It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Obama BC Case: Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:05 PM

Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court
to get involved at the time of the election, is reporting on his website that Hawaiian state law requires "information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public" be released.

Strongly recommend readers view this link, and read all the follow up comments, which raise as many good questions, and get as many good answers from Leo, as the story itself:

But in a nutshell:

Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.


Hawaii has been caught blatantly circumventing their own laws; laws specifically created to foster open government practices.

and critically that:

I will provide legal research and relevant examples of official correspondence in my follow up report and press release at this blog. TerriK has previously provided details of her investigation and correspondence with the state of Hawaii in comments to this and other blogs. She has also authorized me to speak publicly about her case and to provide the public with all relevant correspondence.

Furthermore, Hawaii officials - upon denying TerriK access to information requested – were required by statute to inform her of a right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance to her. Section 92F-15.5(b) states:

(b)… If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]

The OIP failed to notify TerriK of her right to a judicial appeal. Instead, the OIP simply told her that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help her any further.

We will bring this litigation according to the following statute provision:

§92F-15 Judicial enforcement.

(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.

(b) In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.

(c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.

Please take note of subsection (c) above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.

With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.

So basically, TerriK is being denied the information which backs the basis by which a public statement was made. And which by Hawaii's own laws are REQUIRED to be released to the public.

Another important point is also raised in that blog: Obama relinquished any claim to personal privacy of his BC with the release of his short form BC to So the obvious question still remains. And that point clearly refutes this:

Department spokesman Janice Okubo told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure.

At the core of this particular case is this:

Under the state's law addressing records. exceptions are made for government records that would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.

But it explains that disclosure "shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual."

Now considering in this case that Obama's very Presidency is riding on this, and that every single US citizen has a right to expect that their President is indeed legitimate, I cannot see how in the world one could argue that Obama's personal interest outweighs the public's right to know.

A full release of all of TerriK's communications with the two Hawaii offices is forthcoming from Leo, and is to be on his blog in the next few days. Interesting situation, for sure. And note: Leo is providing the attorney services to TerriK PRO BONO (Free).

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:44 PM
A Leo response to one of his blog comments:

Jacqlyn Smith Says:
September 21, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Leo…is this similar to what Andy Martin was trying to do when he went to Hawaii a couple of times……maybe he didn’t have the correct statues to pursue the information???

[ed. This is not the same thing. It involves information that TerriK figured out for herself...then she went with her analysis, requested the amendments as if she knew they existed and by doing this she put the DoH between a rock and a hard place. Instead of answering her request honestly (which the OIP originally did) the DoH attempted to confuse her and in doing so they revealed their hand. I'm very impressed with TerriK and how she went about this. It was a work of genius deduction... on more than one issue. She also studied the statutes and realized that Fukino's statements were covered by the statue. Very impressed. It's an honor to work with her on this.]


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:45 PM
Great, they will not provide anyone a copy of Obama's BC not because it was forged or doesn't exist but because Hawaii's laws do not allow for disclosure of personal medical information it falls under exception 1 the Hiwaii's Open Record Law (page 16-17) and here outlines who is eligible for access to vital records.

He is an American citizen get over it. He won the election, he will lead the country until the next election at least.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:46 PM
So what effect, if any, does Obama's signing of the document that does not allow any information to be released have on this? Does Obama's document (don't know what it is called) supersede Hawaii law?

And as for the amended birth certificate...I will have to see that the person who made the statement does it openly.

There have been too many seemingly falsified documents, BO's possible real birth certificate included, to take this with more than a grain of salt.

None the less...part of me still believes he isn't legal.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:46 PM
With all of the serious issues going on in the world that you could be devoting your energy to , why do you guys focus on this BS?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:50 PM

You need to read the OP again please, there is a counter to that already there.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
With all of the serious issues going on in the world that you could be devoting your energy to , why do you guys focus on this BS?

Ehem, but what could be more serious than someone attempting to (and succeeding) to falsely obtain the highest office arguably in the world, rendering all legislation, laws, and executive orders he has signed, not to mention all the orders given to the military, ILLEGAL? I'd say that's pretty damn serious, friend. And people are dying right now over those orders.

[edit on Wed Sep 23rd 2009 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by EyesWideShut

With all of the serious issues going on in the world that you could be devoting your energy to , why do you guys focus on this BS? you are quite happy to have someone who has his entire history sealed, therefore is virtually unknown making drastic policy decisions and addressing the UN today? Might as well have voted the cleaner in.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

The thing you guys kill me with and fail to see is Obama is 1 man... ONE PERSON... You guys make it out like he's friggin Darth Vadar running around the Death Star shouting commands. How much power do you HONESTLY think the president really has?... Obama is just a PR guy for the Government , no more no less. Do you REALLY think he would be in office if TPTB didn't want him there?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by oneclickaway

If you wan to find out who REALLY has the Juice , go figure out where his top campaign contributions came from...

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:01 PM
I don't give a tinker's damn what he is or how much power he may or may not have.

He and his wrecking crew have spent a ****load of money and effort to conceal EVERYTHING about his past.

If in fact he's so QUALIFIED, then why spend millions concealing the fact?

This guy stinks to high heaven.

And this won't be over - ever - until the matter is demonstrated conclusively.

God Almighty.

How difficult can it be to show a damn birth certificate?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by dooper

Dooper I respect your opinion on Most things , but I think you're a lil "High & to the Right" on this one. If no birth certificate existed and if this whole thing actually had any legs then don't you think maybe McCain's or Hillary's people would have got a hold of it and would have exploited it? C'mon man.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

They were not denying her access to the records as listed in the open records law but in reference to §338-18 which does not require the DOH to supply direct statues showing why the request was denied.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by EyesWideShut

Yeah, maybe I am high and to the right. Tend to shoot that way too, so I compensate.

If WE can't get that access, then what makes you think Hillary's people could get access?

Keep in mind, for the bulk of her campaign, she had the nomination in the bag.

This guy came out of nowhere!

Leaving little time for digging.

And now they won't allow ANY digging.


Behavior characteristics such as this from any other person in the world would indicate concealment.

Of course Obama is above reproach, and we're supposed to take his word for everything that comes out of his mouth.

Not me.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by EyesWideShut

You've overlooked one important thing:

He's a WILLING participant.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:37 AM
Hasn't WND been discredited enough for everyone to know that it's a bull dunk right wing nutcase website?

Just saying.

I'm personally tired of this debate, it's been debunked left and right, and it's not going to go anywhere. No super secret disclosure is coming, Obama will most likely be out in the next election and another sham figurehead will be put in.

This obsession with the BC is ridiculous, and unfounded. The people that are putting forth these silly lawsuits won't get anywhere because they keep on trying to bring it up to the Supreme Court instead of Congress where something could be done about it.

If the people that come up with this idiocy can't even grasp how to remove a sitting elected official, what does that say about their argument in general?

top topics


log in