1986), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 685-6; 108 S.Ct. 2597; 101 L.Ed.2d 569, 602 (1988).
The Supreme Court in Morrison took the extra step, relevant to the present case, of evaluating the role of the judiciary in the separation of powers doctrine:
“While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.â€
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (concurring opinion). 487 U.S. at 694, 108 S.Ct. at 2620-2621, 101 L.Ed.2d at 607.
Dr. Taitz then rightly points out that the Federal Courts have power regarding cases of usurpation, esp. that committed by the individual holding the office of President:
The Morrison Court’s citation to Youngstown is extremely significant, because Youngstown was a case focusing on Presidential abuse of power and usurpation of authority without recent historical parallel, until approximately January 21, 2009.In Youngstown, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of a District Court to enjoin unconstitutional usurpation of power (and seizure of property) by the American President Harry S. Truman. Youngstown stands for the proposition that unconstitutional acts on the part of the President can be enjoined by a District Court. So the Plaintiffs’ injuries are judicially redressable: under Youngstown the Court can, at the very least, enjoin President Barack Hussein Obama from acting in the absence of constitutional authority to do so. Under Bowsher and Morrison, the Court can review the President’s qualifications for office and remove him if good cause be shown which would reaffirm the constitutional ethics and standards underlying the legitimacy of the Presidency. Those cases, obviously, concerned the removal of inferior officers, but the logic of separation of powers dictates that ONLY the Article III judiciary, as the final refuge repository of the sovereignty of the people can possibly supervise and review the constitutional qualifications and legitimacy of the President on behalf of the people.
The President cannot be held to be an impartial or dispassionate judge of his own qualifications. In fact, the January 21, 2009, executive order sealing all of President’s archival and personal records, previously submitted in this case, was, like the order seizing steel mills in Youngstown, an order unsupported by any authority deriving either from the Constitution nor any Congressional statute:
“The President’s order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress — it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President.†343 U.S. at 588, 72 S.Ct. at 867, 96 L.Ed. at 1168 (1952).
And then applies the decision in the Youngstown case to Obama’s usurpation of office:
Like the unconstitutional usurpation and exercise of power in Youngstown, Barack Hussein Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency must be condemned for its arrogant disregard of the Constitution.Again using the insertion of paraphrasis from this critical case in brackets:
“It cannot be contended that the President would have had power to issue this [or any] order [or even to assume power at all] had [the Constitution] explicitly negated such authority in formal [language]. [And yet in fact, the Constitution] has expressed its will to withhold this power from the President [because] it [says] so in so many words. The authoritatively expressed purpose of [the Constitution] to disallow such … [a] President [to accede to power]. . . . could not be more decisive . .†Id. at 343 U.S. 602, 72 S.Ct. 893, 96 L.Ed. 1175.
She then argues that since her Plaintiffs are tax payers, the Flast vs. Cohen case gives them grounds to argue that Obama’s usurpation does require them to undertake unconstitutional actions:
Each and every Plaintiff in this lawsuit is at the very least a taxpayer and a citizen. The expenditure of funds by a President who is not constitutionally qualified is a new requirement imposed on the people of the United States. It is a clear and material change in the terms in the social contract (as well as the actual employment contract of all oath-taking officers and enlisted men and legislators who have sworn to uphold that Constitution) that a President can come into office, seal his records, and disclose nothing about his past or origins once they are challenged.
Accordingly, in response to the Defendants Reply on page 4, ll. 9-17, Plaintiffs can and do allege that the Defendants have imposed upon the Plaintiffs a new, specific, and unconstitutional action that they are required to take in violation of their First Amendment right to petition for proof of constitutional eligibility and their Ninth Amendment reservation of sovereignty, and of the power to uphold the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed by their delegate and trustee, the President of the United States. The point of allowing Flast v. Cohen taxpayer standing is precisely to correct the failures of the political system to abide by the plain letter and strictures of the Constitution. The challenge of what constitutes a “political question†immune from judicial review remains, in Plaintiffs’ eyes, quite simple: non-justiciable political questions are those where a policy choice and decision has been made within the Constitutional framework: e.g., to appropriate and allocate funds for additional nuclear submarines or a new national park. There is no political question involved in whether or not to enforce the First Amendment separation of Church and State, it is strictly a matter of constitutional construction and application. There is no political question involved in whether or not to enforce the natural born citizenship requirements of Article II.
Attorney Taitz then rebuts the circular argument of Cardona, that the eligibility question is a political one, therefore not in the hands of the Courts, but of Congress, which refused to act constitutionally:
Exhibit A shows a letter from Senator Sessions from Alabama states that the senator cannot get involved in the matter of eligibility due to the fact that the legal actions were pending and ethics requirements prevent him from getting involved in legal matters. Now the government is stating that the judiciary cannot address this issue because it is a political issue and it needs to be resolved by the senators and congressmen, the same senators and congressmen that didn’t want to get involved in the first place because it is up to the judiciary. Absurdity of this argument is clear. As Senator Sessions states his letter- legal matters need to be resolved by the judiciary. Similarly Exhibit B shows quo warranto request filed with the attorney general Eric Holder on March 1. Mr. Holder never responded in the period of seven months.
Dr. Orly Taitz then rebuts Cardona’s claims that FOIA standing has not been achieved:
In essence, there is a question of material fact regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding compliance with the pre-requisites for suit under FOIA. Captain Pamela Barnett has fulfilled the requirements in form and function. FOIA is basically a form of inquiry designed to make private party investigations into the Federal government easier and more accessible. More important, however, in light of the executive orders entered on January 21, 2009, all proper FOIA requests, like all other requests were and are FUTILE so long as the President’s executive orders are allowed to stand (see footnote above).But in practical effect and function, the undersigned counsel’s numerous requests for information, including her letter to U.S.A.G. Eric Holder and the Secretary of State of Kentucky (Exhibit C) constituted massive pre-filing diligence on the part of counsel. Plaintiffs ask the real Congressional purpose in enacting FOIA, to open the doors or narrow the path to information? Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to use their year of investigations as the practical formal substitute and functional equivalent of a formal FOIA requests originating in Orange County, and that the failure to fill out specific forms should not defeat the right to know.
She concludes by citing the relevance of the multiple SSNs to election fraud, and the implicit admission of standing for military plaintiffs made by Judge Clay D. Land’s denial of Rhodes’ request for a stay of deployment.
Posted in Law Cases, Politics | Tagged 9th Amendment rights, Attorney George Cardona, Bowsher v. Synar, Captain Pamela Barnett vs Obama, District of Columbia v. Heller, Dr. Orly Taitz, Emmerich de Vattel, Eric Holder, Flast vs. Cohen, FOIA, Griswold v. Connecticut, Law of Nations, Lawrence H. Tribe, Lawrence v. Texas, Marbury vs. Madison, Morrison v. Olson, Myers’ Administratrix, Quo warrento, Randy E. Barnett, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer | No Comments Yet
Comments RSS
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
from natural born citizen blog
The Hawaii Department of Health has reversed course. They now admit that they do – in fact – make some vital records information available to the public. This admission reverses their prior response pattern indicating that “no information†could be released.
You will recall from Part 1 of my full report that previous official responses to UIPA requests were greeted with statements – issued by DoH Director Fukino and DoH Communications Director Okubo – which indicated that state law forbid “any information†about Hawaii vital records from being released. These rigid responses were issued despite the clear applicability of Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d) which requires the mandatory release of some information from vital records on file with the DoH.
Just after I released that report, the Post and Email blog detailed that another researcher who requested “index data†had received the same improper denial of access to that index data. I blogged on that denial in my report entitled, “Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places her Thumb Directly In The Giants Eye.â€
Behind the scenes, myself and two other members of my research team – KingsKid and Justin Riggs – have been issuing very specific UIPA requests. And last night KingsKid received a response to her UIPA request from DoH Communications Director Okubo which exhibits a complete reversal of policy.
KingsKid UIPA REQUEST ANSWERED BY OKUBO… AND MORE?
From: [KingsKid real name redacted]
To: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:03 AM
Subject: Request for information
Dear Ms. Okubo,
IAW Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d), I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.
This statute at para (d) provides officials no authority to withhold the requested information. Therefore, I as an American citizen, am invoking Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d) Disclosure of records, which reads as follows: (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public [my emphasis].
Ms. Okubo, I worked for the federal government for 32 years as a contracting officer and can appreciate the position you are in. However, I will tell you this, when it came to doing my job, I never allowed politics to interfere. Call it personal integrity, upholding my principles, or whatever. I went by the acquisition regulations scrupulously, thus, no one could ever contest what I had done. Yes, I encountered opposition when I rebuffed “politicsâ€, but I wouldn’t budge. Standing steadfast sometimes brought me short-term grief, but in the end, right triumphed. I see you in a similar situation. I don’t know you or your personal ethics or agenda. I do know that as a public official and servant to the people, you have a duty to carry out the laws that govern your department.
Ms. Okubo, you cannot escape the duty you have … in providing this information to anyone who requests it. According to the referenced statute, you are to provide me all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr (or any other name he has used as indicated above), AND such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public. My request right now is limited to all the index data on Mr. Obama. If you have other information that you care to make available in addition, please send that also.
As a public servant, you have the responsibility to uphold the law in all respects and not cherry-pick what is politically expedient for you or any other public servant. All your public responses that I have seen on the internet to date, absolutely avoid any reference at all to paragraph (d). You obviously don’t want to release Mr. Obama’s index file, but by your own law, you have to. The truth always comes out, Ms. Okubo. You can save yourself embarrassment, if something not more serious, by quickly complying with Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d)…
Last night, Janice Okubo responded to KingsKid with the following email:
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…
(Okubo used the “blue ink†to transmit the index data. And Stanley Ann’s last name is misspelled as “DUNHANâ€. It should be “Dunhamâ€. KingsKid is awaiting clarification.)
[UPDATE: 2:35 PM 10.02.09 KingsKid was informed by Okubo that the index file has the correct spelling “DUNHAM” and the typo was her mistake, it’s spelled correctly in the file.]
This response certainly gives a plethora of new information. First and foremost, it tells us that a thumb is being removed from the giant’s eye. This is, as far as I know, the first time the DoH has responded to a request for information from President Obama’s vital records by releasing actual records as opposed to Fukino’s view of those records.
This is a significant change in policy caused by renewed public attention.
It also tells one where to view the actual index data with your own eyes, “…the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu.â€
The index file also lists President Obama’s name as “Barack Hussein Obama IIâ€.
BRIDE AND GROOM?
This information allows us to put the rumour to bed which claims that Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. weren’t married. They were married in Hawaii. However…
KingsKid didn’t request index data for Stanley Ann or Barack, Sr.
I thought it was very odd that Okubo included the marriage index information in her response to KingsKid’s very specific request for President Obama’s index data. Specifically, I was confused as to why Okubo’s response would list “Bride†and “Groom†in Obama’s index file instead of “Mother†and “Fatherâ€.
Okubo’s response to KingsKid gives the impression that the names of Obama’s parents are included in that response – but it doesn’t have them listed as parents.
It has them listed only as bride and groom.
Knowing that the DoH has exhibited a penchant for misdirection, this raised a big red flag for me.
I asked KingsKid to write back to Okubo and have her clarify whether the index data made available to the public includes parentage or whether the information Okubo provided was from the index files of Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. I also suggested that KingsKid query Okubo as to whether a divorce would appear in the index file.
Below is the follow up inquiry sent by KingsKid to Okubo at 10:07PM EST, last night (Oct. 1, 2009):
Thank you for your response. However, I am a bit perplexed by the terms “bride†and “groomâ€, and would appreciate clarification. Is the “bride and groom†index data that you provided part of the President’s index file, or is it from Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr index files? Also, was the divorce of SAD and BOH, Sr. part of the 338-18(d) index data?
Thank you for your assistance once again.
And here is Okubo’s response:
From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid – real name redacted]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:29 PM Subject: RE: Clarificatio, Please
Aloha..,
I am sorry; I may have misunderstood your request. The “bride†and “groom†index data is from Stanley Ann Dunahm and Barack Hussein Obama index files.
The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
So now we know that the DoH doesn’t maintain divorce records. Those are maintained by the “Judiciaryâ€.
Beyond that, I just don’t know what to make of this at all. I can’t see how Okubo could have “misunderstood†the request. KingsKid was very specific:
“…I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.â€
It’s clear that KingsKid was asking only for the President’s index data, not for the index data of Stanley Ann and/or Barack Sr. Okubo’s response offered up information from multiple index files. But nowhere in the request does it make reference to anyone but the President.
Either, Communications Director Okubo did misunderstand the request, or she was trying to give the impression that the President’s index data lists the names of Stanley Ann and Barack Sr. as his parents.
I am truly baffled. Since when does the DoH give more information than was requested. Are we going to be subjected to Seussian Hooplah such as – It depends what the meaning of “parents†is – ?
I have to believe the President’s vital records will show that SAD and BHO are his biological parents. But Okubo’s response to KingsKid, Fukino’s “natural-born†determination, and the refusal by the DoH to enlighten the public as to Attorney General Mark Bennet’s approval thereof forces the need for public inquiry to reach much further.
Also, Okubo’s response misspells Stanley Ann’s last name as “Dunahm†while the index data misspells Stanley Ann’s name as “Dunhan“. Researchers visiting the Office of Health Status Monitoring will need to use multiple variations of the name “Dunham†in order to thoroughly search the public index data. Cue Twilight Zone theme. [UPDATED: 2:34 PM 10.02.09 – Okubo has taken responsibility for the spelling errors. They are a non-issue.]
And finally, it isn’t clear to us yet whether the index data provided by Okubo to KingsKid includes all of the index data available via 338-18(d) for Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. We need further clarification on that.
MAYA SOETORO
KingsKid also requested index data for Maya Soetoro, the President’s sister. Okubo’s response indicates that there is no record on file with the DoH in Hawaii for Maya. So, I believe we can safely put to bed all allegations that Obama’s online COLB was created using a COLB issued for Maya as a template.
Here is the request made by KingsKid on September 28, 2009 5:20 AM as to Maya:
As per Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18(d), I am herein requesting “index data†available to the public according to the statute, specifically the index data pertaining to a birth record for the person known as President Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro, aka Maya Kassandra Soetoro, aka Maya Soetoro-ng…
Below is Okubo’s response:
From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Information
Aloha…
There is no record that responds to this request.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
PROPER RESPONSE UNDER OIP ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
This response by Okubo illustrates the correct format Hawaii state agencies must comply with when the requested records are not maintained by an agency. (See OIP administrative rule §2-71-14(c)(1).) If the agency does not maintain the record they must inform the requestor that no such record exists.
All of this correspondence between Okubo and KingsKid is encouraging. It tells me that the DoH is aware of a growing public enlightenment concerning citizen knowledge of open government laws. It’s important now that we stay on point and get all of the information the law makes available to the public.
BASTIONS OF ELIGIBILITY BLOWIN’ IN THE WIND
I would like to point out that the two core bastions cited by members of Congress and the main stream media as providing credibility to Obama’s eligibility issues – Factcheck.org and the Hawaii Department of Health – have both been seriously impeached by the findings of this blog.
Not only was Factcheck.org forced to admit I caught them making a serious error as to their factchecking of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, they had to publish a second apologetic response due to their having mistakenly reported that I was a “former attorney†while I am fully licensed. Factcheck.org blamed their mistake on other news reports, but they certainly could have checked with me or the New Jersey court system had they been truly dedicated to getting their facts straight before publication.
Now the Hawaii DoH has been forced to back pedal from a previous pattern of issuing blanket denials of access to “all information†contained in Hawaii vital records.
My next report will analyze the legal means by which the public should gain access to President Obama’s vital records which have already been made public by him and the Hawaii DoH.
by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Copyright 2009 Leo C. Donofrio
All of the above is why I say, “Enough already! Just release the long form birth certificate!”
Pingback: We came across this totally crazy movie of Nibiru « Daniel-Saltman-Tylor
#8-There is no such thing as a long or short form birth certificate, just as there is no long or short form drivers licence or passport. Why don’t you try this experiment? It’s simple-anyone can do it at home. Write to the Health Department of the state you were born in and ask for a “long form birth certificate”. When you get it, come back and tell me what’s on it.
I already know because I did that for my daughter. What I got has the same info as Obama’s. Sorry to disappoint all the birthers who think there is some secret code or some such nonsense.
Pingback: talldantrace » L4D Preorder
Pingback: danielsaltman − L4D Order
more DOH/nbc related status update from natural born citizen
Leo Donofrio
« DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist.OKUBO CAUGHT AGAIN: Admits Providing False Information Regarding DoH Maintenance Of Divorce Records.
[UPDATE: 10:36 PM EST – Okubo answers KingsKid today (Saturday) – “No records exist” for Barry Soetoro. AND – Office of Health Status Monitoring under maintenance until 6:30 PM (Hawaii time) tonight Saturday 10.02.09 See my comment to this article for details. ]
In an amazing turn of events, the person in charge of communications at the Hawaii Department of Health – Communications Director Janice Okubo – has been forced to admit that part of her Oct 1, 2009 email to “KingsKid†was false.
I reported yesterday that Okubo stated the DoH does not hold divorce records. But later, reader KDSB commented that the Department of Health web site contradicts Okubo’s statement. They do maintain divorce records. From the DoH web site:
About Vital Records
Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health.
KingsKid had previously issued the following question to Okubo:
Is the “bride and groom†index data that you provided part of the President’s index file, or is it from Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr index files? Also, was the divorce of SAD and BOH, Sr. part of the 338-18(d) index data?
Okubo’s response:
From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid – real name redacted]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:29 PM Subject: RE: Clarificatio, Please
Aloha..,
I am sorry; I may have misunderstood your request. The “bride†and “groom†index data is from Stanley Ann Dunahm [sic] and Barack Hussein Obama index files.
The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
That was a blatant lie. They do – in fact – hold divorce records. They do – in fact – hold the divorce records for both Stanley Ann Dunham divorces. It’s absurd to even consider Okubo wasn’t aware that the DoH held those infamous records.
When called to task by KingsKid, Okubo provided an answer which is not credible:
From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid-real name redacted]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 6:55PM
Subject: RE: Clarification, Please
Our Office does not maintain an index for divorce records. We only have divorce records from the courts between July 1951 to December 2002. All other divorce records are kept in the court where the divorce took place. My apologies for the misinformation on the website, our staff will work on updating those pages.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
This is insanity.
Okubo’s original response to the divorce question didn’t mention “an index for divorce recordsâ€. It simply stated, “The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.â€
How does the Communications Director overlook 51 years of divorce records on file with her office?
This is more Seussian hooplah. The DoH maintains records of divorce and all vital events. Information from those records is maintained as index data per registrant. Her Seussian hooplah response was that they do not maintain “an index for divorce records“. She’s essentially telling you her answer depends on what the meaning of index is.
She may call the directory of divorce records whatever she likes in her native tongue of Seussian hooplah, but divorce records maintained by the DoH must be listed in a file for each registrant. The only misinformation here are the words birthed from her bent keyboard.
And when exposed, Okubo inexplicably blamed the error on the DoH web site. But it’s Okubo who is directly responsible for the misinformation. The DoH web site accurately states that the DoH maintains divorce records. The web site makes clear that a divorce is a vital event.
Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d) commands the DoH to make the following information available to the public:
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
I have news for the people running this psyop: it’s over. And things don’t usually end well for the guppies. Your masters will feed you to the giant before they ever take the fall. This is not Tokyo Rose psychobabble. Giant is awake. Giant will prevail. It’s just a matter of time.
by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Copyright 2009
Hey!
Whether he’s born here or not, he’s gonna be in office for awhile, whether we like it or not- the Establishment will make sure he’ll stay in (and be successful at it), until we get a shot at the 2012 elections.
You are incorrect, Cody. President Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012, I predict, because the masses of the people are going to make sure of it. The Obama-Biden Administration is actually in the process of bringing about relief to the many poor and middle-class people who were, during the eight years of the Bush-Cheney Administration, trampled upon.
Regarding the birth certificate slander, I do not even pay attention to it anymore; as, hopefully, you are not either.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/okubo-caught-again-admits-providing-false-information-regarding-doh-maintenance-of-divorce-records/#comments
more from natural born citizen blog — Leo Donofrio Editor citizen attorney
[ed. The OIP will get their chance first. They have the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings. I think Okubo got tripped up on her own Seussian hooplah by trying to parse the words “hold” and “maintain”. The records of divorce from 2002 onwards are aparrently “held” by the judiciary… but I believe the DoH still maintains them in that they control access to them in some manner. That’s the law in Hawaii… you don’t have to actually “hold” records to “maintain”. If you exercise any authority over them, then the law says you “maintain” them. She tried to parse her answer to KingsKid and she tripped over her own tongue. This is what happens when people lie to the giant…the giant just has too many eyes, ears and noses… Seriously, it’s on now. We know for certain that there’s a cover up at the DoH… It may just be that they don’t want us to have closure on the place of birth… and it doesn’t matter. One way or another we will have closure. They are starting to sweat over there. It’s just a matter of which guppy comes forward first.]
Hey vanfraudster:
If you and your birther/teabagger pals like D’Onofrio and Taitz are such sticklers for the Constitution, how come we didn’t hear from you when Bush and Cheney were shredding it with torture, detention without trial and other criminal activities?