Red Flags Overlooked


by Nellie Esquire

(Jan. 10, 2010) — People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many.  The answer is, that they have been overlooked the same way these “birther” red flags were not only overlooked, but ridiculed.

Some examples of these “Birther” red flags can be culled from the public behavior of the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii Office for Information Practices, in response to public inquiry regarding Obama’s vital records, which are an essential documentary issue in establishing his citizenship status, and whether he meets the qualifications of the office of U.S. President, which not only requires that one be a U.S. Citizen, but also a natural born citizen.

Let’s list just a few cases in point.

1. Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino made no mention  — until November  of 2009 — of the existence of the DOH Administrative Rule showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules – Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) – would allow any election officer overseeing the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy:

“2.5 Eligibility for Copies of Birth Certificates

A. Standard Copy. A certified copy of the original birth certificate on file with the Department of Health as described in paragraph 2.4B(1) may be issued to:

(1) The registrant, his descendants, his authorized agent, or upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction. “Authorized Agent” means:

(f) A government agency acting on behalf of the registrant to process a financial claim, beneft, award, or other compensation or to transact official business involving the registrant or his affairs.”

Placement of a name on a ballot is an official transaction. The elections officer acts on behalf of the registrant to put their name on the ballot. That’s not a right. There are specific requirements that have to be met. If a person is not a party member they have to go through a petition process in order to complete that transaction. In many states there is a fee for that transaction (I’m not sure about Hawaii on that), which should leave a record. However, whether a State considers itself transacting business on behalf of the candidate, really depends on whether they require such verification by statute and in what manner they verify documents presented in such an application.

2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are two kinds of records: records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.

Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth, marriage, or death certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born – such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama – is not allowed by the rules.

All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requester has a direct and tangible interest. Hence, non-certified copies, abstracts,  and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited, which, according to Hawaii’s “Sunshine Law” (UIPA), means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure:  date of birth, gender, and address.

Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see next point), the DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.

3. Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online such facts and laws which conclusively show that online images of purported Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth, ostensibly belonging to Barack Obama, Junior, are forgeries, a fact the DOH has known since the beginning. I say this, because  the processing information for all such vital records, when requested, is subject to disclosure after the fact,  and when one citizen, aware of this, requested such, the DOH was forced in September of 2009 to reveal that Obama’s original birth certificate had been amended and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended. This admission was made in the form of a denial on August 18, 2009 to a UIPA request to release such accompanying documents for the amended filing.  According to the OIP Manual, a State Agency can only deny the release of documents which actually exist; if they do not exist, they must explicitly say that they do not exist.

Since all Amendments must be noted on the certificate, an alleged image of an Obama COLB, which does not bear the word “Amended” is a forgery; and since the COLBs bear no such indication, the DOH must have known, this entire time, that both the and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries.

4. Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has either explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement. This includes the Department of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), Lieutenant Governor’s Office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. Janice Okubo, the Communications Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, appears to have stated  on Dec. 11, 2009 that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate, even if such a certificate is a very public forgery, used as an essential part of a presidential campaign.  The Hawaii Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves.  In other words, their philosophy is “See no evil…”

4. The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes. Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee, and Obama was charged a fee., according to the Department of Health, when forced to disclose this via a UIPA request.  Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, and the Lieutenant Governor’s office, which oversees such records, has confirmed on November 24, 2009, that there has been no legal name change for anyone named “Obama, “Soetoro,” or “Sutoro.”  Hence the nature of the amendment requested must be one which, if not a minor administrative error, alters its evidentiary value.

5. Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with a raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony. If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital, the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos. Obama would not have had to pay for the amended filing.  The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate himself and erred in doing so, or if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.  Obama was not old enough to file his own birth certificate, however.

6. The DOH has broken Hawaiian law to make rule changes (cf. Western Journalism’s Report, June 10, 2009, Addendum 11) that would protect Obama. In mid-June of 2009, the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates. This is in direct violation of the current rules  and Hawaiian Law, which in  HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes.  This was the first of several such violations within the past year (e.g. , raising of fees and denial of disclosure of documents to verify lawful procedure in raising them was followed: Okubo’s letter of January 4, 2010 to author.)

7. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, stated on July 27, 2009, that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay. This is because, according to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence. Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits. He has refused, even going so far as to rescind military orders rather than to risk a judge seeing his birth certificate. There is no  lawful process by which Obama could present his records to Fukino as evidence for her official adjudication.

8. Having made the illegal statement regarding an alleged Hawaii birth, Fukino refused to obey Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act, which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based when requested to do so. Several citizens made such requests and were similarly rebuffed. Attorney Leo Donofrio was one of these, and he spoke about this publicly on Blog Talk Radio on Oct. 6, 2009 (22 minutes into said Blogcast).

9. The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least two years. The DOH said on December 11, 2009, that it no longer has the UIPA request  made by TerryK seeking invoices showing  that Obama’s birth certificate was amended; the blanket denial also affirms that they no longer have the said invoices. Yet, the DOH’s own “Rules of Practice & Procedure” say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested:  August 2011, in this case.

10. Fukino might be implicated in averting administrative discipline against herself as regards the promotion of the Director of the Hawaiian Office of Information Practices, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s ambiguous and indirect responses. Six days after Attorney Leo Donofrio announced on his blog ( that he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deceptive responses, Tsukiyama himself resigned from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits.  Before leaving, he granted Cathy Takase control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.  By the admission of members of the staff of OIP, Takase had previously been in charge of assisting Fukino craft responses to UIPA requests.

Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH. All DOH responses which I have seen contain , in my opinion, deceptions regarding numbers 1 and 2 above, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates. They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms, procedures, and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc.

This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations. The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Hawaii

27 Responses to Red Flags Overlooked

  1. A. Citizen

    Monday, January 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM

    I would like to know why no one has brought up the fact that Obama’s first day in office, he invokes Executive Order #13489, which revokes the previous order concerning Presidential Records?! Here’s the pdf file so you can read for yourself….
    They’re all on a government website for all to see. I think we’re scr*wed when it comes to EVER seeing his records!

  2. Nellie

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 7:28 PM

    I think that’s accurate. I looked up the particular statutes cited in the prima facie statement (338-13b and 338-19) and they both deal with a copy being just as valid as the original. But people looking at the prima facie statement see that it says “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” The fact of birth is obvious if a person is alive.

    Neither a copy nor the original are considered prima facie regarding the factS that are claimed on the document itself, though, if the document is altered, as it says in big bold letters at the very bottom. I always thought that meant if the document had been tampered with – such as the cert number being blacked out. But I actually wonder if that statement is their way of saying that AMENDED certificates – actually altered by the DOH – are invalidated for prima facie evidentiary purposes. We don’t think of “altered” as meaning the same thing as “amended” but in the legal language of the rules they are used the same way.

    Of course, if the DOH prints something that has an amendment on the original but fails to note the amendment on the copy, then they have falsified the record. If someone else does that they commit forgery.

    I should take a look at the COLB which has an amended name on it and see if it has the big, bold “Any alterations” statement at the bottom. If the DOH relies on that statement to show that amendments alter the evidentiary value, then they would have to take that statement off when the amendment DOESN’T invalidate the cert – such as in the case of a legal name change.

  3. yo

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 10:23 AM

    Well, what i’d like to know is how a form that has the “filed” designation, but not the “accepted by the state registrar” designation, could be considered prima facie evidence in a court of law.

    Secondly, how could this colb be considered prima facie evidence when there is a number marked out on the form and the form itself says that any changes void the form.


    Mr. Charlton replies: The electronic image without the seal showing (later with the seal showing) is an obvious forgery…such an image is prima facie evidency not of a birth, but of a forgery.

  4. garyrose

    Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 11:51 AM


  5. plain jane

    Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM

    Has anyone seen this site:

    It discusses ways to obtain presidential records. It states that USC Title 44, Chapter 22 Presidential Records, makes all presidential records public. There is alot of other good info there also. Worth looking at. Someone may have already. If so, what do you think?

  6. epicurious

    Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 12:49 PM

    Here is an interesting thought. The standard COLB form contains the following statement at the bottom. ” This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of the birth in any court proceedings.” (HRS 338-13b, HRS 338-19).

    If a late or altered registration is not considered prima facie evidence, how can it possibly be printed on the same form as a registration that meets all of the evidentiary requirements? How would a judicial or administrative authority know an amended or late registration is not considered prima facie evidence when the COLB contains the above statement? Is it possible there are two COLB forms?

    Just thinking out loud.


    Mr. Charlton replies: Epi, I think that your IF statement which leads your second paragraph is false. The statement about prima facie evidence is for what appears on that form. It means the the State of Hawaii attests that what is on that form (and I am speaking of a real COLB, not what Obama puts out as his real colb) has been put there in accord with DoH rules and proceedures, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, it is presumed true. Of course if there is an orgiinal filing which differs, the criteria a court might use to determine authenticity of information and that by the DoH could differ. So the statement is merely saying that one does not take this to be true, but to be a correct affirmation of what the DoH has on record. The DoH is not an investigatory authority, and probably spends little time ever checking the validity of information presented on any form. I am sure that if you bribed someone in the information chain, you could get even a long form to have information it ought not. We’re not dealing with reality here, but with documentation. They are too different things.

  7. David O'Connor

    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 8:16 PM

    One thing people tend to forget about is the 4th level of our government. We The People. and under that the U.S. Supreme Court has to take a back seat if the people are willing to push it. As of yet We The People are not. The 4th level I speak of is the Citizens Grand Jury. The attny general has 30 day’s to reply to the indictments and It has been over 6 months. Again , will We The People push it. HELL NO!! Most are scared shitless thats why.

  8. Nellie

    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 1:28 PM

    Excellent idea, John. I’d specifically like to see what Danny Bickel gave the SCOTUS justices as the summaries for the court cases of Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Berg, and Taitz – that SCOTUS could have held a conference on all of them without Justice Scalia remembering anything about the subject having come up. Does anybody know how to do FOIA requests? You’d think those summary sheets that were given to the justices would be available to the public…

  9. Nellie

    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM

    Even more disturbing: The EVVE System, in which Hawaii participates, has what is called a “void flag”. It shows whether or not the records a state has for a person are considered authentic. Anybody who wants to work at Farmland is supposed to have their documentation electronically verified. If there’s something wrong with their documentation it would show up through a “void flag”.

    The DOH has denied that it has any information regarding the EVVE “void flag” or how it gets entered into the system. But I find it hard to believe that a birth record which can’t even count as prima facie evidence would get by without some kind of flag.

    You may remember the stories of cops who tried to do a check of Obama and were denied access and got into trouble. I seriously wonder whether they tried to access the EVVE record for Obama and were refused because that EVVE record says he’s only as well-documented as the nearest illegal alien.

    But – again – Hawaii refuses to answer any questions or provide any documents concerning how their system works. They would have us believe they do this all off their heads as the Spirit moves. I have seen the data entry manual for the CDC’s recommended vital statistics software posted online. Specific instructions so the data is standardized all over the country. That is what Onaka received awards for, and Hawaii law specifically states that Hawaii is supposed to conform to the standards for vital statistics reporting set by the federal government. But Onaka and Okubo both say they have no data entry manuals, no software bids, nothing to document anything they did when they converted paper files to electronic OR when they initiated the EVVE system in Hawaii.

    This is what Hawaii’s “open government” looks like.

  10. Nellie

    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:32 AM

    Mr. Charlton replies: Nellie this was a great comment, but its public nature would create problems for an on going investigation being undertaken, so I had to nix it.

  11. Nellie

    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM

    More documentation is also available at my blog:

  12. Emudude

    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 11:54 PM

    The whole problem with this is … Since Supreme Court Justice Roberts swore Obama in as President of the United States (Twice) (How many Supreme Court Cases were there against Obama at that time! 12, 15, 22?) The Judicial System sees that as the Supreme Court accepted Obama and his Phony COLB as the Real McCoy. That is why no one has any Leg to stand on in Court. If the Highest Court in the Land has accepted Obama as a Natural Born Citizen due to his Mommy being a U.S. Citizen but not his father (Senate Resolution 511 not withstanding), then all other courts below them must share the same Sentiment. There in Lies the RUB.


    Mr. Charlton replies: Someone with more knowledge of the inner workings of the Judicial system will have to comment on this one: I personally never thought that the swearing in cerimony was anything more than a cerimonial duty of the Chief Justice; but perhaps SCOTUS has issed a memo to the federal courts on the issue: citizens should do a FOIA on all Scotus documents, opinions, memos, to Federal Courts or otherwise, which regard Obama’s eligibility status…maybe they have put out a do not hear cases on this, memo…who knows??

  13. Pingback: Steve «

  14. Pingback: Time to fess up AKA Obama, i.e., USURPER…Let’s see those records…Watcha hiding Stevie? |

  15. Watcher

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 7:44 PM

    We have a international boycott against Hawaii

  16. Nellie

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:56 PM

    Steve, I think I know what his amendment was now. I bet he added a drummed-up doctor’s statement to the initial claim by Madelyn Dunham. We’ve asked for documentation that was submitted to amend everything you can imagine, and though initially they tried to say that they can’t reveal anything about it, they changed their answers to say that there are no records. Since they’ve admitted that the record is amended but deny that any records have been submitted to amend any of the items on a birth certificate, the only other amendment I can think of that would result in a claim that the BC had been amended and a fee charged is supplementary information to complete an incomplete original birth certificate. That also fits with Fukino referring to “vital recordS” (plural), since a doctor’s signature could not be added to the certificate but would have to be on an affidavit contained in a special file. The only time they would have to refer to vital records (plural) is if there is additional information filed apart from the original certificate itself.

    I’ve asked to see doctor’s, nurse’s, or midwife’s signature offered as evidence to amend Obama’s BC. Originally they said they couldn’t tell me if they had it but they changed it to say they didn’t have it. I don’t know if we can trust a word they say, but they could always claim that even though the certificate itself has to say “Altered” on it, the actual birth certificate itself didn’t have anything changed; it was merely supplemented with information now located in a different file. Then again, they also said there was nothing filed to supplement his BC.

    IOW, they have said there has been an amendment, but have denied every amendment that could have been made. Somebody’s lying – which is what this article is really saying. The lying is blatant and if they can get away with it, this nation is toast regardless of what happens in Washington.

  17. Nellie

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:54 PM

    A person wouldn’t want to amend a long-form birth certificate over anything trivial, since even minor administrative amendments made 6 months or more after birth require an “Altered” label on the certificate, which removes the prima facie value according to HRS 118-17. Also, the first point at which the Hawaii rules mention a fee for amending a document is in the 1976 revision (Chapter 8b) so it would seem that his certificate WAS amended after then – which would remove the prima facie evidentiary value even if it was just a minor administrative amendment.

  18. Dennis

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:52 AM

    Attn.: Mr. Charlton,

    RE: Bill Clinton’s remark about eligibility


    Mr. Charlton replies: Denis, you comment if off topic.

  19. SteveT

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:18 AM

    Good point. Still, Obama might have amended information that appears in the original birth record but does not appear on the COLB. If he did make such an amendment, it would pretty much rule out the possibility that Obama was born in a hospital. I don’t think the Hawaii DoH — as messed up as that agency might be — would have allowed Obama to make a substantive amendment to a hospital-generated birth certificate.

  20. SteveT

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:43 PM

    The published image of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB) seems to be derived from a real Hawaiian COLB that was computer-generated possibly as early as 2007. If all amendments to Obama’s birth records were made after Obama’s published COLB was generated, wouldn’t the published COLB not contain the word “amended”? Personally, I think there’s a good chance that Obama’s published COLB image was electronically altered. That said, I’m not sure the absence of the word “amended” on the published COLB image, in and of itself, necessarily proves forgery. All of the amendments could have been made after the actual COLB was generated. WSY?


    Mr. Charlton replies: Steve, stop and think about what you just said. If the image of the COLB is a true copy of what it looked like before making an ammendment, why on earth file one? Other than to claim a US citizen as his father, and if that was the case, continuing to show the old version is fraud. So take your pick, fraud or forgery.

  21. Pete

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM


    We both have seen this go on for a long time. The government of the United States no longer serves the people, it serves it own self interest at the expense of the people. The cover-up of Obama’s lack of qualifications for POTUS is proof positive of the corruption. The truth will come out eventually, and the 2008 election will be the historical hallmark of the end of the great experiment of Democracy and a Constitutional republic. No matter how pleasant it might seem, we all now live in tyranny.

  22. yo

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:41 AM

    Really a devastating account of just how far they’re going to cover for him.

    I was going to say that maybe we needed a real authenticated colb to get the “filed, not accepted” designation from, but on second thought, it would be beyond funny to watch the Obama lawyers tell a court that they don’t have to respond to this lawsuit because the online colb, (the one his entire campaign was based on), is a fake.

  23. Pingback: Red Flags Overlooked « Socialism is not the Answer

  24. Pingback: Let’s not Forget: Bill Clinton was the first “Birther” « Socialism is not the Answer

  25. Cody Robert Judy

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 12:23 AM

    What America is asking for…. ” Motivation”..we lack motivation and it will come…but perhaps not as easy as it would have been had we “America” been on guard. If the responsibility of our elected leaders has been compromised… they have chosen the reward that will also bite them.
    Very nice article!
    Cody Robert Judy

  26. Jacqlyn Smith

    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 12:15 AM

    John…..Have you shared this information with Brietbart… seems he can get on Hannity’s show like no one else has been able to……He got those to young kids to uncover the ACORN Fraud….of course nothing has happened yet as far as I know!!! What are we Patriots to do if the laws are not going to be enforced and the criminals are not being held accountable???


    Mr. Charlton replies: We don’t promote our own articles, but you are free to email or call him, or his Big Government editor and let him know about it.

  27. John Charlton

    Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 11:48 PM

    In an open and free society, the information presented in this exposé should be enough to take down not only Obama and his regime, but also the entire Hawaii Government.

    Let’s see if Americans still want liberty…the justice of such a cause is evident.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>