Leo Donofrio appears to have Hawaii by the Short Hairs, page 1

Let me begin with this disclaimer:

Yes, this is Yet Another "Birther" Thread

But this is one with a twist. Leo Donofrio, in conjunction with "TerriK" firmly believes that BHO WAS Born in Hawaii.

This series of posts on Donofrio's site explains and documents exactly why Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino, DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo and Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennet have clearly broken the laws of the state of Hawaii.

There is a LOT of information, from the step by step process that led to the investigation, and the Laws that are being broken. Way too much to do justice to in a little blurb, so I invite you all to follow the links (in order, I recommend) and read up on what is happening.

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.

Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places Her Thumb Directly In The Giant’s Eye.

TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama.

TerriK INVESTIGATION: Foreshadowing

TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law.

If you find the investigation intriguing, keep checking back at Leo Donofrio's blog for more updates as things progress.

reply to post by redhatty

---

I am going to go through this step by step along with Leo Donofrio and show why this (again) is ridiculous and a frivolous lawsuit.

1.TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.

Vital statistics records are not a part of the law that Donofrio claims. These records are private documents. Protected in part by the 4th amendment of the united states constitution which clearly states...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(Emphasis mine)

Furthermore, because Leo Donofrio is not next of kin to Obama, he has no legitimate claim to view private records. A birth certificate is not a public record. Therefore does not fall under CHAPTER 92F UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT

Furthermore §92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. states clearly...

This part shall not require disclosure of:

(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;...

...(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure;...

Birth records are not a part of this law. You or I cannot get birth certificates for anyone but next of kin. You have to prove your relationship to the person in order to get a birth certificate.

2.Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places Her Thumb Directly In The Giant’s Eye.

In this part, they are trying to get a hold of Obama's index record. Donofrio strangely enough doesn't seem to understand that Hawaiian law dictates that no Government record which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy are protected from disclosure. Obviously Donofrio, trying to skirt the laws of the state of Hawaii to illegally attempt to gain access to personal records of Obama, including the birth certificate. He just does not understand that some records are private. Wanting instead to try and dig up

www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

he is clearly doing this for illegal means and for an illegal purpose, so there i sno need for the Hawaii DoH to provide him with any information that would further his agenda.

Donofrio again is not next of kin, he does not have a legitimate right to this information. Instead he is trying to get this information through illicit and illegal means.

Just because he believes his idiotic case makes sense, doesn't mean it's legal. I think that from what I have shown you here you will understand when this case falls on it's face.

reply to post by whatukno

---

Obviously you still have a LOT more reading to do. No where does it claim that there is a lawsuit.

Keep going, I look forward to you getting to part 3 and debunking it

ETA: Going back over your post, I see that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.

None of these requests were even made by Leo Donofrio, they were made by TerriK. She simply shared what she went through with Donofrio & he looked into the situation.

All he has done since is to report on what he AS A LICENSED ATTORNEY has learned. Basically he is making full disclosure before any administrative or judicial action has even been filed.

But, you are so intent on debunking that you cannot even read the plain english information being presented to you.

[edit on 10/2/09 by redhatty]

I believe there's a thread on this here.

I have attempted to state the initial accusation more simply. Please let me know if I have made a error.

1. Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino made a statement saying that she had seen Obama's "vital records" and that he was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen.

2. Someone named TerriK deduced that any definition of natural born citizen must refer to his parents' place of birth because Fukino used the word "vital records" (plural) instead of "birth certificate" (singular). TerriK assumed that Hawaii has more "records" of Obama and his family that determine his status of NBC (natural born citizen).

3. Since Fukino said she had seen Obama's “vital records”, TerriK additionally assumed that President Obama’s original birth certificate must have been changed in some way. Because if it hadn't, she would have only viewed the birth certificate and wouldn't have said "vital records".

4. TerriK did a bunch of research into the UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) of Hawaii. Going on the assumption that Obama's birth certificate had indeed been amended, she then requested to see the UIPA records on that amendment, not knowing whether they existed or whether they (like the birth certificate) were protected under any privacy statutes or the Constitution.

5. She was told by Fukino that state law (referencing statute 338) prohibits the disclosure of any information about a vital record unless she had a "direct and tangible interest.

6. Scouring Statute 338, Donofrio found and informed TerriK of the following in Statute 338-18(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. and based on this, TerriK took Fukino’s statement in #5 above as an intentionally and blatantly false statement. It is TerriK’s contention that Fukino should have made her aware of this specific subsection, and in failing to do so, was blatantly lying and “misdirecting”.

7. Based on the above, Donofrio is making the following statement:

The public is entitled, with no exception provided by law, to examine all index data referred to in HRS 338-18(d) pertaining to each and every vital record on file in the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could go on, and I probably will, but this is clearly a house built on a very faulty foundation. Here are a few observations I would make regarding the 7 points above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. While the term “vital records” is plural, it is commonly used to indicate ANY one of the vital records that a state might hold. If one Googles the singular, “vital record”, all returns are in the plural. It’s a generic term that encompasses birth certificates, marriage licenses, divorce decrees and death records, etc. Saying "I have seen his vital records" could very well be the equivalent of "I have seen his birth certificate".

2. The deductions and assumptions begin. There is no indication that the “vital records” that Fukino spoke of include records about Obama’s parents. In fact, there is no real indication that any additional records exist, except for Fukino’s use of the term “vital records”. She may have been referring to his parents' marriage and divorce records, as they would also be in Hawaii.

3. Another assumption. Based on a deduction. And a HUGE assumption at that. I would go so far as to call it a fabrication.

4. A request for information that might exist, based on a HUGE assumption that is based on a deduction of a layman.

5. Fukino references Statute 338, which clearly includes subsection 338-18(d), which gives the Director authorization over what information can be released. Donofrio and TerriK are TOTALLY ignoring this important part of the clause.

6. Because Fukino did not explicitly refer TerriK to the subsection of the statute that Fukino referenced, she is assumed (another assumption) to be lying and misdirecting. That’s like me telling someone to read the thread and being accused of lying and misdirection because I didn’t point out a particular post.

Also, TerriK is clearly not requesting simple information such as the name, sex or type of vital event (birth) that 338-18(d) says shall be released to the public. We already have that.

7. Because they are totally ignoring the power of the Director to authorize released information (included in the statute, which is law), Donofrio makes the statement that the world is entitled by law to ALL information related to Obama’s birth certificate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the foundation of this “case” is SO faulty and full of deductions, assumptions and holes, I have no expectation that this will go anywhere. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Donofrio ends up in the same hot water that Ms. Orly Taitz now finds herself in for fabricating and bringing frivolous lawsuits if he does indeed pursue this.

damwel, I appreciate your sentiment, but some of us truly enjoy bumping this stuff around... seeing what's there and what isn't there.

Next, according to the second link in the OP:

1. “A citizen” made a request to the Hawaii Dept of Health for the “index data” pertaining to Barack Obama’s vital records. Communications Director, Janice Okubo responded that Hawaii state law prohibits them from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requester has a direct and tangible interest in the record. She stated that that includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. She cited Statute 338-18(b) which reads:

The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.

Statute 338-18(b) goes on to list people who have a “direct and tangible interest”, none of which this citizen apparently is.

Further, Janice Okubo states, “This concludes our responses to your questions, no further response will be provided.”

2. For reference 338-18(d) says:

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.

What is “index data” in this context? It’s data that would be used to look up (or index) a vital statistic in a database to make the document easy to find. For example, name and gender (sex) are index data. In this specific instance, the index data would be "Barack Hussein Obama, male". A birth certificate would be listed under the name and sex of the person born. In the DOH database, a qualified employee could look up Obama’s birth certificate by entering his name and gender. Another example: date. A birth certificate would be listed under the date of the person born. So, in the DOH database, a qualified employee could request all the birth certificates (type of vital statistic) of boys (sex) born on Aug 4, 1961 (date). These are index data.

Source1
Source2

Donofrio concludes that since index data (name, sex and type of event) is information available to the public and Okubo said that state law prohibits them from disclosing any information, that she is lying and misdirecting, because index data is information. Truth is, we already have the name, sex, date and type of vital record. In addition, the Director has authorized that the fact that Obama is a natural born citizen also be released.

3. Referring to the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) of Hawaii on disclosure of government records, Donofrio quotes a paragraph on page 10:

The UIPA requires agencies to disclose all “government records.” This term is defined broadly to include any information maintained by an agency that is recorded in any physical form.

He neglects to state, though, to whom this information is to be disclosed. This is covered on page 8 of the SAME document:

The UIPA governs both: (1) the public’s right to access government records; and (2) the individual’s right to access and correct his or her personal records maintained by the government.

There is no indication that the public has a right to access personal records. So, it is not true that this document grants public access to any and all government records as Mr. Donofrio is trying to assert.

And may I state that Mr. Donofrio is an ATTORNEY. It would seem to me that he would know what "index data" is...

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

I'm quite sure that Leo Donofrio knows exactly what Index Data is :-)

A surprising reversal on the part of the State of Hawaii

DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist.

All the information is in the link, short recap...

Hawaii released the index data on Barack Hussein Obama II

They also released index data on the marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham & Barack Hussein Obama

They have no data on Maya Soetoro(-Ng) edit to correct: This end the myth of Maya's Hawaiian BC, it does not & never did exist.

Strange that the divorce index data was not also disclosed (even though neighter the marriage or divorce were requested :lol

No date was given as part of the index data.

[edit on 10/2/09 by redhatty]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

This is classic conspiracy behavior. Nothing is going to be good enough, unless of course the "authorities" make sure to give the data that confirms the theory.

Otherwise there is a cover up and a conspiracy.

Reading the rest of the OP "barf" it seems that Donofrio was counting on the DOH denying information in order to legitimize his theory that some illegitimate government conspiracy cover up going on.

Now the theory is that because there is not statistical data of the divorce and remarriage of Obama's mother somehow there is a cover up going on and Obama is still not qualified to be President.

Now that it's confirmed through the index data that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, it's not going to be good enough. Because of course there was a divorce in Obama's life which somehow nullifies the fact that he was born on American soil.

Because that's the issue now right? Not that his mother was an American citizen that birthed Obama in Hawaii an American state, but that his mother divorced his father and married another man AFTER Obama was born. Thereby nullifying any Jus Soli that Obama might have enjoyed, and instantly making him an illegal alien. Thereby making Obama's presidency illegal and thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that our democratically elected president is ineligible because of a decision that his mother made after the fact that he was born.

reply to post by redhatty

---

Thanks for that clarification. Do you know why Donofrio thinks that dual citizenship would disqualify Obama? Is it the British citizenship? Is he citing the British Nationality Act?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

I'll let his own blog posts answer that question

First one

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...

Edit to make 1st link work


[edit on 10/4/09 by redhatty]

reply to post by redhatty

---

So, it looks like Donofrio is depending on:

1. A specific interpretation of the Constitutional requirements and reading the minds of the founding fathers as the basis of his claim. The simplest explanation for the "grandfather clause" is that none of the colonists were natural born citizens and so they had to allow for themselves to be among the first presidents. If they had wanted to exclude dual citizens, I believe they would have done so.

2. The word "governed" written on Factsheck.org

(It's funny how these guys will source FactCheck.org when it agrees with them, but blow it off as being in Obama's pocket when it doesn't... and further, they act like Obama himself wrote the FactCheck piece.)

From your first link, talking about the FactCheck piece:

Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

Barack (or Brack) Obama did not write the FactCheck piece.

3. The idea that British Citizenship Law applies to US citizens.

...foreign citizenship makes no difference under US law if one is also a US citizen.
...
A "dual citizen" has no special status in the US by virtue of holding citizenship in some other country too.

US Dual Citizenship FAQ

How could another country's laws apply to US citizens? If Barack Obama wanted to relocate to Britain, then his British Citizenship (such as it is and if it exists) would apply to him as far as Britain is concerned. So, it might be easier for him to take a residence there than someone who doesn't carry this citizenship. But to the US, it matters NOT.

And I'm not at all sure that he still holds British Citizenship of any kind. Once again, Donofrio is leaving out important parts of the documents he refers to:

Donofrio V Factcheck

The corresponding legislation in the UK is the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 (KIA):

(2) Save as provided by section 3 [section dealing with certain women] of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day [the date of Kenyan independence] is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

This is the crucial text from the KIA that Donofrio inexcusably omits (could it be from a lack of objectivity?), although he does cite other parts of the Act.

In other words, any person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and becomes a citizen of Kenya via Kenya's independence, ceases to become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

This is something I'm starting to see from Donofrio. He omits phrases and points that don't serve his purpose. Why? Because he has become awfully popular since this all came about. He is not being objective in the least. He's finding data that serves his cause and ignoring that which doesn't. And this isn't the first time.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, it looks like Donofrio is depending on:

1. A specific interpretation of the Constitutional requirements and reading the minds of the founding fathers as the basis of his claim. The simplest explanation for the "grandfather clause" is that none of the colonists were natural born citizens and so they had to allow for themselves to be among the first presidents. If they had wanted to exclude dual citizens, I believe they would have done so.

Throughout his blog & previous court cases, he has well documented prior legal opinion regarding the NBC clause. Personally I believe that the whole purpose of the NBC clause was to exclude dual citizenship. Why else would there be that one standard that differs for POTUS and not any other elected office?

2. The word "governed" written on Factsheck.org

(It's funny how these guys will source FactCheck.org when it agrees with them, but blow it off as being in Obama's pocket when it doesn't... and further, they act like Obama himself wrote the FactCheck piece.)

disingenuous there BH, I don't know who you are referring to in your term "these guys." I only mention Leo Donofrio in this thread.

From your first link, talking about the FactCheck piece:

Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

Barack (or Brack) Obama did not write the FactCheck piece.

Maybe not, but Obama's site, Fight the Smears, linked directly to that factcheck article, as well as the original statement on Fight the Smears that admitted he he was a British Citizen at birth.

How could another country's laws apply to US citizens? If Barack Obama wanted to relocate to Britain, then his British Citizenship (such as it is and if it exists) would apply to him as far as Britain is concerned. So, it might be easier for him to take a residence there than someone who doesn't carry this citizenship. But to the US, it matters NOT.

except as it may affect a person's natural born citizen status.

If I interpret the term "Natural Born Citizen" correctly it implies, by virtue of the words chosen to create the term, that absolutely nothing has to be done, no amendment applied, no expiration of anything else, absolutely NOTHING has to be applied to define or complete the citizen's status.

And I'm not at all sure that he still holds British Citizenship of any kind. Once again, Donofrio is leaving out important parts of the documents he refers to:

Donofrio V Factcheck

The corresponding legislation in the UK is the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 (KIA):

(2) Save as provided by section 3 [section dealing with certain women] of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day [the date of Kenyan independence] is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

This is the crucial text from the KIA that Donofrio inexcusably omits (could it be from a lack of objectivity?), although he does cite other parts of the Act.

In other words, any person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and becomes a citizen of Kenya via Kenya's independence, ceases to become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Splitting hairs, regardless of Kenyan or British, the fact remains that Obama was born as a dual citizen, because his father was never a US citizen. Mind you, Fight the Smears also admitted that Obama was a British Citizen at birth. You would think that Obama knew what he was, right?

This is something I'm starting to see from Donofrio. He omits phrases and points that don't serve his purpose. Why? Because he has become awfully popular since this all came about. He is not being objective in the least. He's finding data that serves his cause and ignoring that which doesn't. And this isn't the first time.

He has a comment section at the bottom of each and every blog post, you might try using it to point out the things you think he is selectively ignoring.

I am interested to see how this all plays out in the end. I have also seen where it was shown that Obama would NOT have inherited British Citizenship at birth due to the fact that the Dunham/Obama Sr marriage was a void marriage, since Obama Sr was guilty of bigamy when he married Stanley Ann Dunham.

Funny thing though, being an illegitimate child would actually end the question completely, since only his mother would then be pertinent in his citizenship.

Or maybe not, since Obama Sr is actually listed on the BC

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
By "these guys", I'm referring to all those who use Factcheck and Fight the Smears as a source when it's convenient and then slam them as being unreliable when it's not. There are many besides Donofrio.

If the whole purpose of the NBC clause was to exclude dual citizenship, wouldn't the obvious course of action have been to SAY that? You have your opinions about what they meant. But no proof.

I would imagine that it would depend on when the terminology "dual citizenship" came into popular use. I have found nothing from the 1776 timeframe that uses that particular term.

It seems that 1866 was the first time a court dealt with the issue, and the wording is pretty clear, even though it does not include the term "dual citizenship"

Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).

If it never came up before, I'm not sure he would know. He's a Constitutional Lawyer, but not of the Kenyan Constitution and British Nationality Acts. Why would he know or care about their laws?

Complete speculation on my part: He seems to have spent quite a bit of time researching his father and his life in Kenya for his books, do you really think that someone as intelligent as Obama seems to be would simply overlook things like how the different nationality his father had would have affected him?

So, you're still claiming that the US has a special designation for people who are born dual citizens, even though they were born on US soil? And that designation is "citizen at birth", but NOT "natural born citizen". Is that correct?

Citizen at birth or native born citizen is something completely different than natural born citizen, yes I still hold to that. I have good solid precedent.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 stated "the children of citizens [ed. note the plural of citizens] of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".

Yet even today, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) which lists 10 different types of categories of person who are United States citizens from birth, makes specific differentiation between a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and every other category.

Just as a person born in Puerto Rico or any of the other territories of the United States are citizens from birth, but not natural born citizens.

During the original debate over the 14th amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”Source

Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Source 1 Source 2

So you tell me, how can someone of dual citizenship be under "full and complete jurisdiction" of the United States and yet still be under the jurisdiction of another country?

edit to fix tags

[edit on 10/4/09 by redhatty]

DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags

US threatens Sweden with watch list sanctions if they don’t prosecute The Pirate Bay.
  Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags

The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 1 days ago with 18 member flags

Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags

ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags

There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 10 days ago with 10 member flags

Medical Scientists & Doctors Finally Stand Up To The Feds: Suing Them For Spying
  Posted 12 days ago with 7 member flags

WW2 US mutiny in Australia by African-Americans soldiers uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: