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
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.
The Investigation
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.
Thanks,
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?
The Response
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:
The 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.
There is solid evidence and reasoning why this man is not authorized to serve as President or Commander and Chief. The few honorable leaders left in Congress need to initiate an impeachment case.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117857%3C/font%3E%3C/blockquote%3E%3C/font%3E%3C/blockquote%3E%3C/b%3E%3C/i%3E%3C/u%3E
Recent confirmation of the truth of this report has been had from two sources: one a citizen who asked Okubo for the amended vital record which originally bore the name Steve Dunham; Okubo in her response did not deny said record existed, but excused herself saying that she does not actually see the records, only the electronic index data for them.
Second, from a known member of Obama’s internet goon squad, which is ostensibly under the direction of Cass Sunstein: this obot called me and this report “pure evil.” Which in the language of Obots means “100% true.”
obama’s mom was a radical… also married muslims not once but twice.
i feel strongly she had been telling the young child from day one that he was going to try to become president. there are reports that obama was saying these things as a very young child and some beleive he had no idea what he was really saying because there are no presidents in indonesia where he lived at the time.
Okay we have all this information and interest so now is the time to act. Contact “prosecuteobama.com or freedomforce.com as they are gearing up to unseat Obama from office. http://americangrandjury.org/
Go to this link at bthe Outraged Patriots web site:
http://outragedpatriots.com/News_Archives6.htm
Scroll way down to the photos and articles posted on NOVEMBER 1, 2008.
Look at Frank Marshall Davis, Sr.’s photo and the photo of his son Frank, Jr. Then look at the photo of Barack Obama, Sr. No DNA test is necessary.
Ity is obvious to me that BHO-Soetoro is the son of Frank, Sr. and damn near a spitting image of Frank, Jr (minus the eyeglasses & goatee). If this is the case, then BHO-Soetoro is the son of, and was HEAVILY MENTORED by one of the MOST DEVOUT Communists in USA History. I have been told that Frank Marshall Davis, Sr. took the 5th Amendment right to silence during the McCarthy Senate Hearings on Communist Activity in 1956 but have not been able to confirm this part. If this is true, then we have a dedicated Socialist/Communist in the White House under the ruse of being a ‘Democrat’ and the Global Warming hoax will not be the biggest hoax ever put on the U.S. People, but this honor will go to the farce of BHO’s 1995 autobiography “Dreams From My Father.”
I’ve seen video of one of Obama’s brothers that is a writer and lives in Canada. They look alike and their voices sound absolutely identical. That brother was born in Kenya to Obama senior.
——————
Mr. Charlton replies: Beckaholic, if what you say is true it would be astounding, because no one has ever claimed Obama has a brother. Half brothers/sisters, and a step sister, yes; but a full brother, wow! Where did you see that interview? And when did Stanley Ann Dunham give birth to this other brother Kenya? Or do you mean that Obama Sr. gave birth to him?
C asks why 1957. If you look a Obama’s Own Facebook Page he says he is 52 years old, not 48. That would make him born in 1957 not 1961. If He was born in Hawaii in 1957, then it wasn’t a state yet and he is STILL not a Natural Born Citizen.
Does Robert Bauer, formerly the lead attorney for Perkins Coie in defending Obama in birth certificate lawsuits, and now white house counsel for Obama, now have executive privilege?
Is it true that in this position, Bauer cannot be forced to tell what he knows about the vital records (and he would presumably know most, if not all of it)?
They’re trying to cover all bases, but criminals, being the nervous type, have the disadvantage of having their limbic systems overriding their thinking systems. They’ll make a mistake and we’ll find it.
Excerpt from The Obama File:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
“Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.”
So, Obama is not even a U.S. Citizen, never mind Natural Born Citizen. He is an alien. And he wasn’t even fit to be a Senator.
——————-
Mr. Charlton replies: This is the requirement of the NA of 1940 for married women. Obama could “get” U.S. citizenship, perhaps, under the scenario of a foreign birth, if he had filed to get his mother’s first marriage annulled civilly (if that is even possible) or at least recognized as bigamous and invalid by the State Department, and get a ruling that as a minor, unwed mother, she could pass U.S. Citizenship on to him.
If he was born overseas, and has not done that, he is in even more trouble that he would be for not being a natural born citizen and being in the White House! And a lot more folks are going to jail…
John Charlton –
Has Donofrio et. al. filed the quo warranto? I saw one post on one website that said it was filed on 12/25/09. Was that the quo warranto or something having to due with the bankruptcy case in NY?
Any news would be welcome. Thanks
—————
Mr. Charlton replies: I will ask around.
John,
The Drudge ad is appealing. The question is would he run it? People with cash in hand were told NO they could not run ads on the MSM networks during the 2008 election if it connected the dots between BHO and his pals, fraud and corruption. Don’t sell yourself short. If Drudge will run it then let us know exactly how much it would cost and watch the money pour in.
Some might consider the petition a noble yet nebulous venture. People can’t eqaute just how much return they will get for their investment. Just look at how high the stakes are in the Mass. race and how much Scott raised in 24 hrs.
Build it and they will come. mho
———————
Mr. Charlton replies: Thanks, but getting a response out of Drudge is the first barrier…I have tried to email him, WND and Rense, no replies ever received; though one ad agency which places positions at WND did respond, I will now contact him back.
If anyone can contact any major site and get a response from their sales department about placing an ad for the Hawaii Petition campaign, go ahead, and let me know what they say…
UPDATE: Thanks patriots for the info. The Drudge report charges $40,000 for the top banner ad, for ONE DAY, regardless of clickthroughs, or $7.50 for every 1000 clickthroughs…perhaps at the click through level its doable. They get 1 million unique visitors a day. The Post & Email would have to raise something like $10,000 just to sustain enough coverage for the ad to be clicked by a small percentage of those visitors on one single day.
While I am willing to beg the funds to do this ad campaign, Let me first get a commitment from Drudge to take the ad, and I will get back to you.
Ofcourse if anyone has the money, let them know that The Post & Email is ready and willing to plaster the Internet 4 ways from Sunday with ads for the Hawaii Petition Campaign. Money alone is lacking!
Mr. Charlton replies: Thanks for the tip, Benaiah, I was looking for that everywhere in my email box, and this allowed me to find it!
May I suggest the following for the DRUDGE REPORT banner advertisement:
SEND O TO GITMO
http://www.thepostemail.com/petition-hawaii-govt/
Article III, Section 3 – Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies
It is my experience, and my belief, that the majority of these “staff” and “employees” at the DOH are scared to death, and if put under increased, continuous pressure, they will crack, break-down, or trip-up. We need to bring pressure to bear specifically on SOH staff. Your petition will accomplish this. Most DOH jobs do not compensate for constant on-the-job pressure, stress, and as a result, fear. Have you considered a “front-top-center” ad featuring your petition on Drudge and including a link back to your related reports? Obviously the cost is an issue, but is there any other reason you would not want to take such actions?
————–
Mr. Charlton replies: Such an add would cost lots of money; just to put one at Rense.com costs $900, on WND the ad agency is talking $2500…we only have 1 ad out so far at the Obama file’s latest page, and that cost $250….as donations come in we will place more ads, but all our current funds are either spent on costs of the site, or comitted to spend on the costs of the site or the pending incorporation.
When the truth is uncovered, the post and email and a few others sites that have shown common sense and diligence shall receive credit. We’ll not let your good works be usurped by those who are doubters today.
Regarding the truth, whenever there is this much smoke, there is usually a fire!
A interesting question now comes up. If this is proven everything he has done now becomes void, but the question…if his so called health care reform becomes law will he be forced to be included?He obviously will lose any and all benifits because of the fraud he put into play. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
Why do the people not try and get grand juries to investigate this as Jaghunter is doing?
One indictment would more than likely start a landslide in HI. also in DC.
Everywhere there is a grand jury meeting someone needs to appear and ask for investigation!
I can’t remember the details clearly, but I seem to recall postings on some site months ago regarding the Soetoro divorce papers. Seems they were/are a matter of public record and were requested by the poster. There was a page missing in the middle of the approximately 13 pages of documents. It was speculated that this was the birth certificate of a child involved in the divorce. Is anyone out there aware of this, and/or have you requested these records if they are in fact available; or do you know who has requested these records?
It would be interesting to see if they can be obtained, and if there is still a missing page. If it is in fact missing, can an official explanation be obtained as to why and what it is?
Mr. Charlton replies: Sadie, I just sent you an email.
Researchers think that the missing page was the Obama-Dunham marriage license, which has not yet been discovered.
Another organization and state agency that have purpetuated the fraud is the Democratic Party of Hawaii and the HI Office of Elections. HI Election law requires the state and national party both submit a Certification of Nomination which is a sworn statement indicating the candidate is constitutionally qualified to serve as POTUS. This is a prerequisite for placement on the HI general election ballot. The DPH’s sworn statement for Obama when compared the statements for Gore and Kerry, was completely gutted of the “constitutionally qualified” language. In fact, the modified statement makes no sense whatsoever. It essentially states that Obama was qualified to serve by the virtue of winning the state caucus and the majority of the DNC delegate votes.
What did the the DPH know and when? They obviously knew he was not qualified or why else would it remove the “constitutionally qualified” language from its Certification of Nomination?
This was further exacerbated by the HI Office of Elections since it did not review and reject the Certification of Nomination which clearly did not meet HI election laws.
The DoH is not the only guilty state agency in this cover-up. The DPH and Office of Elections are partners in crime and warrant further investigation.
John I was wondering what, if any, the legal ramifications were or are in this part of what Obama said, “in the spirit of full disclosure”. Could he use this as a I told you so moment, therefore wasn’t lying as you proffer.
Could he use this in the future to his advantage?
——————
Mr. Charlton replies: If you watch the video closely through an internet connection which allows this (I did so at a friends house yesterday evening), you will see that he is being very serious when he says his middle name is “Steve.” There are those who dismiss this, saying it was only a Joke. Well I do not deny it was a joke; the question is not whether it was a joke, the question is whether it was true. I can, to an unsuspected audience, state something which is absolutely true, but due to the incongruity of the truth to the expectations of the audience, they take it for a joke. This is not merely hypothetical humor, I use it alot myself at parties; and it is most effective when you say it with an absolutely straight face.
But when I consider Obama’s humor, I’d say that he is really laughing at his audience, if this is the case; because he is mocking them for believing him in everything he says in office, but taking everything he says at the dinner as a joke.
Also, the admission fits his psychological profile, as a rejected kid who has longed to be accepted and done everything to find a home he never had. By saying his middle name is “Steve” not “Hussein” he is, as it were, reverting to a 6 year old mentality, wherein he is attempting to say, “Don’t consider me an outsider, I am just like you, see I have an american middle name!”
The entire affair, only confirms my opinion of the man, as having a very weak pysche, like the infantile mentality of oh, so many of his supporters: when he is finally exposed, he will take his own life, because he will not be able to endure the ultimate rejection of being considered a traitor by the entire social milieaux into which he has striven for the last 20 years, to be a part.
I was watching his speech that night and when he said his middle name was Steve. There was nothing funny about that. There was nothing funny about his whole speech. I never laughed one time through his speech. Obama was not funny at all.
Is Barack Hussein Obama “eligible to the office of President”?
Does it matter?
What about bypassing the normal channels, which have been effectively blocked so far?
I have two questions/suggestions:
(1) Ms. Dunham and her son moved to Indonesia when she married her second husband. Steve/Barry/Barack Dunham/Soetoro/Obama never denied attending public school in Indonesia for several years. I’ve been told a child MUST BE AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN to attend an Indonesian public school. I’ve also been told that Indonesia DOES NOT accept DUAL CITIZENSHIP.
Wouldn’t this imply that in order to attend public school, BARRY SOETORO would have to give up his American citizenship? Are there any records of this citizenship being reinstated if it ever existed and was given up?
(2) Of all the Obama records, the Columbia College transcript is the one I want to see. I’ve been told Barry Soetoro attended Columbia College with a scholarship as a foreign exchange student. In order to be accepted with foreign exchange status the applicant MUST PROVE HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN! How is this done? A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, A PASSPORT. It’s said that the Obama campaign has paid over $1,000,000 to keep this transcript hidden. (We can well understand why.) The Columbia transcript remains safely hidden!
Why not get a record of ALL FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS who attended Columbia College? One might call the College to ask the procedure for a student who wants to qualify as a foreign exchange student. Once one learns the department that handles foreign exchange students and the procedure for making an application, couldn’t one think of a legitimate reason to request a list of all students who were accepted as foreign exchange students? Barry Soetoro would be listed under the years 1981, 1982, 1983, depending on the number of credits from Occidental College accepted towards the Columbia degree. We may not need the exact years. Just the name identified as a foreign exchange student should work. This might be the best way to go so as not to alert whoever is still blocking access to Obama’s records.
Hope this helps someone …
Steve/Barry/Barack never attended Columbia, according to an investigation done by Dr. Manning — he was in Afghanistan training with Al Quaida under the CIA. It was Occidental College that gave him a ‘foreign student’ scholarship, where he lived as “Barry” in the foreign-student dorm.
Occidental may have been his only REAL college education before Harvard Law School (if he actually did attend Harvard), but there’s a strong possibility he was attending law school in Russia before Communism fell there in the early 90s, and his money dried up when Russia went broke.
Incidentally, Orly Taitz supposedly uncovered a list of foreign exchange students studying in California during the time of O’s Occidental College years, but it was scrubbed before she could get to it.
Well, if the were not alerted, they certainly are now, as you know they read this information. Do you believe that the school is paid off handsomely, like the lawyers to hide the evidence? Is there no one with a conscience, or they too have allegedly been given hush money, since Columbia is receiving funds for organizations connected with Mulsim influence, as nothing surprises me anymore?
How long do you think it will take for the HI DOH to cave under the pressure, disappear, or take that fatal cup of tea as many of us allege that Madelyn Dunham did, and then was cremated to erase all DNA evidence and the truth of who Barry really is or where Barry went to school, or who his father is or where Barry was born. How most convenient!
Another link to the Smith Memorial video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cen37qxA7E
The “Steve” comment occurs at approximately 7:49.
One does have to wonder what is so embarrassing on that birth certificate that it is sealed?..Parents never married?..A religion listed?..It would be so easy to eliminated all of the speculation..but, for some reason Obama thinks that keeping secrets is that important..
If Obama’s parents never married (which they probably didn’t, in spite of the Dunham/Obama divorce papers uncovered by Plains Radio’s investigator), that only means Steve/Barry/Barack MIGHT have had an ‘unnamed’ father on his Birth Certificate. If so, he wouldn’t have inherited U.K. citizenship from Obama Sr. (under the terms of the British Nationality Act of 1948), and he could have Natural Born Citizenship IF born on U.S. soil.
But if PROOF that Steve/Barack was born in America had been presented to the Health Dept. when someone registered his birth, Hawaii would be holding an officially recognized Birth Certificate, and they’re not. His birth registration was filed lacking the proof to complete it as a Hawaiian/American birth. Hawaiian hospitals provided the Health Dept. with proof of birth, OR home birth filings were accompanied by prenatal medical records and the name of the delivery midwife. Hawaii’s Health Dept. received neither, as deduced from Okubo’s wording in one of her responses….so the original registration is either: ‘blank’ for place of birth, or says ‘Hawaii’ but is missing proof, or says ‘Kenya’ (with or without proof, since either way, it’s not an American birth).
It’s INSANE that Hawaii gave Birth Certificates to people not born in Hawaii, but it was done illegally by the state to obtain more federal money….and they’re not about to admit that.
In this day and time, I hardly think being born out of wedlock would be the “embarrassing” secret O’s hiding on his Birth Certificate. His Muslim religion was a secret worth keeping before the election, but why keep that secret now that he’s in office — especially since he’s flaunted his pro-Islam stance since he was sworn in a year ago?
As for amending his B.C. to change his parents’ names, I wouldn’t be at all surprised. I think the chances Barack Obama Sr. was his biological father are very slim, especially since Steve/Barry looks so much like Malcolm X — and in light of the fact that Malcolm X, and a Cuban journalist, and a man who looked like Obama Sr. were photographed at the Theresa Hotel in Harlem, September of 1960, where Castro was staying during the United Nations General Assembly, and where he held meetings with Khrushchev, and now-U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, and Langston Hughes (a close friend of Steve/Barack-mentor, communist Frank Marshall Davis).
Maybe Charles Rangel could shed some light on our illegal president’s paternity and birth place. That is, if he could manage to tear himself away from kissing up to Bride-of-Satan Nancy Pelosi.
—————
Mr. Charlton replies: C, HI says it has a marriage certificate for Obama Dunham marriage, so you can strike that one out….however, just because they were married does not mean the first filing says so; Granma could have filed the steve dunham paper, and then when Ann was up to going in herself or to filing it out completely, she changed it, once Obama Sr. recognized the kid as his own; the thing is, Ann might not have known who the father was, until she saw the kid face to face. Filing “Steve Dunham,” would also save face on an interracial relationship. That might have been the Grandma’s motivation in part.
HI has NOT specifically said it has a marriage certificate for Obama/Dunham. They released index data for an unspecified marriage vital record. It’s entirely possible this might only be a marriage license and not an actual certificate. The biggest problem with their marriage is that Barak Sr. was already married to Kezia with no evidence that marriage had ever been dissolved. This would have made the marriage to Dunham invalid and thus Obama was an illegitimate child, and by default, a natural born citizen regardless of place of birth.
Assuming the Dunham/Obama marriage certificate and Steve/Barack’s BC were filed with the court for the divorce (hence, the divorce papers show they married on Maui on February 2, 1961, and their son was born the following August 4th), then Obama inherited British citizenship from his ‘legal’ father, regardless where he was born, and who his biological father really was….and also assuming the marriage certificate presented to the court wasn’t falsified. Notice the missing pages. Understandably, Obama scrubbed his BC, but why the marriage certificate?
Also consider the possibility that Ann wasn’t the birth mother (rumor being a friend photographed her non-pregnant body in a bikini during summer 1961; and the Kenyan grandmother who claimed to witness the birth never said WHO gave birth).
Well it would be just a little embarrassing if the names on the original BC all had 6 letters in them: S-T-E-V-E-N (6), B-A-R-A-C-K (6), D-U-N-H-A-M (6).
Born 1957. Age 52. Father: Frank Marshall Davis Mother: One Stanley “Anne” Dunham
Steve Dunham aka Barry Soetoro, Barack Obama, conceived when Stanley Ann was 13.
Yes, Michelle O., when she was “very young and very single”.
Place of birth: Mombassa, Kenya
Done.
That would make Steve/Barry/Barack a Natural Born Citizen, in spite of being conceived … by a known American communist….and Stanley Ann was attending Jr. High School on Mercer Island, Washington at the time, where her known classmates have made no mention of a pregnancy or baby, or an unexplained trip to Kenya.
Obama’s had to cover a lot of tracks and murder or threaten or bribe a lot of people, but the scenerio you describe is all but impossible.
Sorry for the slip, not Natural Born if born in Kenya. Where do you come up with 1957?
What about Stefen or Steffen, either of which can be a name shortened to ‘Steve’ or ‘Steven’.
Also, now that I think about it, Stephen, and Stephan are at times used.
Trying to come up with all the ways I have seen it spelled. Stefan, Steffan, too.
Whether Barack Obama or Steve Dunham, he is just plain “messed up”.
A blogger at Apuzzo’s site:
“medical said…
I have a good many powerful contacts (which I shall never mention by name) in and near Washington. They all agree – in his new book, Larry Sinclair is undoubtedly telling the truth regarding his relationship with Obama and Mario Apuzzo is the only attorney following the correct legal path in challenging Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold office. Folks are saying the pair are causing Obama to have endless nightmares and causing him to consume untold quantities of tranquilizers and anti-diarrheal medications. It is also claimed that due to the unceasing efforts of the aforementioned gentlemen, Obama has developed a compulsive involuntary affliction known as “coprolalia”. Keep up the great work, gentlemen!
January 12, 2010 5:51 PM “
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Coprolalia is involuntary swearing or the involuntary utterance of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks.
Does the fact that Hillary is now in Hawaii have anything to do with the new information on the birth certificate issue or the possible criminal aspects as stated above?
John do we have an SNN for ssn for Steve Dunham (Stephen Dunham or Stephen O. Dunham) some of my commenters are asking for that.
Great research, job well done
—————
Mr. Charlton replies: Dr. Orly Taitz, I believe might have it.
John,
I confirmed with the DoH sometime ago that the path to legal name changes does not necessarily go through the HI Lt Governor. The DoH recognizes and accepts name change orders from any competent administrative or judical authority in the United States. Obama or should I say Steve could have had his name legally changed in CA, NY, MA, IL or who knows where and then submitted the proper documentation to the DoH. His COLB would however be identified as “altered” and indicate the alteration was due to the name change.
This would certainly indicate what we already know is the online COLB is a forgery and it also explains why the DoH will confirm the veracity of the COLB.
We should looking for legal name changes outside of HI, the states he has resided in would be a good starting point.
————–
Mr. Charlton replies: While such a search would certainly be useful, it remains more important to gather information to force a release of the original vital records, either by the Petition (being promoted by The Post & Email) or by some sort of legal action (cf. The Post & Email legal fund) on the basis of public interest.
The conclusion I have drawn, that his name was originally “Steve Dunham,” is probable, but it is not the same thing as having a document which actually says that is his name. In such investigations, no matter how probative a line of inquiry seems, one always must not lose track of the line between documented evidence and interpretative conclusions, which could always be wrong.
Correction: Will not confirm the veracity
The big question: Who’s the Daddy?
“While in Mombassa, she telephoned her mother Madelyn Dunham, who filed a birth at home record with the Hawaii Department of Health, listing the birth as taking place at her own home, with the name “Steve Dunham” on the filing.”
If this were the case, then there would be automatic birth announcements in the Hawai’i newspapers for Steve Dunham. To the contrary, the announcements are for Barack Obama, presumably the result of S. Anne Dunham’s registration of the birth upon return from Kenya.
—————–
Mr. Charlton replies: Not no, Alec; because the DoH did not issue birth annoucments to the papers, until after the birth filing was ACCEPTED; an incomplete filing, which lacked sufficient proof (in this case of the actual birth, the mother, and the child…visit to a HI hospital, doctor, midwife) would be held in abeyance until such proof was added to the filing. And that would have required the return of Ann and the child, thus delaying the annoucement. In such a scenario, the child could have been born weeks before Aug. 4, 1961. As for Aug. 4th, in the british system 8/4/61 is April 4th, 1961. The incomplete filing might have Steve as a name and the real birth date and birth place, the completed filing might have Aug. 4, 1961, Honolulu and Barack Hussein Obama II. That would explain why Obama does not want disclosure, because its the most original or first of the documents, which is apt to be the truest.
The two index data requests that need to be made and followed up on would be index data for all children born Aug. 4, 1961 and the certificate number.
There’s a TV show on ABC called “Find My Family” where researchers use this kind of data to help locate the birth parents of children who were given up for adoption. They would go to a state and request data for all babies born on a certain date and by a specific name, like Mark or Steve.
We still need to see index data for the certificate number in the factcheck photographs of Obama’s alleged COLB as that could help verify if the COLB is genuine or not.
HI law does not restrict how index data can be requested. Someone who is trying to track down family/genealogical information may only have limited information on hand for doing research. The index data law makes a reasonable amount of information public for just such purposes, but it prevents the release of too much information to help protect any privacy issues. If you already have a date or certificate number, then the state can’t be held liable for releasing unauthorized information. This law, or the previous version of the law, is what allowed the state to release birth information to the newspapers in the first place, such as the 1961 birth announcements.
———————
Mr. Charlton replies: While it seems certain that some filing was made on Aug. 4th, we are not certain that Steve or Barry was born on that day. However, you cannot request the certificate number, only the Index records, which contain only the gender, name and parents name; not even the date of birth.
There’s no statutory rule prohibiting a request via the certificate number. Okubo has responded to some requests by trying to convince people to give her a name … which would effectively let her off the hook. As noted, this information is in a computer database that can be quickly typed in as a search. Once they find the record matching the request, THEN they can proceed by releasing the specified name, gender and event type as specified by rule.
John, if the marriage was bigamous then why have a divorce three years later? Also, the Soetoro divorce is funny in that the paper work was filled out and singed on Jun 15,1980 then filed on Aug 20, 1980. It appears that it was granted on Aug 28, 1980. The court record indicates it was not terminated until Nov 1988. What’s up with that? So the consesus seems to be that the inclusion of “1 child above 18” in the divorce document implies a parental relationship which leads one to believe that there is an amended BC due to adoption in the name of Barry Soetoro. So my 2 questions then are, whose name should have been on the Selective Service registration filed on July 30, 1980 with the bad SSN? Are we now saying that there were probably 3 amendments to the original BC issued to Steve Dunham? Lastly, I’m adopted and I know I can change my name but I know of no legal way to have my original BC to suddenly become my current legal BC. Do you?
—————————–
Mr. John Charlton: Bigamy is generally held to be a crime in the jurisdiction where the original marriage took place; but it invalidates the second marriage. There is a divorce because, evidently, Dunham did not want to plead that it was bigamous, out of self respect.
As for the other details of the second divorce, I am not familiar with them.
As for an actual adoption record of Obama by Soetero, we do not know if it exists; because Indonesian law seems not to have required what we call an adoption; merely the marriage of Lolo to Stanly Ann put Barry under Lolo’s paternal authority. The filing for that may not be equivalent to an adoption, more like a legal guardianship; though in Indonesian law it gives the right to bear a surname. I say may and might, so it could be otherwise.
I am not familiar with US adoption laws to answer your question about reverting to using your original BC, but the scenario I describe above does not require that. If his original vital record was amended, it seems sufficient to me, that if someone kept a certified copy of the original record, and used it without divulging that it was no longer valid, in that an amendment or admendments had been filed, that it could be used in a documen fraud scheme to get a SSN under the original name.
John;
I can answer his question. I was born and my parents were divorced years later. My mother re-married and my step-father ‘adopted’ me. At the adoption, the court ordered a new BC issued from the state I was born in and the original one ‘SEALED’. The adoption happened in another state. A new Birth Certificate was issued with my ‘step-father’ and his information as my ‘biological and birth father’. I had to go to the court where the adoption took place, petition the court and have the judge issue a ‘COURT ORDER’ for the release of my original ‘SEALED’ Birth Certificate. I even had to get a letter from my ‘birth’ father allowing for the information to be released, and I never lost contact with him, and I was 18 when the adoption took place. That original ‘Birth Certificate’ was a certified copy of my original long form issued when I was born. Every bit of information, including other siblings, doctor, witness, mother and fathers information is there. I have both copies and show them in my videos on youtube.
For that reason I can tell you, that something happened to have two records with the Department of Health.
As for the Indonesian adoption, there is nothing stating that Indonesia had to notify the State of Hawaii that an adoption took place.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,LEGISLATION,IDN,4562d8cf2,3ae6b4ec8,0.html
The Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.
Article 1. Citizens of the Republic of Indonesia are:
a.persons who, based on the legislation and/or treaties and/or regulations prevailing since the August 17, 1945 Proclamation, are already citizens of the Republic of Indonesia;
b.persons who at their birth have a legal family relationship with their father, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, with the understanding that said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia starts as from the existence of that legal family relationship and that said legal family relationship is created before the persons concerned have reached the age of 18 or before they are married at an earlier age;
c.a child born within 300 days after the decease of its father, if said father is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at the time of his death;
d.persons whose mother is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at their birth, if at that time they have no legal family relationship with their father;
e.persons whose mother is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at their birth, if their father has no nationality, or as long as the nationality of the father is unknown;
f.those born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as long as both parents are unknown;
g.a child found within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as long as both parents are unknown;
h.persons who are born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, if both parents have no nationality or as long as the nationality of both parents is unknown;
i. persons born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia who have not acquired the nationality of the father or mother at the time of their birth and as long as they do not acquire the nationality of either their father or mother;
j. persons who have acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia according to the regulations of this law.
Article 2.
(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.
or
Title Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia
Publisher National Legislative Bodies
Country Indonesia
Publication Date 1 August 1958
Reference IDN-110
Cite as Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia [Indonesia], 1 August 1958, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html
Comments This is an unofficial translation. The Law was signed by the President on 29 July 1958, promulgated on 1 August 1958, and published in the Government Gazette No. 113 of 1958.
Sorry for the long reply.
Evidence for MOMBASA spelling. I suppose that the good John Charlton will make claim that the following 1952 letter which is post marked MOMBASA as well as address stamped MOMBASA is a forgery.
Or let me guess, John Charlton’s claims will be that it was only for one year (1961) that MOMBASA went by MOMBASSA spelling?
http://cgi.ebay.com/K611-KUT-Kenya-Mombasa-1952-George-VI-FDC-to-USA_W0QQitemZ200425871710QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_2?hash=item2eaa50195e
—————–
Mr. Charlton replies: I never said the spelling of Mombassa was exclusive of Mombasa, did I? So you attack something I never said. I have seen it spelt Mombassa…q.v. Race Bannon’s testimony, and some older maps. Both spellings are listed in Webster’s Geographical Dictionary.
Have to clear a bit of misinformation. The following response from Okubo appears to be legally valid:
“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.”
The first sentence is how agencies are supposed to respond when no documents exist as described in a request. The second part is a legal exemption stated in HRS 92F-11(c):
“(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.”
By law, you can visit the agency and inspect their public files, but I would be willing to be the basis of the Fukino statement on Obama being natural born was established through an e-mail exchange between her and the attornery general. The best way to get that would be to ask for a copy of the e-mails, either from the DOH or from the OIP.
———————
Mr. Charlton replies: KSDB, what what you say is true in general, it is not true in regard to the request made, as cited above in the Appendix: the context changes the meaning of every saying, when that saying is made in reference to it: or in otherwords you have read correctly as it stands apart from a response, but you have misunderstood that such a response cannot be made when what is requested is in the plural. In the latter case, the response in the above format you cite, is a misdirection.
tres interessant …Perhaps WND should revise the Bill Board Campaign to say, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate — Steve?” Asking about his name needs to come up in a WH press conference.
While there are leads to Kenya….untill absolutely proven…another possiblility might be that Anne’s mother filed the name (Steve Dunham) when the birth occurred in their home. Relatively soon afterwards, after Anne had gone to Washington State with the baby (and being out from under her parents), the name was changed. This would be in accord with both the social mores of the time and the independence and social interests of Anne as an 18 year old. Whatever the cause of the name change, this makes a further muddle of the history and documentation of this background investigation. Something is rotten is the State of Hawaii.
What a great find.
I think I recall reading some time back that when someone applies to the bar for their law license, they have to state whether they have ever gone by any other names, and Obama said he had not.
They got Al Capone for tax fraud and I wonder if, at the very least, someone could go after Obama and see if he has lied about this to the bar and pursue it while everyone works on uncovering the rest of his machinations.
More than one name, filed and not accepted, etc. There is so much here it is almost unbelievable and yet the entire msm is not only not doing it’s job, but also trying to squelch any effort to get to the truth.
We’ll get to it, though.
Please explain this:
http://www.barrysoetoro.com/
That domain is currently registered to, and for sale by, Tharwat Abdul-Malik of Atlanta, Georgia. (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/barrysoetoro.com)
What if anything can be done with this information??? Will the MSM continue to let this slide…..What about National Inquirer……they have broke the big stories on Tiger Woods and John Edwards……can we arm them with this information and see what they can uncover???
After reading that his name is Stephen Dunham, I did a search on the net for that name and came across this interesting comment on another site:
“An alias search for Stanley Ann at recordsarea.com shows the following information:
* Kelly A. Dunham, associate/relative of Madelyn L. Dunham, Honolulu, HI;
* Kelly A. Shippleck (Kelly A. Dunham), Phoenix, AZ [is this a third marriage or an alias for real estate/money laundering?].
* Sandra Dunham (Sandra Lee Dunham), OH, FL
* Susan N. Dunham, HI, CA. Ste (Stephen) Dunham, Honolulu, HI (Stanley Ann chooses another male name?)
* Stephen O. Dunham, Honolulu, HI
* Scott A. Dunham, (Stanley Ann chooses a second male name?), HI, WA, OR, TN, VA, IN.”
With my new found knowledge ofcourse the name Stephen O. Dunham stood out like a sore thumb….. I have noticed in past research that Anne & her family often play with their initials in order to confuse….I bet the “O” stands for Obama……STEPHEN OBAMA DUNHAM.
Is this a typo?
a “Seven Dunham”
In the response where she said no index data was found…
Also, how about other dates for the birth, does the denial only cover Aug. 4, 1961?
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Yep, thanks, got it…
As to your question about the denial: the DoH has computerized records of all original vital record indexes, which they use to find the actual documents; birth index, marriage index, death index. It’s a matter simply of opening the pertinent software and entering a name. They never release birth dates, since that is considered private information, on account of it consequently relesing the actual age of the individual. Hence a denial of the existence of an Index record refers to the denial of the record being stored under that name; one infers normally that this means the record never existed; but that inference is not exact; it means merely that its not stored under that name.
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. — Barack Hussein “Steve” Obama, Speech given at Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, 15 Oct 2008.
Text for speeches by McCain and Obama available at:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/obama_comedy_rift_middle_name.html
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: Great find, Durus; I’ve added it to the article above. The Chicago Sun Times, of all sources…what do they know, that we don’t know…??
Mr. Charlton,
You once used an email exchange that I had with Ms. Okubo (“Filed” vs. “Accepted”), as the basis for an informative article. Therefore, you probably recognize who I am.
Presuming your interpretations are correct, then it is pretty clear that Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo are guilty of two major crimes: a.) Criminal Conspiracy, and b.) Misprision of a Felony.
Here is the Basis for the Charges:
1. When “Amendments” are made to Vital Records, this fact is noted at the bottom of COLBs – even the Short Form versions printed on their laser printer.
(If you need an example, please email me and I’ll send you a picture.)
2. None of the COLB images presented by Stopthesmears.com, and Factcheck.org show any “Amendments”. Thus, even if these began as genuine documents (questionable) — the Amendment(s) were DELETED — in order to mislead or trick the Public viewers. This makes all their displayed images “Forgeries” or “Counterfeits” of Official Documents.
3. With all the brouhaha that has occured about those “images”, there is little question that both Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo have undoubtedly viewed them.
(Ms. Okubo is actually on record as having made “statements” about what the Images show, and don’t show.)
4. Dr. Fukino has publicly asserted that she has personally “viewed the Vital Records maintained on file” for Barack Obama II — and in responding to the hundreds of questions posed by UIPA inquiries, there is little question that Ms. Okubo is also intimately familiar with what is on file. Therefore, they both know that valid COLBs images should also carry the “Amendment(s)” advisory printed thereon.
5. When Obama’s supporters posted “altered” public documents on the internet
— not only to trick the public into believing that he was a US Citizen (but not necessarily “Natural Born”) and was thus qualified to run, but also to SOLICIT MONEY — they commited Interstate Wire Fraud. (Many people receive internet via cable.)
6. If Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo have not reported these Federal Crimes to proper legal authorities already, then they would be guilty of Misprision of a Felony (Wire Fraud, also Forgery of Official Documents).
7. If they have discussed among themselves how to keep the “public in the dark”, then they become Accessories to the Crimes themselves. Here, Criminal Conspiracy enters the picture. An aggressive Federal Prosecutor would also explore R.I.C.O. charges — against both HIDoH and Obama’s Election Team because of a “Continuing Pattern of Events”. This was NOT a one time event.
Mr. Charlton, based on your assemblage of facts, one other point is clarified. If the multiple Amendments took place, as per your scenario, then I can fully understand how HIDoH might have become suspicious about the “actual” events surrounding Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. This would explain why his alleged COLBs were classified as merely “Filed with Registrar”, instead of “Accepted by State Registrar”. Many clouds are starting to be lifted.
——————
Mr. Charlton replies: As I speculated many weeks ago:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/09/26/does-fukinos-okubos-silence-indicate-they-believe-obama-has-committed-a-crime/
I believe the only motive for Fukino and Okubo’s reticence and evasiveness is that they believe someone could be charged with a crime. Perhaps, in not attending to the fact that in releasing the online COLB image, they both became immediately liable in law to discount it as a forgery, or a clever ruse; and that their silence, motivated by a desire to avoid trouble, has involved them in the crimes you detail.
I know for a fact that they are reading The Post & Email from an informant I have in Hawaii. So let’s see if you comment sparks fuller disclosure, just as the Red Flags article on Sunday has in this case of the Steve Dunham records.
Horsehair – did you blog about this e-mail exchange and later delete that blog?
CapitalG,
I never deleted anything. In the Comments Section of Leo Donofrio’s now defunct legal website, I posted an email that was specifically crafted to make it difficult for HIDoH to either evade, or avoid an honest answer. Since their response was two flat-out pathetic, evasive lies, I posted them there, also – because I believed their juvenile response was very humorous.
Mr Charlton picked up my posting on Leo’s site, and he used it as the nucleous for the Article found at this next URL (copy / paste):
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/28/hi-dept-of-health-admits-obamas-colb-is-faked/
Another viewer of Leo’s Blog Site picked up my information and he posted “all-of-it” on the Free Republic website, as a “thread” for discussion. I believe it can be found at URL (copy / paste):
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2395708/posts
Horsehair I wasn’t meaning to imply an attempt to ‘hide’ anything by deletion.
Your comments led me to suspect you were ‘MissTickly/TerriK’, who was doing some excellent research on wordpress. Now it says that blog was deleted by the author (has for about a month).
In your above referenced Prior Article, you made the excellent point that HIDoH is NOT required to disclose to the PUBLIC, information about observed “Criminal” acts, QUOTE:
“(2) Information identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of criminal law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation;”
It is for this reason that I made the special point that their act of Misprision of a Felony occurs ONLY if they failed to report the crimes they witnessed to proper Law Enforcement Authorities. In other words, they did not have to tell the Public, but they do have an absolute DUTY to notify Law Enforcement.
Interestingly, in protecting “Personal Privacy”, they are also obliged to shield the fact whenever an Illegitimate Child is born.
My first impression – when it became apparent that a “cover up” was taking place – was perhaps this might be the case with Obama ?
Logically, however, your latest interpretations offer a better explanation,
They should know that even Barack and Rahm and Axelrod ALWAYS throw every supporter under the bus 100% of the time, and if they don’t want to go down with the sinking (36% approval rating) ship with Deal challenging eligibility which will come right back to these Hawaii officials…then they’d better un-stifle their silence NOW.
It IS in the 2nd part of the youtube roast video….He says his real middle name is Steve @ about 1:30 into the video
It’s here at 1.37.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/10/17/mccain_and_obama_at_the_al_smi/
John, It’s in this video @ 18.48. He says his middle name is Steve. I just watched this, now the link does not work. Smells fishy to me.
From Google:
McCain and Obama Palling Around? Must Be the Al Smith Dinner – The …
Oct 16, 2008 … With a pair of rivals taking time away from the fray to swap jokes, it could only be the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New …
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/…/mccain-and-obama-palling-around-must-be-the-al-smith-dinner/ –
John, I remember hearing this speech and he did say Steve. Was the video tampered with? I saw MSNBC at the beginning.
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: As I cannot view videos, through my internet connection, I have relied on what others are saying about this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk5YJkhizRs
Since 4 commentators have viewed it and said that no where does this quip occur in that segment, I have pulled it from the article.
However, the segment may not be complete. Those who say this quip did occur, do all indicate that it occured during such a public meeting, and some identify it with this dinner. I’ll leave the question to be resolved by those who can view videos.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/10/17/mccain_and_obama_at_the_al_smi/
4th video @ 1:35 or so
Barack Steve Obama
This is interesting (the plot thickens)… but now what? What will or what can you or the finder do with this information?
Do we all have a chat … or does information go to a constitutional lawyer to now file a quo warranto? Have you informed Taitz or Apuzzo?
I think Anne Dunham was 3 months short of meeting the age requirements to pass citizenship on to her child, per requirements for citizenship of children of unmarried women born outside the USA at that time. I’m just guessing that grandma knew about this, and actually submitted BC records for December 4 1961 (ann was born at the end of november), maybe steve dunham, maybe obama?
—————-
Mr. Charlton replies: I do not have the Nationality Act in front of me, but I believe you are mistaken: it required in the case of births to unwed mothers, outside the USA, that the girl be at least 15 years old, only; which Ann was.
From the U.S. Department of State site:
“Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad”
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
——————–
Mr. Charlton replies: Gordo, that’s the current law; not the one in effect in 1961.
This might be helpful:
“Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States
The rules determining when such children are citizens are extremely detailed, and vary a great deal depending on when the child was born since the laws changed several times in the 20th century.”
(see link for details)
http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html
Mr. Charlton replies: I do not have the Nationality Act in front of me, but I believe you are mistaken: it required in the case of births to unwed mothers, outside the USA, that the girl be at least 15 years old, only; which Ann was.
—-regarding the above comment…..note that Anne Dunham may have attempted to mis-represent herself as a single mother in order to register the birth of her son as an American citizen but the reality is that she was actually married to Obama Sr. There is a divorce decree, which is sufficient proof that they were LEGALLY married….so it does not matter how she attempted to portray herself, the reality is that she was NOT a single mother….and therefore was NOT old enough to transfer her nationality.
——————
Mr. Charlton: According to both UK and HI law, her marriage was a bigamous one, therefore invalid; in such a case, of after the fact determinations; does not the Department of State have the duty to adjudicate whether she would be judged to be single or not?
Either way, Obama Junior is not a natural born citizen; but there is no way her marriage could be considered legally valid, because it was bigamous, and the laws of the time of both nations did not recognize such marriage as anything more than legal fictions.
No, it was 4 years AFTER turning the age of 15. She had to be 19 in order to pass her citizenship to Obama IF he was born out of the country. That law has been changed since to two years, but the law in effect at that time remains in effect to those affected during the time the law was in effect. So if Obama was in fact born out of the country then he is not even a citizen here unless he applied to become one under the naturalization process, which there is no record or proof that he did that.
———————
Mr. Charlton replies: What you say is true of married women; not of single mothers. Dunham could easily have claimed to be unmarried, at the US Embassy in Nairobi, since her marriage would not be on her passport.
Thank you, Mr. Carlton, for addressing this and painting the detail picture of this imbedded corruption. It was so refreshing to read and understand the research expressed and shed the light of truth, as Berg and his “joined at the hip” assistant have been driving this into the skulls of everyone they talked to on the radio shows, and/or posted to all as there are many holes in their theories; as this is and issue they refused to address and you did….that Dunham was not married. Since Berg has fallen off the face of concern for our country and more concerned to project misery on others, by being a thorn in Dr. Taitz’s side, unfortunately his followers are shocked at his alleged unethical behavior. Berg used to have some followers and supporters, until he ran out and began finding an alternative way of seeking attention.
His plan allegedly is to ‘diss’ those with integrity to try and “usurp” what he himself was not attempting. He was in a box and not thinking outside of it, nor was he seeing the picture that was right in front of his face, as how easy is this; the father is not a citizen. PERIOD….how hard was that? You have so brilliantly, handsomely combed through information to addressed this issue and I see exactly what you are saying. I praise your brilliance. Don’t you believe the resignation is an admission of guilty or exhaustion of control? It sounds to me that those in HI DOH do not breathe unless they are told which nostril to use.
Again thank you so much for this wonderful piece of work
This is awesome….
I apologize for posting again and you can kick me out if you want John. But could it be under ‘Steven’? I know this would be splitting hairs but I would put nothing past the HI DOH.
——————-
Mr. Charlton replies: In intrepid researcher’s actual request was for “Steve Dunham”, “Steven Dunham”, and “Stephen Dunham.” So to answer your question, no. I did not mention this detail in the article, but I should have…
So is this why ‘filed by registar’ is on his COLB? Or does this prove his COLB is a fraud? Has anyone tried to get records from Kenya or Great Britain? This whole deal is crazy!!