UIPA REQUEST CONFIRMS QUIP, EXPLAINS MULTIPLE ORIGINAL VITAL RECORDS OF BARACK OBAMA
by John Charlton
(Jan. 12, 2010) — An intrepid citizen-researcher has confirmed that the man who goes by the name “Barack Hussein Obama II,” has an original vital record kept by the Hawaii Department of Health, which bears the name “Steve Dunham.”
The citizen researcher began her quest, following two lines of research: 1) the fact that the name “Steve Dunham” appears in records associated with Obama’s alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham; and 2) the fact that Obama himself is said to have quipped that his middle name was “Steve” (as some of his followers know cf. YYouhan’s comment).
The quip is recorded to have taken place during the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, on Oct. 16, 2008, and was reported by Real Clear Politics in the 4th video segment at their site, at the 1:37 mark.. The video at YouTube can be viewed through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBQf4FJi-o&feature=player_embedded, or at 1:31 in another version of the video, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SkFjTCscM4 . Here is the second version, look for it at 1:30 ff..
[Editor’s note: The previous video here was of the 3d segment from Real Clear Politics’ report, and for that reason it sparked a number of comments, since it does not contain the quip at all.]
The quip was also transcribed and published by the Chicago Sun Times on Oct. 16, 2008, the key section of which reads:
It’s shocking. That was a tough primary you had there, John. Anyway, anyway, that’s who I really am. But in the spirit of full disclosure, there are a few October surprises you’ll be finding out about in the coming weeks. First of all, my middle name is not what you think. It’s actually Steve. That’s right. Barack Steve Obama.
Based on this admission, the citizen-researcher requested from Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaiian Department of Health, the index data for all the Steve Dunhams in their registry, born on Aug. 4, 1961. The request was made on Oct. 29, 2009, and read as follows:
Aloha Ms. Okubo,
IAW Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18( d), I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Steve Dunham, Steven Dunham, Stephen Dunham born on 8/4/61. Please send me death, birth, divorce and marriage index and any other information you have on the index for this name.
This statute at para (d) provides officials no authority to withhold the requested information. Therefore, I as an American citizen, am invoking Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d) Disclosure of records, which reads as follows: (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public. Please follow any other statutes of Hawaii that cover this information to be released.
The answer came from Okubo on Nov. 10, 2009 and was contained in an Acknowledgment to Requester form, which read thus:
This acknowledgment is provided in accordance with section 2-71-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”), because the following extenuating circumstance(s) exist::
X — Agency requires additional time to respond to the request in order to avoid an unreasonable interference with its other statutory duties and functions.
Like most requests for such information, since the end of September when the Department began releasing such — following the threat of a lawsuit from another citizen-researcher — Okubo responds rather quickly with a denial that the information requested is available (if it regards Obama) or an admission that it is, and a release thereof.
In this case, Okubo responded that she needed more time to respond! This response of Okubo contains an obvious evasion. Because it takes less than 5 minutes to type “Steve Dunham” into their database and pull up the index data for such record.
The response that she needed more time indicates what kind of response she had decided to craft.
Guess how long it took her to respond to a 5 minute work assignment?
You guessed it; she responded yesterday, January 11th; but only after being prodded by another email from the same citizen-researcher. Or in other words, she did not want to respond at all, and was hoping the request would be forgotten.
Curious, and perhaps significant, is that between the time the request was made, and the initial “We don’t have the time right now” response was issued by Okubo, Paul Tsukiyama, the Director of the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, who was advising Okubo on how to respond, resigned (Nov. 6, 2009). Could this be because he knew that this one request would burst the dam, and thus, he did not want to be involved in a cover-up?
Obviously if Obama was born with the name “Steve Dunham,” he could not lawfully bear that name unless his original vital records were amended OR he submitted a change of name through the Hawaiian Courts.
As The Post & Email reported on Sunday, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii has denied any name change requests, made through the courts, exist.
Therefore, if there was a name change it had to be by an amendment of the original vital record.
Therefore, if such a name change was found, the vital record for Obama would technically no longer exist under the name “Steve Dunham.”
So Okubo, under this scenario, would have a legally perplexing problem to solve; if she denied the request for Index data, she could be accused of lying or violating the law; if she admitted a record for a “Steve Dunham” existed for that date, Obama would be exposed, and might retaliate against the Department through withholding funding; a possible threat, which is seemingly indicated by Attorney Joesting, in her letter to Okubo regarding the non-answer to my own UIPA request made at the end of September.
So what did she say in her response, yesterday?
In her official response received by email last night, Okubo denied that there is any index data for a vital record of a birth for a “Steve Dunham”, a “Steven Dunham”, or a “Stephen Dunham.”
It took her 60 days to figure how to respond to a job which required 5 minutes of work. And that in itself, lets you the reader know, what she meant to say: his name is “Steve Dunham”! But “Steve Dunham” does not appear on the current version of Obama’s vital record, so she can deny it, without technically violating the law. If the record never existed, or never contained that name, there would be no reason for the dely in denying it. It’s just that simple.
But for those would won’t accept Obama’s own admission; and who believe Okubo needs to seek 2 months of legal counsel to deny a request for a document that does not and never did exist; no amount of reasoning is necessary. However, for those with common sense, I offer this analysis:
As for those who do not believe that this interpretation is correct, they must hold Obama was lying, in the above video, when he said his name was “Steve.” To doubters, therefore, I ask, “So was he lying when he said his name was “Barack Obama,” or when he said his name was ‘Steve’ “?
I hold that he is not lying in either case, because I believe that the name change was filed by his mother Stanley Ann Dunham, after she returned from Kenya. The name “Steve Dunham” was, in my estimation, the name of the child on the birth certificate in the Mombasa General Coast Hospital.
Here are my reasons for this latter assertion:
Being that Ann was in Mombassa (that’s how it was spelled in 1961) without her husband, and being that Obama Sr., would have committed the crime of bigamy in Kenya, if he married a white woman as his second wife — since his first marriage was under tribal law for non-Christians, he could not marry multiple times except under tribal law, which excluded wives of European descent — Ann would have had to put her own surname down on the original Kenyan birth certificate.
This would also have enabled her to get Steve on her passport, as the child of an unwed mother; and also be able to get Steve U.S. Citizenship status at birth, on account of the U.S. Nationality laws at the time, which granted such to children of U.S. Citizens, born out of wedlock, overseas to mothers who were at least 15 years of age. Ann was 18.
While in Mombassa, she telephoned her mother Madelyn Dunham, who filed some sort of birth filing, which contained the name “Steve Dunham.”
Upon returning to Hawaii, however, Ann files an amendment to the original filing on the basis of the Hawaiian law which allowed amendments within the first 6 months. Whether in her filing she claimed a birth at home, and therefore a birth in Hawaii, or a foreign birth, is not yet known. In the latter case, then, there probably has been a second amendment made, this time by Obama, and sometime after 2004, when he stopped claiming to be Kenyan-born.
Under this scenario Okubo’s response does not regard what appears on the original vital records, but what appears in the registry after the amendments were made.
And if Obama did make an amendment, as appears to be the case (cf. Nellie Esquire’s, Red Flags Overlooked), then it must have been for something more substantial than the name of the attending doctor or hospital. Therefore it was for either the parents’ names or the place of birth. But as The Post & Email has confirmed (researcher 1, researcher 2), the father’s name and date of birth are corroborated from newspaper reports of the period. Therefore it must mean that the original vital record held by Hawaii shows a different place of birth, if Obama did not change the name of his mother on his vital records.
Accordingly, even Dr. Fukino’s statement of July 27, 2009, that Obama was born in Hawaii might be based only on the records after all the amendments.
That Obama was born in Kenya, he himself admitted to in 1980. Numerous news agencies, including the Associated Press also seemingly confirmed this for years, without being corrected by Obama’s campaigns.
In any event, Obama would not be a natural born citizen (according to the US Supreme Court), because his father was not a U.S. Citizen. If he was born in Kenya, he also would not be a natural born citizen on account of not being born on U.S. soil.
In fact Obama admits that he is not a natural born citizen, as two separate witnesses testify (witness 1, witness 2), probably because in the course of his own studies in law, he has read up on the issue. However, upon deciding to run for President, he conveniently forgot all about his inconvenient past.
Indirect corroborating evidence of a Kenyan birth is logically contained in his assertion of eligibility on the basis of a Hawaiian Birth. This is because, if the original records show a birth in Hawaii, there is no harm in disclosing them, since this would confirm Obama’s claims. But he refuses to disclose them, even to the extent of having lawyers spend hundreds if not thousands of hours working to prevent disclosure. Hence it must be that his claim to a Hawaiian birth will not be confirmed by such a disclosure. And thus, in all probability, his refusal to do so, is based on the knowledge of the fact that he was born in Kenya.
Finally, if all this is true, it means that none of the alleged Birth Certificates or Certifications of Live Birth, heretofore released, are authentic original vital records, they are all forgeries.
It also means that Stanley Ann Dunham might have used the multiple filings to obtain Social Security numbers and fake documents, for herself, later in life. That might explain why Obama’s SSN was seemingly issued in Connecticut, and belongs to a 118 year old — because his original record was used to obtain a SSN for a “Steve Dunham.”
APPENDIX: Reading Okubo
First, to understand why Okubo’s denial was infact a confirmation you need to read the article by Nellie Esquire, “Read Flags Overlooked,” which explains how the Hawaii Department of Health has run cover for Obama for quite some time, by means of evasive responses.
I suppose if I were a government official, I would answer a direct question with a direct answer. However, according to many sources (in particular Attorney Leo Donofrio), Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaiian Department of Health, has a habit of misdirection when responding to a direct question.
Misdirection is the use of a mental reservation to mislead a questioner by means of a carefully crafted statement.
For example. last night, Janice Okubo responded evasively to another UIPA request. That request read as follows:
Please send me digital and written confirmation that the 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, has personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has declared Barack Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen. Since the director in her press release has stated that she has seen his records and that he is a Natural born citizen. Please send me all the information she used to make this public announce to all the citizens of the United States and the World. Please also send me the definition of the term natural born citizen as used by the State of Hawaii, the Hawaii Department of Health or any other governmental agencies in Hawaii. I really need to know the definition of this term as used in Hawaii, as the Director of the DOH has used it in a public statement and was in the Newspapers.
Okubo’s response is self-contradictory:
We do not have a record responsive to your request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile and create information to respond to a request.
It is self-contradictory, because the first sentence refers to 1 document; and the second to several. What she is thus saying is that we don’t have just one, we have many; but we are not going to give it to you, because we are going to claim that under the provision that exempts us from responding on the grounds that we would have to create compilations, we are not going to grant your request.
That is why, when Okubo denies, you have to read between the lines, because she does not always deny what you requested, even when she denies what she denies.
You see, the citizen asked for “all the information;” since that could reasonably be interpreted to be even information which is not yet in paper form or recorded on paper or readily available electronically (such as hand written memos, phone bills, computer logs), its disclosure would require work. And Okubo’s office is not going to do that which would result in their own incrimination.
Often Okubo will deny under one section, even though another section requires the release. You can read a case in point at this previous report from The Post & Email.