It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Leo Donofrio appears to have Hawaii by the Short Hairs

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty

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).


According to that, if birth and allegiance go together, and Obama was born in the US, then his allegiance is to the US, not to the country of his father's citizenship.

Do you recognize that people cannot be forced to follow conflicting laws of 2 different countries?



...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?


I have no way of knowing that. His study of his father seems to be of the person he was, not the legal citizenship of his father.



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".


The word "children" is plural, too. The plural of citizen has no special significance in this case.



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.


And Obama was born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are you thinking that Obama was NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US by way of his father's citizenship? He was.



“persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”


And do you think Obama fits that category, being born to one US citizen and one non-citizen? Do you think Obama is a foreigner, alien, or belongs to the family of an ambassador or foreign minister? Is there ANY reason to believe that?



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?


They cannot. That's my point. He was born in the US and under full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.

Dual citizenship means that the laws of two countries consider him a citizen. It does NOT mean that he holds allegiance to two countries. A subtle but very important distinction.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you recognize that people cannot be forced to follow conflicting laws of 2 different countries?

And Obama was born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are you thinking that Obama was NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US by way of his father's citizenship? He was.

[They cannot. That's my point. He was born in the US and under full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.

Dual citizenship means that the laws of two countries consider him a citizen. It does NOT mean that he holds allegiance to two countries. A subtle but very important distinction.


Sorry, I know that is your opinion, but US law does not agree with you


dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.

US State Department

Just prio to that quote, the State Department does acknowledge, "The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance. "

But a stronger claim does not equal " full and complete jurisdiction of the United States." No matter how much you want it to.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Well, it would appear that Okubo was being rather playful with the truth yet again. Just as she stated that no paper records existed when they do, just not since 2002. She also stated that no divorce records were held, when in fact they are, just not from 2002.



Okubo’s original response to the divorce question didn’t mention “an index for divorce records”. It simply stated, “The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.”


When questioned on this Okubo emailed back;



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.




naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...



So let's just pretend 51 years of divorce records don't exist, just like all the original paper birth certificates. If anyone still doubts that something is extremely wrong with this whole certificate hiding question, then I fear for you.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


I stand corrected, I had never seen that before regarding dual citizenship. In fact, I had read just the opposite.

Still, he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies until he was 2.

Now. being that you put a lot of weight on what the framers meant, do you think they meant to exclude from presidential eligibility, a person who was born on US soil to a US citizen and held a dual citizenship through blood ONLY to another country until they were 2 years old? (Because their discussion was mostly about giving US citizenship to "Indians".)

I realize you're talking about the 14th amendment (which describes citizenship). But if we take your premise, that Obama wasn't under the "full and complete jurisdiction of the US", then he wasn't even conferred a US citizenship at birth, because he wasn't under the full jurisdiction of the US. Is that what you're saying?

Are you saying that Barack Obama is a naturalized citizen?

I mean you can wiggle through all these words, but in the end, there are only two kinds of US citizenship. Natural born and naturalized.



The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, "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." This makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth - that is, they are not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes.

At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (1868), it also excluded Aboriginal Americans because they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, thus, were not American citizens. Congress declared it policy to extend citizenship to all Aboriginal peoples in 1924, which was realized in 1968 with the Indian Civil Rights Act.[9]

This interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States was formally established in 1898 by a 6-2 decision the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In that case, the Court found the petitioner had been born in the United States and therefore became a U.S. citizen. This could not be revoked because his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth, or because they made several trips to China after it.[10]


We MUST take into account the purpose of adding the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. It was to exclude children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes.

That does not describe Obama.

So, what kind of citizen (if any) is Barack Obama? I really want your answer to that question.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


*I think* that BHO is a citizen at birth, not a natural born citizen. And it could be argued that he is a de-facto naturalized citizen, but that is not an argument that I would prefer to debate.

You maintain that there are only 2 types of citizens, Natural born & naturalized. *I think* there are 3 types, Natural Born, Statutory(or native born), and naturalized.

I know we disagree there, but that would really be a debate for another thread
This one is really about Donofrio's actions v Hawaii.

Obama would, IMHO, fall as a Statutory citizen because it took the expiration of time (age 18) for him to "lose" his British Citizenship and become only a US citizen. Even though it too no action on his part, other than living long enough, it still required *something else* to put him under the sole jurisdiction of the US, kind of a de-facto naturalization.

In a sense, it specifically took no action on his part, in that he had to NOT confirm his British (or Kenyan) Citizenship and allow it to expire as he turn 18 yo.

It is my personal opinion that for one to be considered a "natural born citizen" that it requires absolutely nothing else for that person to be a full, complete, under the sole jurisdiction of the US, Citizen.

ETA: Donofrio did an excellent write up on the Wong Kim Ark ruling, I'll refer you to it for your consideration.

[edit on 10/5/09 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I'm going to ask this again in hopes that you answer it.


Being that you put a lot of weight on what the framers meant, do you think they meant to exclude from presidential eligibility, a person who was born on US soil to a US citizen and held a second citizenship through blood ONLY?

And if we're going to talk about the framer's intent, let's talk about whether or not they intended for a black man to be the president... I mean, the framer's intent is sometimes of irrelevant when we consider that.

There's no doubt in my mind that, being born IN THE USA, to one citizen and one legal resident, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. I do not think his citizenship though blood matters. His allegiance and birth go together, as you said. He has never had an allegiance to Kenya, let alone Britain.

And we could argue it all year (I think we have!
) and we are not going to be able to come to a definitive answer because we simply don't have a definition of the phrase "natural born citizen".

So, what we need to do now, since there's no way to know the framers' true intent and since we know that their intentions did not always reflect the best judgment, is to determine a definition for Natural born citizen and nail this down now.

Or else the Supreme Court could declare him an NBC. That would be unfortunate unless they added a definition of the term that we could use from this point forward.

Donofrio isn't going to get ANYWHERE with this. If the Supreme Court hears this (BIG IF), they going to declare Obama an NBC. We already know that.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm going to ask this again in hopes that you answer it.


Being that you put a lot of weight on what the framers meant, do you think they meant to exclude from presidential eligibility, a person who was born on US soil to a US citizen and held a second citizenship through blood ONLY?

And if we're going to talk about the framer's intent, let's talk about whether or not they intended for a black man to be the president... I mean, the framer's intent is sometimes of irrelevant when we consider that.


I think the framers were clear enough in saying "Natural Born Citizen" Since I think over the past year
we have learned each other's opinions of what an NBC is.

Just because the framers could not "envision" a free black man, does not mean that their intent is irrelevant, again you are being disingenuous. The framers also instituted a method to amend the constitution as the country felt it was needed, like the 14th amendment.

The framers never envisioned women voting either, does that make the rest of their intent irrelevant? I doubt they ever envisioned a female president, but that will happen too, does that make the rest of their effort irrelevant?


There's no doubt in my mind that, being born IN THE USA, to one citizen and one legal resident, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. I do not think his citizenship though blood matters. His allegiance and birth go together, as you said. He has never had an allegiance to Kenya, let alone Britain.


And that is your opinion. Since neither of us are in a position to make a precedent ruling from a bench, our opinions are simply ours.

And the country is divided between those who share your opinion & those who share mine. That alone is a sad state of affairs.

I don't think the framers ever anticipated having this situation either!


So, what we need to do now, since there's no way to know the framers' true intent and since we know that their intentions did not always reflect the best judgment, is to determine a definition for Natural born citizen and nail this down now.


Yes this is true! And I truly believe that this is Donofrio's goal. But the first obstacle to tackle is to definitively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii (and stop that argument from the "birthers") and to positively prove who is listed as his parents on his legal birth certificate.

Now I know you have no doubts as to who his parents are, frankly neither do I, but we both know how many different CT's the "birthers" have running, from Malcolm X is his father to the Kenyan Birth, to the Soetoro "adoption".

Donofrio is trying to eliminate all other possibilities by proving what can be proven, so that the only question left is the Dual Citizenship and Natural Born Status.

Maybe he will be successful, maybe that will happen long after Obama is out of office, I don't know & neither does anyone else, but the question needs to be answered & answered definitively.

The precedent set with Obama in office, as a child born of Dual Nationality, leads to the possible future scenario of say, Osama Bin Laden fathering a child to a US citizen and that child eventually being able to run for, and become President. While that child may be a dual citizen in blood only, there is no way for us to really determine where that child's loyalties would truly lie, now is there?

Remember, there really is very little we know about Obama & his life, youth and influences during such. What is coming out, is managing to even scare his prior supporters in many cases. Remember that judge me by who I surround myself by statement???


Donofrio isn't going to get ANYWHERE with this. If the Supreme Court hears this (BIG IF), they going to declare Obama an NBC. We already know that.


Maybe, maybe not, it's way too early to tell for certain. We can only wait and see.

ETA: I thought you might enjoy reading this theory from an oped on the Post & email


WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED

Stanely Ann Dunham at a Friday night party on Nov. 4, 1960, meets Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., and Barry Jr. is subsequently conceived.

Stanley Ann enrolls in the Russian Language course to give her a more reasonable motive for meeting Barrack Hussein Obama. She subsequently admits to her mother that he is the father, and Madelyn Dunham insists on a civil marriage to protect her daughter’s honor.

But as the months pass Madelyn cannot accept what she perceives as the shame that will occur when her grandchild is born, showing evident signs of an interracial marriage.

Stanley Ann also discovers that Barrack Hussein Obama has a first wife, and that her marriage to him in Hawaii is bigamous and invalid.

So mother and daughter plan to have the birth at home; and Stanley Ann stops seeing Obama Sr..

Barry is born Aug. 4, 1961.

A few days later Madelyn submits an at home birth form, with her own signature. Stanley Ann does not sign, because she refuses to swear to what her mother put on the form. Obama Sr. does not sign it either, because Madelyn won’t let him near the daughter, or have anything to do with the birth; let alone appear at an office with him.

Why? Because Marilyn is to submit an at-home birth form in which parents and child are declared to be WHITE.

This, in her mind, will save her and her daughter from the shame of giving birth to a mixed race child.

Upon receipt of the form, the Department of Health Registrar of Vital Records sends out a request for further corroborating information: signatures of father and mother, for example. But Madelyn has already had Stanley Ann sent to Washington State to study at college, so that she can get a degree and have the means to support the child. Neverthelss the birth annoucement is sent to the 2 Hawaiian newspapers, listing Aug. 4th, 1961, to Mr. & Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama. “Barack” and not “Barrack”, because Marilyn wouldn’t even pick up the phone to ask the father how to spell the name.

Neither Madelyn nor Stanley Ann ever take action further on this filing. It is classified as “filed” not “received” nor “accepted”.

Ramjet says: “She thus filed the birth registration after the (Nordyke) twins registration even though Obama was born before the twins. That would account for the out-of-order file numbers for Obama and the twins at first glance based simply on the dates of birth reported.”

Years later Barry Jr. finds this original filing document in a closet., along with his vaccination records and a newspaper article — this much he admits in Dreams of My Father. He has already been trained to hate the white race by Frank Marshal Davis (ibid., “I came to hate the white blood in my veins” ), so when he sees grandma’s filing he goes beserk, because it says that he is WHITE.

So sometime thereafter, he files an alteration request (Amendment is for adoptions only), and gets the AFRICAN race classification put on it, instead of the “white;” this is some time after “negro” is no longer used by the State of Hawaii to classify the predominate race of sub-saharan Africa.

But this filing is also not entirely accepted, because his father and mother are already dead.

So before granny conveniently dies, Obama Jr. tries to get her to give him an affidavit so that he can get his birth record accepted. He does get something, but HI still won’t “accept” it, because she is a third party.

So he is really in a fix, since he has no legal evidence of his birth, AND IN FACT CANNOT PROVE WHEN OR WHERE HE WAS BORN, LET ALONE HIS PARENTS IDENTITY.


there's more at the link. For the record, I think this one is tinfoil porn


[edit on 10/6/09 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Just because the framers could not "envision" a free black man, does not mean that their intent is irrelevant, again you are being disingenuous.
...
The framers never envisioned women voting either, does that make the rest of their intent irrelevant? I doubt they ever envisioned a female president, but that will happen too, does that make the rest of their effort irrelevant?


I'm confused that you misquote me and then tell me that I'm being disingenuous. I said their intent was SOMETIMES irrelevant. That's the second time you've accused me of that and I don't appreciate it. That's not who I am. It's not necessary in a civil discussions among adults. And I'm being absolutely honest here so your accusation is unfounded.



Since neither of us are in a position to make a precedent ruling from a bench, our opinions are simply ours.


Exactly.



But the first obstacle to tackle is to definitively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii (and stop that argument from the "birthers") and to positively prove who is listed as his parents on his legal birth certificate.


So, you think his CoLB is fake, too?



Now I know you have no doubts as to who his parents are, frankly neither do I, but we both know how many different CT's the "birthers" have running, from Malcolm X is his father to the Kenyan Birth, to the Soetoro "adoption".


So what? There are people out there who think all sorts of things. They have NO evidence but their imagination. And it's as wild as it gets.



Maybe he will be successful, maybe that will happen long after Obama is out of office, I don't know & neither does anyone else, but the question needs to be answered & answered definitively.


These curiosities that people have may never be answered definitively.



Remember, there really is very little we know about Obama & his life, youth and influences during such.


That's not true. His life is literally an open book. Just because we don't know his grades doesn't mean we know very little about him.



ETA: I thought you might enjoy reading this


You thought wrong. I'm not really that into porn. Barack is spelled correctly, by the way. One R.

:shk:



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm confused that you misquote me and then tell me that I'm being disingenuous. I said their intent was SOMETIMES irrelevant. That's the second time you've accused me of that and I don't appreciate it. That's not who I am. It's not necessary in a civil discussions among adults. And I'm being absolutely honest here so your accusation is unfounded.


It was a direct quote. maybe I misunderstood you. Could you please specify exactly where you feel the framers' intent "were sometimes irrelevant"? I used other examples to see if those were examples of what you were trying to say, but you chose to react only to the call of "disingenuous" instead of clarifying your thought.

I do apologize if I misunderstood



Originally posted by Redhatty

But the first obstacle to tackle is to definitively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii (and stop that argument from the "birthers") and to positively prove who is listed as his parents on his legal birth certificate.


So, you think his CoLB is fake, too?


Did your reaction to my not understanding you make you lash out? BH, I clearly said in this thread that Donofrio's intent seems to be to PROVE that the information on the CoLB is correct and to stop all the other "birther" CTs so the focus can move on to getting a determination on the Dual Citizenship & it's effect on NBC status.

I even state in the very next sentence that I have no doubts over who BHO's parent are, yet you ask this?? But if I once again ask why you are again being disingenuous, will you proceed to play more games & try to twist my words?



Originally posted by Redhatty
Now I know you have no doubts as to who his parents are, frankly neither do I, but we both know how many different CT's the "birthers" have running, from Malcolm X is his father to the Kenyan Birth, to the Soetoro "adoption".


So what? There are people out there who think all sorts of things. They have NO evidence but their imagination. And it's as wild as it gets.


Again, as I have mentioned a few times already, Donofrio's goal is to prove beyond the shadow of any legal doubt that BHO was born in Hawaii and that he was born to the parents listed on his previously release Certification of Live Birth. That is why these different theoris are mentioned, because the goal is to put them to rest, permanently, and move on to the Dual Citizenship & it's effect on NBC status.



Originally posted by Redhatty
Maybe he will be successful, maybe that will happen long after Obama is out of office, I don't know & neither does anyone else, but the question needs to be answered & answered definitively.


These curiosities that people have may never be answered definitively.


And yet they may be



Originally posted by Redhatty
Remember, there really is very little we know about Obama & his life, youth and influences during such.


That's not true. His life is literally an open book. Just because we don't know his grades doesn't mean we know very little about him.


Oh my you are kidding right? Open book? well maybe the 3 that have been published in his name, but the list of things we don't know...

Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released (possible lawyers' fees = $2,000,000 ~ birth certificate = $15)
Certification of Live Birth -- Released -- Possible Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released (if one exists)
Obama/Dunham divorce -- Released (by independent investigators)
Kindergarten records -- Records lost
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released
Soetoro adoption records -- Not released No proof they exist either
Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released (by independent investigators)
Punahou School records -- Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce -- Released (by independent investigators)
Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Possible Counterfeit
Occidental College records -- Not released
Passport -- Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama's terrorism and intelligence adviser.
Columbia College records -- Not released
Columbia thesis -- "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament" -- Not released
Harvard College records -- Not released
Harvard Law Review articles -- None
Illinois Bar Records -- Not released.
Baptism certificate -- None
Medical records -- Not released
Illinois State Senate records -- None
Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost
Law practice client list -- Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

The Illinois State Archives told Judicial Watch that they never received any request from Senator Obama to archive any records in his possession.

In 2007, Obama told Tim Russert that his records were "not kept."

And there's less on the web every day. In time, the entire Obama body of knowledge will consist of 3 documents -- "Dreams From My Father" -- "The Audacity of Hope" -- and the latest -- "Change We Can Believe In" -- all written by Barack Hussein Obama or his "ghost-writers."

In that sense I guess you can say BHO is an open book, because the only things we know about him come from his books!!



[edit on 10/6/09 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
It was a direct quote. maybe I misunderstood you.


I said their intent was sometimes irrelevant. You quoted me as saying that their intent was irrelevant (without the qualifier of "sometimes"). A very different meaning. To clarify my point, the framers clearly never intended to have a black man as president. Meaning that they intended that all presidents would be white men. That intent is irrelevant.



Did your reaction to my not understanding you make you lash out?


No. You said:


Originally posted by Redhatty
But the first obstacle to tackle is to definitively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii (and stop that argument from the "birthers") and to positively prove who is listed as his parents on his legal birth certificate.


I simply was asking for clarification. Do you think that his CoLB is fake or "not legal" (as opposed to his "legal birth certificate")? I was asking as many people make a differentiation between the two.

As I read the rest of your post, I'm no longer inclined to comment as you have gone from a very civil discussion concentrating on the topic at hand to more of the same personal crap about me being disingenuous, playing games and twisting your words, none of which is true. I can only assume that our civil discussion was leading you to think that you might be wrong and so you decided to get personal. That's usually how it happens. You have slid into projection and I'm just not interested.

You and Donofrio can carry on without me.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I said their intent was sometimes irrelevant. You quoted me as saying that their intent was irrelevant (without the qualifier of "sometimes"). A very different meaning. To clarify my point, the framers clearly never intended to have a black man as president. Meaning that they intended that all presidents would be white men. That intent is irrelevant.


No, I quoted you exactly as you had posted, infact, I even left the "sometimes of irrelevant" intact, with the unnecessary "of" in there.

Thank you for clarifying


As I read the rest of your post, I'm no longer inclined to comment as you have gone from a very civil discussion concentrating on the topic at hand to more of the same personal crap about me being disingenuous, playing games and twisting your words, none of which is true. I can only assume that our civil discussion was leading you to think that you might be wrong and so you decided to get personal. That's usually how it happens. You have slid into projection and I'm just not interested.

You and Donofrio can carry on without me.


I am very sorry you feel that way. I haven't seen anywhere where you might have proven me wrong, in fact, there is an earlier post where you admitted to "standing corrected."

Not exactly sure who is projecting here, but I have nothing to project upon you, since all I am doing is posting about a new investigation being done by a 3rd party. You are the one who deflected the conversation away from that investigation and onto my personal beliefs/thought on the matter.

I have openly and honestly shared those with you also, making sure that I also remind you that this thread is about an ongoing investigation, so that the thread doesn't get derailed into something different.

Funny, isn't it? You were the one who tried to steer the discussion to personal opinions, rather than the actual investigation, yet you accuse me of deciding to get personal. I wonder how many times that has happened int he past and I overlooked it


[edit on 10/6/09 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
MissTickly (aka TerriK) who had been working with Leo Donofrio, is now working a separate angle. She has some interesting information and an even more interesting theory that she has developed in the course of her interrogatories and investigation into Hawaii's DOH records on President Obama.

Her new blog opens with this post:

OUR WORST NIGHTMARE CONFIRMED: Obama’s COLB Lacks Legal Veracity. What Now?


On July 27, 2009, Obama was not verified as ‘Constitutionally Qualified to be U.S. President’ by the standards of Hawaii’s Department of Health and Vital Statistics Registrar. Any assertions by Nancy Pelosi or anyone else must be reexamined under the following LIGHT:
THE KEY: ‘FILED by Local Registrar’ vs. ‘ACCEPTED by State Registrar’

We have two statements about two sets of vital records belonging to the President issued from Hawaii. An “original birth certificate” that is “on record in accordance to state policies and procedures” in October, 2008, AND “original vital records” that are “maintained on file,” on July 27, 2009.

1.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on Oct. 31, 2008:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

2.) Dr. Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on July 27, 2009:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

• We also have a COLB presented by President Obama that indicates the information shown has been ‘Filed by Registrar.’ Fig.1 (see below)

• However, we also have samples found online of HAWAII COLBs that say they have been ‘Accepted by State Registrar.’ Fig 2 & Fig 3 (see below)


Much, much more at the above link



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join