WAS OBAMA GIVEN A CERTIFICATE NUMBER WHICH HAD BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Aug. 21, 2010) — In June, The Post & Email solicited funds for its Legal Defense Fund for a specific research project focusing on details and discrepancies surrounding Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. Many of our readers were very generous with their donations, including one who put forth a “matching grant” challenge which was met and even surpassed. With the help of a private donor, The Post & Email was able to fund an investigative journey to Hawaii for an experienced researcher. The results of the investigation follow in the researcher’s own words.
MRS. RONDEAU: How long were you in Hawaii doing this investigation?
RESEARCHER: I was in Honolulu for approximately three days. I arrived in the middle of the day on a Tuesday. My first stop was the State Library to review the Oahu Polk’s Directories to confirm the address history of Stanley, Madelyn and Stanley Ann Dunham and some other persons of interest. I also verified that Barack Obama Sr. appeared in the Polk’s Directory. I looked for the name “Lolo Soetoro,” but I never did find a record of him in the directories I looked at. However, from the passport information that was recently released as a result of the Chris Strunk FOIA request, it appears that Lolo was in Honolulu as early as 1962.
I looked at the Polk’s Directory starting with 1959-1960, which would have been complied in 1959 and published in 1960, and the Dunhams were not in there. They appeared in the following year, 1960-61, and I went through the directories up to 1965-66 when I had a hard stop because the library was closing. The Dunhams appeared to have lived at the birth address for two years and then had at least three different addresses listed in the remaining directories. After Ann returned from Seattle, she is listed in the 1962-1963 directory as Ann Obama and residing at the same address as her parents. In all the subsequent listings, she is listed an Ann Dunham and had the same address as her parents.
I was able to capture images of all of this information. I had previously done some work with another researcher last winter, and I do have confirmation from the University of Washington’s Special Collection Archives that Stanley Ann appeared in the Seattle Polk’s Directory in 1961-62. The Dunhams appeared in the 1959-1960 King County directory which at that point in time, I believe included all of the surrounding area, excluding Seattle. Their address was traced to an apartment located on Mercer Island, which is directly east of Seattle. So everything seemed to be in order in regard to the address history that has been published over the last couple of years.
MRS. RONDEAU: So the Dunhams really did live on Mercer Island, which is part of the state of Washington, and they really did go to Hawaii as has been stated.
RESEARCHER: Yes. The only thing that isn’t clear is the timing of when they actually moved, because it’s very difficult to ascertain other than the year as to when the Polk’s Directories are published.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you know for a fact that when you look at a Polk’s Directory, it was published a year after the information that it contains?
RESEARCHER: Actually, it says that it covers a two-year span. For example, 1960-61 would have been compiled, I believe, in 1960 and published in 1961. But there is no month of publication indicated; it just has the year. I had contacted Polk’s Directory some time ago to find out if there were any historical archives to see if I could determine when the Dunhams moved. I assume it was probably sometime in the summer of 1960 after Ann graduated from high school. It’s too bad I had a hard stop due to the library closing; there is a plethora of other historical information there. They have a microfiche archive of both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin, various high school yearbooks including Punahou High School’s during “the Obama Years” and old phone books. If someone plans to visit Hawaii in the near future, it would be particularly interesting to see what is contained in the yearbooks.
MRS. RONDEAU: What was the next place you visited?
RESEARCHER: The next morning, I went directly to the Department of Health, and my primary objective was to determine whether or not Mr. Obama appeared in the 1960-64 Index. There was another person who had visited Hawaii, I believe in early March, and when that person asked for and reviewed the index data they swore up and down that they looked for Mr. Obama’s name and couldn’t find it. I looked up some other names as well to basically confirm the veracity of the book that I was looking at; ones that I knew had taken place because they had birth announcements within the same time frame as Mr. Obama’s. For example, I looked for and located Norman Asing, who appeared in the same birth announcement as Mr. Obama. I also looked for and located the Nordyke twins, and I randomly looked for a couple of other names just to get a sense of what I was looking at.
In the 1960-1964 birth index, I also looked for any Soetoros and Dunhams, in which I located neither. I also reviewed the 1955-1959 birth index searching for Dunhams, Obamas and Soetoros just in case there was a chance that Mr. Obama appeared in an earlier index as opposed to the 1960-64 index. There were two girls with the surname of Dunham in this directory, but other than that, there were no matches for either Obama or Soetoro.
Now when I was looking at the index, for some reason, I had a senior moment, and I didn’t remember seeing it, but I actually captured an image of the page on which Mr. Obama’s name appears. In regard to the other indexes, I looked at the 1960-65 marriage index by groom and confirmed that Obama Sr. was listed there as a groom and Stanley Ann as the bride to confirm that there was a record that he was married to Stanley Ann. I also wanted to see if there was a record for Ann and Lolo, and I looked at the 1966-1970 groom marriage index, and it wasn’t in there, but I didn’t look for it in the 1960-65 groom marriage index. I also reviewed the bride index for 1960-65, and there were actually two entries in that one for Ann for both marriages. Essentially what they have are marriage indexes that are sorted by bride’s name, and sorted by groom’s name, so you can look them up either way.
Based on that, it was very clear to me that Ann and Lolo were married in 1965, and I think the release of the passport record confirms that they were married in March of 1965.
MRS. RONDEAU: I don’t know if you found it in your research, but the release of Stanley Ann’s passport records shows a date of March 5, 1964 on one application, and March 15, 1965 on another application. Also, two different locations for the marriage were provided.
RESEARCHER: Yes, one was Molokai, and other was Maui, I believe. They are two different islands.
MRS. RONDEAU: Was there anything in the index data you saw that indicated there were two different locations?
RESEARCHER: No, there wasn’t. The only data contained in the marriage index is the name of the bride, the name of the groom and that it occurred within the year range specified on the index cover and the index pages themselves. However, through reasonable deduction, I was able to determine that Lolo and Ann did, in fact, marry in 1965.
MRS. RONDEAU: When you asked to see these materials, was there any difficulty in getting them?
RESEARCHER: No, not at all. When I entered the office, I was quite surprised, because it was very antiquated and it was quite obvious that the offices had not been renovated in many, many years, if ever. There were no cameras in the lobby, which is very small; the square footage of the lobby is probably no more than 300 square feet at most. There are no stairs or anything like that, just an area where people get in line to make their requests, something on the order of a ticket counter. Directly to your right when you walk in the door, there’s a counter where you fill out forms to obtain copies of your Certificate of Live Birth or a death certificate or marriage license on the spot.
The request form for a Certificate of Live Birth, for example, contains, among other things, all of the information that appears on the Certificate of Live Birth. When the COLB is printed, all of the information including the border, department seal (not the raised seal), the form fields and personal data comes from the database. In other words, the form feedstock is completely blank; nothing is preprinted on it.
Anyway, when it was my turn, I went up to one of the service windows which is glass-encased, with a hole to speak to the clerk through and a pass-through for documents directly underneath. The first indexes I asked for were the 1960-64 birth index, the 1960-1965 marriage index, and a death index to explore the possibility that Mr. Obama may have used someone else’s certificate number. I had to print and sign my name and give them my identification, which they kept until I was finished, but I didn’t have to provide any other information aside from my name. Whether or not they made a photocopy of my identification, while I was examining the indexes, I can’t say. They then stamp the log with an old-fashioned date-stamper. I’m not absolutely positive, but it looks as if the last person to have requested to review index data was several weeks prior to my request unless they maintain a sign-in log at each of the service windows. The clerk went to a shelf located behind the counter to search for and locate the indexes I requested and gave them to me via the pass-through. I took the indexes to the counter where you fill out record request forms to examine them and make digital images.
MRS. RONDEAU: That’s very interesting. Did you say that you saw the name of “Barack Hussein Obama II”?
RESEARCHER: Yes, I did.
MRS. RONDEAU: Was there anything unusual about the name’s appearance in the list? Did it look just the same as all the other names?
RESEARCHER: It looked just the same. Basically, they use data binders for these indexes. Data binders have a cardboard-like cover with two long prongs that feeds up through the bottom and a retainer to secure the prongs on the top so you can insert whatever thickness you want. All of the books appear to be about the same quality and age, including the 1960-64 birth index. The only variation that I observed was the color of the index cover and all of the indexes’ binders were covered with the content and the years that they spanned. As for the pages themselves, they each contain two pages of computer-generated index data with the computer printout page number and the computer- generated header defining the content and date range.
I made two observations: that there is a person who appears in the index directly above Mr. Obama which was identified as “duplicate;” however, there was only one entry for this birth, not two, as it seemed to suggest in reference to the “duplicate” marker. There was also another anomaly that I observed about the 1960-1964 index in general that I am not going to disclose at this time.
MRS. RONDEAU: So it mentions the name of someone, but then it gives no index data for that person?
RESEARCHER: Well, no, there’s index data there; it’s just that it says “duplicate.” There aren’t two entries, however.
MRS. RONDEAU: Could that indicate that Obama’s name was put in after the fact?
RESEARCHER: Yes. I think that’s possible; I believe that if the Department of Health did that, it made an error by replacing the wrong name. Instead of replacing the “duplicate” name, they actual replaced the one that was not identified as “duplicate.”
MRS. RONDEAU: Did you see that irregularity in any other section of that particular birth index?
RESEARCHER: No, I did not.
MRS. RONDEAU: And is “irregularity” how you would characterize it?
RESEARCHER: I would characterize that as an anomaly, yes.
MRS. RONDEAU: So did the report have a different setup?
RESEARCHER: Yes. It’s a supposition at this point in time. I suspect that they have a standard report which includes the print parameters in all of the aforementioned indexes but this index was slightly different, and it’s quite possible that a custom report was generated because Mr. Obama’s registration was inserted or it perhaps does not fall within that date range.
MRS. RONDEAU: So if someone entered his name after the fact, for example, in 2007 or after?
RESEARCHER: Or in 1981, if it was a foreign birth registration.
MRS. RONDEAU: And then they entered it as “August 4, 1961”?
RESEARCHER: I don’t know. I suspect that what the DoH did is created a custom report to identify all births that were registered between 1960 and 1964, and added Mr. Obama as an additional parameter, regardless of when he was actually registered or added to the database. I think that it would be helpful to gather some more information from someone who has a little bit more technical knowledge than I do in regard to databases. I have some, but I am by no means an expert. Based on my reasoning, I think that’s what happened.
MRS. RONDEAU: To your knowledge, does the Hawaii Department of Health maintain handwritten books? Mr. John Charlton, Founder and Editor Emeritus of The Post & Email, had requested copies of handwritten birth index pages some months ago. Do you know if they still maintain those or if they’re available to the public?
RESEARCHER: I don’t know for certain. I have extensively reviewed a document titled Department of Health Specific Record Retention Schedule, which states that they have to maintain permanent records of the various indexes: General, Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, Late/Delayed Registrations and Foreign Births. It does not specify in which form the records must kept or if obsolete indexes must be retained and archived. I suspect that when they went to a computerized system, it’s possible the handwritten indexes were destroyed since the computer database and the back-up tapes became the new “permanent” index.
The DoH has maintained all along that it does not have any handwritten indexes and another dedicated researcher verified that the State Archives does not possess them either. I don’t know if they did any intentional destruction or not or if they are being less than forthcoming in regard to the handwritten indexes’ existence.
MRS. RONDEAU: Does that go for any year span?
RESEARCHER: Yes, I believe if they’ve destroyed anything intentionally or otherwise, it’s really unfortunate, because of the historical value from an archive standpoint. As I stated, it very well could be that the DoH still has these handwritten indexes and they are just denying it and thus denying access.
MRS. RONDEAU: Mr. Charlton had requested copies of handwritten pages but received something entirely different. He received a computer printout at no charge, which is unusual.
RESEARCHER: I believe he received a copy of what appears to be the index for Certificate of Hawaiian Birth from which they had redacted some information but included more information than they were required by law to provide. All they are required to release for birth and death indexes is first name, last name and gender. It was printed on what I call old-fashioned green bar paper, and it had been redacted before being sent to Mr. Charlton. When I finished reviewing the first set of indexes I requested, I wanted to verify the Dunham/Soetoro marriage, and I wanted to review the 1955-1959 birth index. I actually had the opportunity to speak with Jesse, the supervisor, because he happened to be at the window where I made my second request.
I asked him directly whether or not the birth indexes also included Certificate of Hawaiian Births, Late/Delayed registrations and Foreign Births and he told me “no.” The indexes only covered births which had occurred at a hospital or at home and were registered within the legal parameters of a normal registration. I then asked if I could see the other indexes, to which he replied “no.” It was not clear based on his response if they did not exist or that I could not see them.
MRS. RONDEAU: So do you think he was holding back something that you had asked about?
RESEARCHER: I would say he was informing me in sort-of an indirect manner that they didn’t have them, and even if they did, I couldn’t see them.
MRS. RONDEAU: And you said one of those was the Delayed/Late registration index book?
RESEARCHER: Yes.
MRS. RONDEAU: What would that have in it?
RESEARCHER: I think the parameters would look identical to the General Birth index except that it would be identified in the header that it was the Late and/or Delayed Birth Index.
MRS. RONDEAU: If someone had been born in another state or country and moved to Hawaii with parents or other relatives, is that the book in which that person’s name would appear?
RESEARCHER: If they were born in another state, it is hard to say in which index they would appear. I think it would depend on the circumstances and timing of the registration. The DoH Specific Records Retention Schedule makes no mention that it is required to retain an index for births that occurred in a different state. Based on that, I believe they would appear in the General or Late/Delayed index, depending on the timing of the registration. If it was an out-of-country birth, I believe the name would appear in the Foreign Birth index which would include the same parameters as the General Index with the exception of the header; it would be identified as the “Foreign Birth Index.”
MRS. RONDEAU: But you were not allowed to see the other index books?
RESEARCHER: Correct. I then asked if I could have a copy of those specific persons’ index data if I requested it, and I was told “No, I could not,” because it would contain way too much information, and I said, “Well, what if you redacted all of the information with the exception of what appeared in the birth index?” and again, I was told, “No.”
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that was an irregularity or was that in conformance with their state statute?
RESEARCHER: I really think it’s in conformance with the state statute. The administrative rules for the UIPA law require them to make reasonable accommodations, not only to inspect records, but the rules also allow the release of copies. I didn’t ask for a copy of an index page, since I had made my own images, but I do believe that they are legally obligated to provide a copy of a page had I requested one. There are other researchers, including Mr. Charlton, who have obtained copies of pages containing vital event index data.
MRS. RONDEAU: So are the Department of Health’s responses haphazard? Do they say “yes” when they feel like it and “no” when they don’t?
RESEARCHER: No, I didn’t get that sense at all. Again, I did not ask for a copy of a page. Had I asked for a copy of a page and they had told me “no,” I was prepared to pull out the requirement that says that they have to provide a copy if requested in the form that the requester wants it, but I didn’t ask for it. In hindsight, that was probably an error on my part. As for dealing with the DoH from a remote location such as the Mainland, I think their responses are “haphazard” as you said.
There was one other noteworthy thing that happened at the Department of Health. Not recalling that I had actually viewed Mr. Obama’s index data, when I took back the last set of index books I reviewed, I said, “Well, I didn’t find the name that I was looking for” and that I was looking for Mr. Obama’s. The clerk looked really puzzled, and she went back and pulled out the book and pulled out a page from the binder and brought the single page over for me to view, which I took over to the counter, and I made an image of that as well. So I have an image of it in the book and as a single page. I thought there was something nefarious going on the first time when I thought it wasn’t there when they produced it on-demand, but it was in the book when it was in my possession, and the image I have absolutely confirms that I scanned it the first time when I had it.
MRS. RONDEAU: Was there anything unusual about his name on the single page?
RESEARCHER: The only other observation that could be made about the Obama entry in the index is that they had highlighted it with a yellow highlighter.
MRS. RONDEAU: Were there any other names highlighted?
RESEARCHER: His was the only one that I saw that was highlighted.
MRS. RONDEAU: Did the clerk make any comment about it?
RESEARCHER: No. Both images that I have are in color and it was apparent to me that they were one and the same page.
MRS. RONDEAU: But someone highlighted the name.
RESEARCHER: Yes, I think it was just to help people out. I think it’s safe to say that I’m not the only person who has gone into the Department of Health looking for Mr. Obama’s index data.
After that, because of some information that I had obtained from another researcher, I began another leg of my investigation. There is speculation that because Mr. Obama has a certificate number that is higher than the Nordyke twins who were born on August 5, 1961 at Kapiolani Women and Children’s Hospital, yet their births were registered on August 11, 1961, three days after Mr. Obama’s was allegedly registered and that he is using the certificate number of another infant born within a certain date range and registered on August 11th which was a Friday and no later than Monday, August 14th. It depends on what time of the day the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates were processed; the certificate number that Mr. Obama was allegedly assigned was likely assigned the same day as the Nordykes’.
Editor’s Note: Please see the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates at the end of this article.
MRS. RONDEAU: What is the relationship between the certificate number of the Nordykes and the number on the FactCheck-Obama document online?
RESEARCHER: The Nordyke twins’ birth certificate numbers are either 151-1961-010637 and 151-1961-010638. The birth certificate posted online in an article by WorldNetDaily last summer had certificate number 010638. Mr. Obama’s certificate was allegedly processed on August 8th and has the number 010641, which is three or four numbers higher than the higher Nordyke twin certificate number. I have confirmation from the DoH in response to UIPA requests I made last winter that the numbers were not preprinted on the form. The numbers were assigned by the Department of Health when the birth registration was accepted by the State Registrar, and only in the DoH main office located in Honolulu.
MRS. RONDEAU: So as a birth occurred and the information reached the Department of Health, a number was assigned.
RESEARCHER: Yes, and I believe that regardless of the actual birth date, they just assigned the next sequential number when the birth registration was processed. I don’t think there is necessarily any attempt on their part to order them by birth date.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is there any other information that you think our readers would like to know about?
RESEARCHER: I think that is a significant anomaly. Based on the information that’s been gathered thus far and the procedures used by the Department of Health during this time period, I just don’t think that it’s feasible that Mr. Obama’s certificate number could possibly be three or four numbers higher and accepted three days earlier than those of the Nordyke twins, which leads me to believe that that number belongs to another person and in all likelihood, it could belong to the infant or young child that was born within a certain date range whose birth was registered on August 11th that later died shortly after the birth or within a couple of years. I really can’t elaborate beyond that since there is still ongoing research to see if we can identify the person certificate number 010641 could possibly belong to. We’re trying to obtain some official HI documents that will aid in our research with the generous help of The Post & Email Legal Fund and its donors.
MRS. RONDEAU: There have been reports and affidavits signed by licensed investigators that Obama is using a social security number that had been previously assigned to someone, and the Social Security Administration has been quoted as having said that numbers are never reassigned. And now your research raises the question as to whether or not his certificate number could have previously been assigned.
RESEARCHER: Yes, we’re trying to ascertain to whom it may have been actually assigned and explore the possibility of obtaining a certified copy of the long-form birth certificate which, contrary to what has been reported, the DoH still issues. I don’t know where I’ve seen the statement supporting the Department of Health’s contention that it now issues only a Certificate of Live Birth, but it’s not true. When I was at the Department of Health, I observed a woman who was directly in front of me in line order a copy of her long-form birth certificate. She was told that it would take about a week to obtain. She made arrangements to pick it up at the DoH office in lieu of having it mailed to her since she worked across the street.
MRS. RONDEAU: So they do still issue the long form. That announcement they made last year could have been a smokescreen to legitimize the COLB that appeared online.
RESEARCHER: We have two document requests in process. Again, in all likelihood, if the Department of Health were going to reassign a number to give to Mr. Obama, it would probably be one that belonged to an infant that died shortly after birth or a child who died within a couple of years. With the help from donors to The Post & Email’s Legal Fund, we would like to obtain two sets of other official HI documents that we can cross-check against to speed up our research efforts.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any idea of the cost of what you’re requesting now?
RESEARCHER: We know the cost of the first set of documents because it was previously quoted in the AP article and based on what another researcher was informed when they made an identical request. Contrary to what was reported in the AP article, a researcher submitted payment to the DoH for the requested documents and it was rejected due to a fine-print technicality that time for the requester to respond had run out. That point is disputed by the researcher. I estimate the cost for those documents to be in the $100-$115 range. I think it really depends on the shipment method the requester specifies and the corresponding costs. I estimate the cost of the other documents we requested to be within the same range.
MRS. RONDEAU: Did they deny the other researcher’s request legitimately, or do you think they were simply looking for an excuse not to send it?
RESEARCHER: I think they were looking for an excuse not to send it.
MRS. RONDEAU: Given that, what causes you to believe that you or whomever requests it will actually obtain it?
RESEARCHER: Because I’ve asked for it directly, and the other person’s request started back in the winter for the handwritten index; their request was very similar to Mr. Charlton’s.
MRS. RONDEAU: And the Department of Health is maintaining that there are no handwritten records?
RESEARCHER: Yes, and then they offered a computer printout, and then some time had elapsed. The Department of Health has a rule that if the requester doesn’t respond within 20 days, they consider the matter closed. The requester did provide payment once they knew how much it was, and I believe within a seven-day period, no less, so I really think that they rejected it without due cause.
MRS. RONDEAU: So they could have fulfilled the request and were using a technicality to deny it?
RESEARCHER: Yes. I sent a UIPA request last Saturday requesting the identical document, and I actually referenced the AP article that you recently wrote about in which the DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo stated it was available for $98.75 but that no one had come forward with the funds to obtain it. Thanks to the generous donation from The Post & Email Legal Fund, I have already remitted a payment along with the request.
MRS. RONDEAU: Is there anything you’d like to add about your investigation?
RESEARCHER: No, other than please keep contributing, if at all possible, to the Legal Fund. The Post & Email has been the only source of research funding for private citizens such as myself, and your donations are needed in order for us to be able to reveal the truth, once and for all.
Good idea Tom!!
“Begin soliciting donations to fund a “research project” that will result in bringing forth and to light a genuine “Certification of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii along with the irrefutable evidence that the person or current family member of the person named on this document was, indeed, born elsewhere.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We would have to spend $$ on advertising, probably in HI news sources, or perhaps
on the internet.
I think one would probably not be enough to convince the Dodo Birds, but several
would seal the deal.
Perhaps sell the idea that these people would certainly have their 15 minutes of fame
involving their name being permanently etched in the History of this great nation.
Any thoughts Sharon, John, Researcher?
—————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: I’m not sure how such a thing could be proven if they refuse to open whatever records Obama has, if he has any in Hawaii. Our Hawaii Petition was designed to compel the Hawaii Health Department to open the records of the most public figure in the world, and we will soon do another such mailing. Please send more details to editor@thepostemail.com. Thank you.
Sorry for any confusion. Tom was talking about bringing forward OTHER people who have obtained HI Birth Credentials when indeed they were born elsewhere, to show the Media Flunkies that it was not only possible but quite common for on-citizens to easily get a HI Birth Credential.
kittycat
“This part does not make sense to me at all. Knowing what they would have had him do, then what he has become now because of them giving him a new identity, then what, why?”
Pure speculation but not without foundation…………….
A rogue element of the CIA or an organized group of exCIA
co-operating with or being directed by Soros and Friends
presenting sock-puppet Obama to the world.
Karen you said:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 7:18 PM
“…It’s just overwhelming and mindboggling what’s going on now in our country. Scary. It’s truly scary. i worked on McCain’s campaign. He threw the election in the 11th hour. I just don’t understand why. In fact, the possible (perhaps even likely WHY) scares me. I sure hope someone is protecting our country.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since you worked on McCain’s campaign, could you please elaborate from your first hand perspective and knowledge as to HOW Sen. McCain threw the election in the 11th hour?
Also, looking back; can you think of any indicators as to what might have been the impetus for the WHY?
Your answer to these questions can help protect the country.
I voted for McCain and had the feeling that he threw the election also. It was weird, I do remember that.
SaphireSunday: There are COLBs that are indentified as “filed by” issued in 2007 that were issued prior to O’s. Through correspondence and Polarik’s report I believe I was able determine that.
The HDoH however has went to great lengths not to define though. You have no idea how many times around the post I have been with them in regard these defintions. So far that I have an email where they actually conspire not answer me but to rather refer me to the Admin Rules and Statutes (again) which define neither term.
Researcher,
I’ve held that since the beginning the smoking gun (because, of all things, it has to be the easiest to prove, not that anything is easy) is proving that he was not born at Kapi’olani Hospital. The reason why it is so obvious that he wasn’t born there is that no one would have gone to the troubles to produce document after document, statement after statement, etc. to appease those looking for a 3rd party verification/witness to the birth without immediately just going to Kapi’olani and saying “show them my birth record” — which has less private/sensitive information than even the short form COLB! It’s obvious that not only will they not confirm, they can’t confirm, because he wasn’t born there.
While this alone does not prove he wasn’t born in Hawai’i, it certainly makes him a liar and vindicates all of the questions, inquiries, and doubts that the “birthers” have.
Is it really that hard to prove he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani?
Bro
ps – do you think the truth finally comes out after he’s out of office (when more people won’t feel threatened by the current powers)?
“Is it really that hard to prove he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani?”
Because of HIPPA, yes it is.
Researcher and Mrs. Rondeau:
You need to research this further. If you can prove this point, you will have caught Hawaii DOH in a major major lie which would show they simply can’t be trusted. If they lied about this, are they lying about Obama’s COLB?
—–
“I don’t know where I’ve seen the statement supporting the Department of Health’s contention that it now issues only a Certificate of Live Birth, but it’s not true. When I was at the Department of Health, I observed a woman who was directly in front of me in line order a copy of her long-form birth certificate. She was told that it would take about a week to obtain. She made arrangements to pick it up at the DoH office in lieu of having it mailed to her since she worked across the street.”
——————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: “Researcher” was there in person and witnessed the exchange. Therefore, we know that the DOH lied when they implied that only the short form birth certificate is available.
I had this sitting around in my “pages”. It was in an article in the Star Bulletin, but when you click the link the article is “gone”.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
June 6, 2009
(excerpts)
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
i have a copy
Born identity
Birth certificate styles adjust to fit times and regulations
By June Watanabe
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 06, 2009
Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live
Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received
certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital,
certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and
time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s
race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain
certificates for my third and fifth children?
Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.
Here’s the link to the $25,000,000 reward for a legitimate copy of Barry’s real, long-form birth certificate:
http://www.rewardforobamasbirthcertificate.com/
This blog contends that the birth certificate number is given when the birth registration is FILED, not when it is ACCEPTED. Please clarify for us. Your researcher says “accepted”. Which is it? It makes a huge difference.
See: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08
Based on what i have been able to ascertain, regardless of the revision history of the COLB (11/2001 vs. 10/2008), these terms are synonymous meaning that that “Filed” is the equivalent of “Accepted” sometime in 2007. All COLBs that were published in or after 2007 are indentified as filed vs accepted. Dr Polarik’s report confirms this. Miki Booth availed her son’s COLB which is also identifed as “Date Filed By” as opposed to “Date Accepted By”. based on my correspondence with the DoH it appears these terms are now synomymous regardless of the fact they have thwarted every effort to obtain a defined definition of one, the other or both. The energy they have put into not answering this relevant question defies logic.
Well, that’s as clear as mud.
So it may be by design that the HDoH changed the way they print COLBs in 2007, right about the time Obama allegedly ordered a copy of his own “birth certificate.” It appears that in 1961, there WAS (and probably remains) a difference between filed and accepted.
So why would HDoH care, and why would it be necessary to change the phrasing on the COLB?
Suppose there WERE two separate data fields: Date Filed (meaning when the registration was first submitted) versus Date Accepted (meaning when the registrar signed off on all evidence submitted, attesting to the truth of the evidence. Such evidence might include affidavits concerning a home birth.) This has to be the case because there is no doubt whatsoever that births can be registered but not accepted, until further proof is submitted to the registrar. Exceptions always must be allowed for. If there is no date filed that is stored separately from date accepted, then in the case of a birth registration pending further proof, the date accepted probably remains empty, and if printed, would be blank or missing on the COLB.
They may simply print the “best” data on file. If there’s a date accepted, print that. If there’s no date accepted, print the date filed. Suppose a situation where a home/out of state/foreign birth was submitted/filed/registered, but no supplementary evidence was ever forthcoming–perhaps not until 2007, 2008, or even later. Then that person’s record would have only a date filed, not a date accepted.
This might tip everyone off to the incomplete status of the “birth certificate,” which may have later morphed into “vital records” (plural) only after people began to request more information about Obama’s birth certificate and after his trip to visit Grandmother and possibly the HDoH.
In that case, if the COLB wasn’t “accepted” until, say, 2008, then the date accepted, if printed on the form, would be 2008. Not good, if anyone requests a NEW COLB for Obama (and if an amendment was made and supplementary “evidence” was filed in 2007/8.)
The 2007 version is extant; therefore, it becomes necessary to muddy the waters concerning the difference between filed and accepted.
In the case of a hospital birth, it is entirely possible that the date is the same: filed and immediately accepted. Both fields filled with the same date because a hospital birth is unquestioned by the registrar. In this situation, the terms are truly interchangeable, because it happens on the same date. Filed and accepted. No questions need be asked. No further evidence required because of the doctor’s signature and the sheer number of witnesses to the birth.
But one suspects that in the case of registration of a home birth (or out of state/country birth or perhaps even an adoption), the record had only a date filed until supplementary proof verifying the facts of the birth were provided AND accepted by the registrar. In this case, the terms are not synonymous because a birth registration may be in a pending state, perhaps forever, unless and until the supplementary evidence is submitted and approved by the registrar.
In order for Gov. Lingle to state publicly that Obama’s vital records have not been treated differently than anyone else’s, it becomes necessary for his record to truthfully reflect what has gone before.
Therefore, if his birth registration was filed but not accepted until as late as 2008, then any newly printed COLB would have to, at the very least, correctly state the date accepted and the fact that it was a late registration and/or an amended certificate.
So why did they change their terminology? Obfuscation, imho. This may also be why he will not have Hawaii print and submit to any of the courts a NEW certified COLB.
Bottom line: Filed or accepted, Obama’s COLB states: filed 8/8/61. By their own standards, if the HDoH is telling the truth, then on 8/8/61 he was assigned BC# 151 61 10641. If, as he contends, he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, then the date filed is the same as the date accepted and he got his BC# on 8/8/61.
The Nordyke twins’ birth certificates state: accepted 8/11/61. Therefore, they were assigned their numbers on that date: 151 61 10637 and 151 61 10638. They were demonstrably born in a hospital. They received their BC#’s on 8/11/61, three days after Obama received his number. Their BC#s SHOULD BE HIGHER, not lower than Obama’s.
He was born the day before them at Kapiolani hospital, he says. His records were filed 3 days before theirs. According to the HDoH, there’s no possible way for his BC# number to be 3 digits higher than theirs. Unless they’re misleading everyone. Of course, this presupposes that you accept that his digital COLB truly reflects whatever is in the HDoH files.
So how does all of this fit in with the statement of Tim Adams, the former Hawaii elections official, who had access to all of Hawaii’s records, and who said that there is no long form birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii’s records?
It fits. There is a writer I believe based on what they know who will detail the relevance of this anomaly. I cannot speak for them directly but I do know the Office of Elections and the HI Democrat Party knew something was amiss, Stay tuned.. the information hopefully should be available within the next few days if the writer comes through based on information provided to them by some researchers.
Maybe all that’s on file in Hawaii are a registration form, filled out by someone purporting to have “knowledge” of the birth, and a supplementary affidavit provided by someone swearing to the “facts” of the birth. In such a case, a long-form birth certificate that looks like the ones shown by Mrs. Nordyke would not exist. Or at least it would not look like what Mrs. Nordyke has shown.
Perhaps because by the time the birth registration was accepted, Hawaii had already done away with long-form birth certificates. They computerized their data. They DO retain the original long-form birth certicates that they had in their files, up until the time they eliminated keeping paper records.
So if a person born AFTER the HDoH went paperless requests a birth certificate, the person gets a COLB printed from the database, although the database probably contains more information than is printed on a COLB, as used to be the case with long-form birth certificates.
They are paperless NOW. They no longer print and store long-form birth certificates when someone is born. They do, however, retain, according to their own laws, any paper long-form birth certificates that were on file up until they went paperless. This WOULD include Obama’s, if he had one.
If he had one, as the researcher says, he could request a copy of THAT EXACT long-form document, in lieu of a COLB. He can request it and he can get it. They have to dig it out of storage in their archives, but they can and do perform that service upon request. Certainly they would do it if subpoenaed. They MUST perform that service, under their own laws.
They can’t do so for Obama because if Adams is correct, he doesn’t have a long-form birth certificate that they can copy for him. Perhaps, at best, all they can provide are copies of the registration, the affidavit(s), and a newly printed COLB. Of course, because of the vagaries of Hawaiian law in ’61, it’s possible that the only long-form on file for Obama is one that is not a HAWAIIAN long form.
It’s debatable whether or not they must not obfuscate or mislead, under their own laws. That’s where the problem comes in.
Mrs. Rondeau,
Regarding the “anomalies” between the Birth Certificate Numbers assigned the Nordyke Twins and Obama’s, your investigator may want to consider also the following quotation that is extracted from a WND article — (note that Obama supposedly also has a different format “middle number”, published on the web – another “anomaly”(?) ) :
Quote from “link” at :
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=105347
(copy and paste ???)
“A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi’olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.
Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
According to a version of Obama’s purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.
The middle figure in Obama’s purported registration also is different than the Nordykes’. Obama’s is 1961, indicating the year, while the Nordykes’ is merely 61.
One explanation for the out-of-order serial numbers might be that several serialized stacks of birth certificates were made available at different hospitals.
Another possibility is that Obama’s number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign. <>
Eleanor Nordyke told WND she thinks her twins got lower numbers because she went into the hospital Aug. 4, 1961, and was in labor for 20 hours before she delivered. She speculates that Ann Dunham came in after her and was given a later number, even though Dunham’s baby was born earlier. Nordyke’s twins were not born until the afternoon of the next day.
WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state’s procedure for issuing registration numbers.”
(End Quote)
The above WND article seems to indicate a more complete definition of what the Nordyke Twins numbers actually were (compared to what your Investigator found/reported). Note also that the Twins were provided with “Long-Form” Birth Certificates. Whereas Obama’s purported “agents” merely published an alleged “modern” short-form Certification, or COLB.
I remain convinced that one key to unraveling this puzzle is to be found in the different HIDOH Classifications: “DATE FILED WITH REGISTRAR _____ “, versus “DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR______”. Since FactCheck’s version of Obama’s alleged COLB carries the puny (much weaker/less confident/less authoritative) “FILED” notation, I suspect that HIDOH’s only supporting Application documentation – actually on file – could be just an embarrassing, simple “Affidavit of Birth” filed by either Stanley Ann, or grandmother Madelyn — without 3 signatures of Disinterested Witnesses (to bolster and enhance the validity of the Application). And, this leads me to suspect that the Applicant (who?) filed either an Unattended Home Birth (unwitnessed), or claimed to be making a Late Filing, application. Either type application, of course, could be used to hide “hanky-panky”.
Of course, these filing senarios do not preclude YOUR frightening theory that someone at HIDOH may have actually made an Insertion of fraudulent data into their Data Base. This would be both Criminal and Treasonous! (And, could justify you a Pulitzer Prize – if you can prove it – and, were you Left-Winged.)
To better understand my babblings, your readers may also want to review a previous P&E Article, authored by Mr. John Charlton at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/28/hi-dept-of-health-admits-obamas-colb-is-faked/ (copy and paste ???)
Kudos on your Article.
Your Investigator found a very substantial amount of useful information during the limited 3 day search (?), spent in the Islands. Keep it coming.
Come on Folks, click on the “Donate” pad, or send P&E some money. Good “ammo” (information) ain’t cheap these days — this could be one of the best Investments that you’ve ever made. I believe, “Our Republic is in grave danger”.
(FYI – Over 50 years ago (when we were playing serious “mind games” with the USSR, and carried “live ammo”, at ALL times, in ALL of our vehicles, in West Germany), “Horsehair” was my US Army radio call sign .)
We already have confirmation from the DoH that the certificate numbers were assigned at the time the when DoH processed; not pre-printed on a form, otherwise the certifcate numbers would all over the place and the DoH would no way to control them.
The numbers are for certificates of LIVE birth. You can’t issue a number based on hope, but only AFTER an actual birth occurs, so there’s no way they issued numbers before babies were born. The option would be to issue a certificate of fetal death.
Researcher,
Kudos and Well Done – thus far.
I am absolutely outraged to learn that HIDOH might possibly have gone to the lengths that they have — in avoiding the simple explanation that all COLBs printed during and post 2007 were designated “FILED”, rather than “ACCEPTED”. This explanation is just much too simple and straight forward. The fact that Ms Okubo clearly violated UIPA – when she cleverly evaded a clear, direct response to my inquiry about those two words – convinces me that “there is something rotten in Denmark” (or, in HIDOH). I pray that YOU will be successful in proving it, and someday we will get to see some political zealots “frog marched” for their crimes of conspiracy and fraud. Treason has never been a pleasant thing.
I presume that you are aware that HI was the ONLY state to which the DNC included an Affirmation Statement – attesting that Obama met the Constitutional Eligibility Requirements, to serve as President. All other 49 states were deliberately denied that positive Eligibility statement. All 50 Certification Statements were apparently prepared simultaneously. If you need supporting information about this belief, please advise.
I live with hope that you are on the right track. I hate to throw a monkey wrench into one aspect of the research. I know that city directories are replete with missing entries and information. In the 1960’s, while working a delivery route to get money to go back to college, I stopped at a customer’s shop. A local sales representative of our Phoenix city directory was there on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from the business owner because of the incomplete information found in the directory. He couldn’t locate many of his customers, nor could he locate prospects. Not few–many. I recently bought an old city directory from my high school years. I found so many errors and omissions. I know you know this. Press on. I will follow your work with interest.
—————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you for your support. There are several investigations ongoing, of which this is one.
“I don’t know where I’ve seen the statement supporting the Department of Health’s contention that it now issues only a Certificate of Live Birth, but it’s not true. When I was at the Department of Health, I observed a woman who was directly in front of me in line order a copy of her long-form birth certificate. She was told that it would take about a week to obtain. She made arrangements to pick it up at the DoH office in lieu of having it mailed to her since she worked across the street.”
This is significant piece of information that should be fully investigated. If this is in fact true, the Hawaii DOH has been caught in major lie. It also increases the the suspicions about Obama’s COLB. This needs to be investigated further.
The Hawaii Revised Statutes are pretty clear: “Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.” IOW, if you are eligible under the disclosure laws, they must provide ANY certificate or any part or any certificate you request. If you want your original long-form certificate, they must provide it – BY LAW.
I’m a little confused as to why the timing anomaly caused by the ‘date accepted’ / cert#, must be attributed to an already used certificate number.
I find the fact that the certificate numbers were not pre-printed, and were assigned by the government office interesting – and this is why. Wouldn’t it be more likely that the ‘date accepted’ is just that, the date that certificate form was accepted (i.e. received), and the certificate number was not assigned until the data on the form was in some way confirmed and verified.
So, in the case of a hospital birth, the typical method, the form quickly passes thru the office, and is assigned a certificate number and processed. Yet, when someone turns in a form recording a home birth, or foreign birth, there needs to be a manual verification process.
I believe the birth announcements are legitimate, and are the result of an actual Hawaii birth record – but this record is the result of an act of fraud.
Matt,
I don’t know if you’ve studied this or not, but there is some very interesting issues with the birth announcements. The person at this blog will allow the evidence to speak for itself. This is very time-consuming to study because there is a whole lot of information here.
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/#comment-135
If you study this, you might change your mind about the birth announcements.
An excellent piece of research. What is particularly interesting is the 8/13 HA announcements and the 8/14 announcements are the only days that the “stars were aligned” and matched announcement for announcement. These are the days that include O’s announcement, btw.
Matt:
I find it much more likely that a birth report would be filed before it would be accepted. The common terminology with regards to birth certificates is “Date filed by local registrar” and “Date accepted by state registrar”. Given that there is only one state registrar, and a number of local registrars, it makes sense that the state registrar (known as the “registrar general” in many terriroties like Hawaii prior to becoming a State) would be the last one to validate a birth registration. –This could be because the local registrar would file the initial report, and then request additional documentation before the State Registrar would “accept” it.
It makes more sense to me to have certificate numbers assigned when the birth registration is filed with the local registrar than it does to wait and have them assigned at the end of the process, but it is not out of the question. I don’t put a whole lot of stock in what the DOH says with regard to how things were done almost 50 years ago. –It may be helpful to locate the registration numbers for those born around the same time as Obama, but were born on another Hawaiian Island.
Jim,
I believe that the whole ‘filed’ vs ‘accepted’ is a wild goose chase. I read somewhere (sorry not sure where) that it’s a simple matter of when the COLB was printed that determines if ‘filed’ or ‘accepted’ is printed – and that makes perfect sense to me. The author explained that the DOH changed the software that creates the COLB’s to print ‘filed’ instead of ‘accepted’ when the DOH modified their COLB to be closer to the US standard COLB. Here is a link that might be helpfull – http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-ACC.pdf. Notice it uses the ‘Date Filed’ and not ‘Date Accepted’ terminology.
I believe that there is only one relevent date that is stored in the DOH database, and I believe that it’s the date that the BC form was received (notice – I avoided both ‘filed’ and ‘accepted’ :) ) . So, I don’t believe that anyone will be able to find a COLB that uses the ‘Date Accepted’ terminology that was generated after the DOH switched over to the US standard terminology of ‘Date Filed’. I would love to be proven wrong though.
I still believe that the smoking gun is there though. I still contend that the certificate number being after the Nordyke twins, while the BC was ‘received’ before thiers, shows that the BC went thru some sort of vetting process before it was assigned a certificate number. This would most likely be because Obama’s BC was turned in by his grandmother as a home birth, and not created via a hospital birth.
I believe that Obama was most likly born in Canada, but possibly Kenya, and maybe for the simple reason that SAD did not want JR to be a US citizen.
Look at the evidence:
1) SAD was according to her high school friends a ‘fellow traveler’ – i.e. Marxist/Communist
2) She met Sr in a Russian language class.
3) She told Lolo in Indonesia that Americans ‘were NOT her people’.
4) She was only 18 at the time Obama was born – we all know that they are not impulsive! LOL
I think SAD was in Seatle, getting ready to attend UofW at the time Obama was born. Since she’s like most college students, very broke, she looks into having JR in Canada.
She was very politically astute, and finds out that if Obama was born out of the US, he would not be a US citizen. She crossed the border and had Obama in Canada.
She’s proud of herself, and tells mom what she has done. Grandma thinks that what has happended in not acceptable, and fills out a BC in Hawaii and turns it in to the DOH. DOH has a BC on record recording Obama was born in Hawaii as a home birth.
Begin soliciting donations to fund a “research project” that will result in bringing forth and to light a genuine “Certification of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii along with the irrefutable evidence that the person or current family member of the person named on this document was, indeed, born elsewhere.
There are countless nos. of these things “out there” and while there will be obstacles [ ie convincing parties involved that they won’t be harmed –citizenship revoked , penalties/fines etc incurred, embarrassment for having participated in poss fraudulent acts ] I believe that they can be overcome It may turn out to be easier to acquire than anticipated as there could be a disgruntled citizen or 2 or former U.S. citizen who is not concerned re poss ramifications of “outing” Hawaiian authorities and also those who have long since , not so discretely , “celebrated” or marked their true birth place You know, “getting back in touch with their roots” after having spent a good portion of their lives benefiting from the possession of U.S. citizenship Anyway, you get the point Let’s drive some of the energy, effort, and our limited resources into procuring one of these “Certifications of Live Birth”
It only takes one. Then at least we can shut these buffoons in the MSM up, for good, on this score
If I understand correctly, I believe the release of this information is to inform readers that there has been real research conducted with their donations to the Legal Fund and it has resulted in the discovery of some very interesting irregularities and perhaps solidified some leads.
Donations to Legal Fund are what funded this research as I recall. If we want to enable the P&E to continue funding such research projects, we as readers need to continue to provide donations to the LF.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am dying to find out the truth and it sounds like the researchers involved may be on to something. Research, however, takes both time and money.
As Tom pointed out, it only takes finding one COLB or long-form b/c that has the same certificate number to demonstrate an act of fraud has taken place.
The other Nordyke twin’s BC number ended in 37. Both have been published. Susan and Gretchen Nordyke.
When a well trusted (notice I did not say well known) journalist asks barry soetero these three questions-
1. Did you work for the CIA?
2. Why did you sign the executive order of sealing all you records your first day of office?
3. What reasonable explanation can you offer for spending nearly $2million in legal fees blocking your personal school, birth, college, & political records? (in light of promising the most transparent administration ever)
Need we propose more? Reasonable, simple, normal public figure inquiry as to whom will be occupier of the Oval Office. Remember, when Palin was announced as McCain running mate how many media teams went to Alaska? How many of the same media teams went to Chicago or Hawaii to turn over rocks to vet barry soetero?
I rest my case. Answers? Soon coming as the paint on the floor of facts forces barry in a corner without a window to jump from. The liar-in-chief is has more wet paint on his shoes as connect-the-dots reveal the trail. Fraud always leaves footprints.
The “executive order” does NOT & was not intended to address his records predating his usurpation of the Office of President
couple of questions to ask The Usurper-in-Chief:
Why was your SS # issued to an individual with a CT. mailing address?
Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation ;- /
Did you allow your Kenyan citizenship to lapse at the age of 23, as has been assumed?
Do you retain a class of British citizenship, to this day?
Oh & one more, “Mr. Putative Pres”
I’d like to know the name of the attending physician, at your birth. Can you tell us all who that “might” have been? You know…so we can honor this person for ushering your Highness, fully, into this mortal realm
Below is a summary of the numerous ways in which our putative “President” is disqualified from serving in the office he has so wrongly usurped:
In general he is not a natural born Citizen as required by the Constitution. NBC = blood + dirt: NO dual allegiance allowed, just born by Nature alone (not by statute or determination of man) 100 percent red-blooded all-American, something Obama, by fact and by his own actions clearly is NOT.
1) Regardless of who actually spawned him, Obama’s legal father of record was never a US citizen. FAIL by Blood (this by itself should be more than enough for anyone who holds dear the rule of law).
2) As is becoming increasingly obvious with each passing day (thank you researcher and friends), it is very unlikely Obama was actually born on US soil. FAIL by Dirt (most likely he was, in fact, a Kenyan dirtball).
3) As a child, Obama was almost certainly legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, a resident citizen of Indonesia for his entire life. While this unto itself is not directly disqualifying (on the principle that a minor should not be held accountable for the actions of his or her guardian), it is very likely that Obama legally affirmed his foreign status both by renewing his foreign passport as an autonomous adult and by claiming foreign citizenship in order to obtain financial aid while attending Occidental College. FAIL by dual allegiance.
3) Obama almost certainly did not register with the Selective Service, probably thinking (wrongly) that it was unnecessary (or that he could get away with it) because of his foreign status. Not only was he thus an unpatriotic coward, but this was also a crime that specifically by statute disqualifies one from ever holding any federal office. FAIL by felony and foreign allegiance.
4) Over the course of his life of deception, Obama has very likely used multiple Social Security numbers, perhaps never having had a legitimate one of his own. His current SSN (confirmed via the Selective Service registration check system) was issued out of Connecticut and originally issued to a man born over a hundred years ago. With rare exception, no law abiding citizen ever has more than one legitimate SSN, let alone half a dozen or more (something only typical of identity thieving fraudsters or illegal alien sneaks). This qualifies as High Crime and Misdemeanor. FAIL directly by felony fraud (and indirectly by Blood and Dirt).
Did I leave anything out?
It is simply unbelievable to me that this man is still in office (woe upon America for ever deteriorating to the point of being duped into electing someone like this).
A very good summary. Thanks. The only other thing might be his trip to Kenya when he was a US Senator, where he did some campaigning for a foreign leader. I understand that there is a law against that.
Sharon
When the investigator said:
“which leads me to believe that that number belongs to another person and in all likelihood, it could belong to the infant or young child that was born within a certain date range whose birth was registered on August 11th that later died shortly after the birth or within a couple of years. I really can’t elaborate beyond that since there is still ongoing research to see if we can identify the person certificate number 010641 could possibly belong to. We’re trying to obtain some official HI documents that will aid in our research with the generous help of The Post & Email Legal Fund and its donors.”
I rebember a year ago, I found out that a boy listed in the newspaper died two years after his birth. I kept a copy of the email, which I got not answer. Here part of the email.
Subject: Copy of Birth Certificate of a dead person.
Date: 7/28/2009 12:25:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From:
To: vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
I wonder if a person not related can get a full birth certificate of a dead person?
For example Samuel K. Haae born August 4, 1961, and died July 6, 1963 per
http://files.usgwarchives.net/hi/hawaii/cemeteries/stbenedict.txt
Can any one get his vault birth Certificate? …..
Sharon Could this help? So, I agree with the investigator.
Copy listed at:
St. Benedict’s Catholic Cemetery, Honaunau, S. Kona District, Big Island of Hawaii, HI
Haae, Samuel K. 04 Aug 1961 06 Jul 1963 156_stben
The imagen 156_stben at the Cementery should have the number for us to match.
In case it is changed or deleted, if you wish do not publish this message, until
some one investigate with the cementery.
The link to the newspaper where Samuel K. Haae is listed
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/7558/obama1961birthannouncemcr9.png
Yes. That would help immensely. We have already identifed Haae as a possible.
Re Samuel K. Haae: You would probalby find that someone in the child’s family still has a copy of that birth certificate. If they don’t have it, they would probably like to know if Obama is using their deceased child’s identity (or the certificate number portion of it) and be willing to request a certified copy of the original.
Another point that I wanted to make is this, if BO was kind of set up with a new ID by the CIA, I firmly think that there will be something come up about this because I do not think that anyone can think of everyone or everything in someone’s life. It’s just the way that it is.
But let’s just say that he was sought out by the CIA to help in the Middle East in some manner, then why didn’t they stop him from being president? This part does not make sense to me at all. Knowing what they would have had him do, then what he has become now because of them giving him a new identity, then what, why?
Dear Researcher:
I sure hope that you guys have your information written down and hidden somewhere where no one can find it. The fact that you say it, even makes y’all a target, do you think? So I hope that you have it in safe-keeping places. In other words, I worry about your safety considering what has happened in the past with others.
No need to worry about that kittycat.
In their respective countries, people knew much more about Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini than we know about Obama.
Yes, Tim, I 100 percent agree with you on that one!
For anyone who wonders if this type of meticulous research is needed to get the bottom of the facts I would recommend the book The Cuckoo’s Egg. It is the real life story of Clifford Stoll’s actions as he takes a mere accounting anomaly of mere pennies on a computer dial up account and ends up working with the FBI to catch foreign espionage agents who are gather nuclear secrets from America’s labs. It is not fiction. It is real life and it started with simple ‘anomalies’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuckoo%27s_Egg_%28book%29
There something amiss here. The official story is not valid and more and more people are understanding that every day, every week and every month. There is a series of lies that are being perpetuated and covered up. Though the reasons for these lies is not clear. But we, as a people who are ultimately responsible for our own governance, deserve the facts and the truth. Otherwise, the world will know we are not willing to defend our government ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’ and that we are willing to accept corrupt leaders in our nation. And this would be a tragedy of global impact.
Mike,
You are so right; it is a matter of examining the anomalies and following them through until you either prove or disprove the hypothesis that is derived from the anomaly and you may find other anomalies along the way that require examination. Thanks for recognizing this; it is the method that good researchers utilize to gather their evidence that either proves or disproves the theory.
In regard to the relevance of the birth certificate, I realize that many people, myself included believe that O was never quailifed in the first place if he was a dual citizen at birth and if true, the b/c has no real significance. That decision is most likely lies with the SCOTUS since no court to my knowledge, including the SCOTUS, has definitively specified what a NBC is. It is really hard to say if they will take this up before the 2012 election. One can only hope and that it will result in a two parent US citizens and born on US soil interpretation to establish a precedent once and for all.
The COLB and b/c however should not be discounted. There are obvious anomalies and if the hypothesis is proven out, fraud on the grandest of all scales has been committed. O banked his whole eligibility on the FC COLB and thus far he has been able thwart any inquiries, including via the federal courts.
My point to all this is that it may be easier to get him removed from office for fraud than relying on the courts to interpret the Constitution correctly. I think it is 50/50 at best the SCOTUS will interpret it correctly and do the next right thing. Now removing a sitting President who knowingly committed fraud to attain the office of the Presidency is a completely different matter.
We have neither proved or disproved the hypothesis at this point so we really need the support of the P&E readers to help us follow this through to the end.
I will add this final caveat: There is more to the story than what is being reported here. To disclose the details of the anomalies that we are researching at this time would not be prudent or wise at this point. The enemy has a whole lot more power and resources than we do and they are heckbent on making sure this information never sees the light of day.
The “nothing to see here, move along” stance is both nauseating and tiresome. If it were true, this would have been resolved long ago.
Researcher, Thanks for the kind words. I agree that getting SCOTUS to deal with the jus sanguinis issue alone is unlike to happen. I have found pre-1998 articles that have been published that state that jus soli alone is NBC. And no court has wanted to touch the issue even when it would not lead to a constitutional crisis. But the cover-up to hide other facts is evident.
I will say that the other popular media work that this reminds me of is ‘All the Presidents Men’. Something very similar is obviously happening here. And go directly after the top level is rarely a good approach. The anomalies dealing with the Hawaii BC/COLB and the passport records show a pattern of coordinated deceit, fraud and other criminal behavior. Obuko, Fukino, Hennig, Miller need to be investigated. Of course the first 3 are simply not talking and the 4th (Miller) now works for CBO as the web master. Given that those 4 people alone have provided the cover statements it would seem that these people should be very, very careful. Without a doubt it would benefit those hiding the fact if these 4 people just ‘went away’.
Hello Researcher,
Thank you again for all your hard work. Do you and your fellow researchers currently have adequate funding for your immediate objectives and to complete your near-term activities? Please don’t be shy to report here at The Post & Email when and if lack of funding ever becomes a limiting factor. I am happy to give what I can if necessary and am sure others would do the same – just be sure to make your needs clearly known.
racketeering would be it. Get him removed on racketeering then we can find out who he really is.
As I recall, the difference in the account that Clifford observed was 75 cents in a much larger account and in so small that most people would have shrugged it off and gone ab out their affairs.
The fact that Cliff did not if much to his credit and is both a spellbinding tale in intgrigue and persistence … and it all true. Very much worth reading whether you are technically oriented or not, it is fascinating!!!
Should Obama’s history be actually revealed in a court of law to have been secreted for fraudulent purposes would those who have invested in seeking the truth be able to recover those investments as damages?
———————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: That would certainly be a considerable sum of money for many news sources and individuals.
I have been writing about CertifiGate since November of 2008. The simple fact is,even if Obama was born at Walter Reed,he would still not be eligible to be President,not with the parents that he has.
Obama,Sr.,if that is his real father,was a Brit. Technically,while Dunham and Obama,Sr. went through the ceremony of Marriage,Obama,Sr. was already married at the time. He had a wife in Kenya.
There is nothing that Obama can do to ever become a “Natural-Born Citizen”. Precisely the controlling point here.
When one has to “do” something in order to become a “citizen” (ie. Naturalization process) because one is not already a “citizen”,as one would be if having two citizen parents and being born in the USA,one is NOT “Natural-Born”.
It is interesting to point out a common trait people have.
When one has done something great or when one has a connection to some great event,one brags about it. A prime example are the ubiquitous signs on many establishments that “Washington drank here” and “Washington slept here”.
Signs are erected in places where historic events took place. It is human nature to seek special recognition for such events.
However,in Obama’s case there is a conundrum. Obama has not proferred the name of a “single,solitary” hospital in Hawaii,a doctor,a nurse,anyone who has claimed that they were involved.
There was a story in the Buffalo News last year of a woman who claimed that she was TOLD by Doctor Rod West that he had delivered Obama. The person claiming this was named Barbara Nelson.That story fizzled out.
In any event, an article in Earthfrisk states that there are NO hospitals,not a “single,solitary” hospital that is claiming the dubious honor of being Obama’s birthplace. Indeed,the Kenyan Ambassador,as well as the Kenyan parliament itself have BOTH claimed that Obama was born in Kenya.
Obama may have been given someone else’s BC number. He certainly used “someone else’s” social security number[s]. I filed a formal charge with ICE and the INS in light of this.
Obama has never been a “natural-Born American,was born a Brit and is not now,nor has he ever been our bona-fides President. That said,Obama is further encumbered by the Provisions of 18USC,the US Code,from occupying “any office under the US”.
Obama committed treason when he campaigned for Raila Odinga in his run for Kenyan President. Obama is currently the subject of formal charges at the Hague regarding election violence in those Kenyan elections.
Obama is a radical Muslim supremacist who gave aid and comfort to our enemies. He is complicit in the bombing of two US embassies,sharia murder of innocents,pouring US taxpayer money into sharia “Zakat” fronted activities,in Kenya, and complicit in “Change” in the Kenyan constitution that involves the institution of Sharia Law and unfettered abortion.
The State department is downplaying Obama’s activities. But that is no surprise. One of his “Took a dive in the 2008 elections” cabalists runs the State Department,Hillary Clinton.
Ms. Rondeau, I included my corroborative links but was told that my comment was “spammy,try again”. This happened before. In any event,links can be provided upon request.
—————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, if your comment includes links on the first line, it is rejected. You are welcome to send them to me by email to editor@thepostemail.com. Thank you.
Aside for all of his lies, trickery and deceptions, though, don’t you think he’s a really, really wunnerful guy???
Or are you one of those who thinks that things like perjury, being complicit in the murder of others and aiding and abetting the enemies of this country, and stealing and misdirecting raxpayer money really matters??? Petty, eh???
Stumbled upon this very interesting site about a week or so ago. I too have been trying to understand (and figure out) the truly strange history of BHO and his family since 2008. A few points:
1. We do know that BHO Sr. was married to Kezia (his Kenyan wife) when he married S. Ann Dunham. We do know that Dunham & Obama were married b/c of the existence of the Dunham/Obama divorce degree. I would assume that if the Obama/Kezia Kenyan marriage was legal (more than merely tribal/ceremonial) that Ann would have filed for an annulment instead of a divorce.
2. The question re: the Obama/Kezia marriage is whether it was — or would have been legally recognized — by the US Govt. . .OR . . .whether Ann decided not to disclose that Obama was married when he married her. If he was legally married, then BHO II would be an illegitimate child, right? Perhaps Ann did not want Barry to go through life knowing that.
3. If Obama & Dunham were not married, would that make any legal difference re: BHO II’s citizenship assuming he was born in the US (Hawaii)? After all, his father would still be BHO Sr (a British subject) regardless of whether a legal marriage was involved.
4. Michelle Obama did say that BHO II’s mother was “very single” when she had Obama. What does that mean legally?
5. RE: Raila Odinga (who was educated in Communist E. Germany), I must say it was very distasteful for Obama to campaign for him and Obama absolutely did BUT did Obama do so at the request of the US State Dept (Condi Rice)? I think he did. That removes the notion of treason.
6. RE: international matters and matters of war, there is no way for us — in the cheap seats — to know what is really going on (the “WHYs”) because whatever is disclosed to us is also disclosed to the enemy we’re fighting in a war. I give tremendous lattitude on matters involving national security, war strategy, international politics b/c the TRUTH is: tremendous public deception is necessary to confound and confuse our enemies into believing we are doing X when we are really doing Y.
Another point:
Is it possible that this rather obvious cover-up by Obama, the US Govt, the media (including the right-wing media) is simply to a Presidential candidate (and president) from the public embarrassment of being born an illegitimate child? If so, I must say I do understand. I’m not interested in merely humiliating Obama or his mother, seriously.
The problem is the overwhelming attempt to cover-up so much basic information about a presidential candidate that the American people need in order to cast an informed vote.
Question: IF Obama was born in Hawaii to a single mother (Ann), would that automatically make Obama a “natural born citizen” of the US even though (or if) his biological father was a british subject? This truly is a very important question b/c of what michelle Obama said: “BHO’s mother was very single when she had Obama.”
The courts recognized Obama as the father. Doesn’t matter even if Obama wasn’t his kid, he still is.
Sharon,
Could The Post & Email possibly earmark a portion of future donations to your LEGAL FUND specifically for the purpose of retaining a licensed attorney and have him state for the record in definitive legal terms …
How can anybody have their identity protected when they are using a fake ID themselves and if not what can legally be done about it?
I would like to know the answer to that question and I have yet to see it addressed.
How could the issue of “standing” be relevant for CRIMINAL legal pursuits, not CIVIL; in the state of Hawaii seeking birth records for an individual that according to more than one licensed private investigator has used numerous social security numbers and the one he is using now was issued in CT, a state where he never lived?
How can the Governor of Hawaii deny access to Obama’s birth certificate by authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Revised Statues, a provision her office claims is to prevent identity theft…
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79174
“Probably the most telling evidence of fraud is the fact that the social security number most commonly used by Obama from 1981 until now is a number issued in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890. According to licensed investigators Susan Daniels and Neil Sankey Obama has used numerous different SS numbers that belonged to deceased individuals and numbers that were never issued. 39 such numbers were used according to National Databases, none of which were issued in HI.”
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=7735
In light of the fact that Ms. Nagamine has indicated that Hawaii’s Attorney General’s office will not corroborate Dr. Fukino’s statement declaring “Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen”, could this be used as a wedge to re-address the issue with the Governor’s office and seek clarification?
Could Ms. Nagamine be asked in court if Gov. Lingle can hide behind Section 338-18 where evidence to social security number fraud can and/or has been submitted to both the AG and Governor’s office?
Leo Donofrio argued that since Obama posted a forged COLB that that in and of itself should deny Obama the right to deny access to his records at the DOH. That is on the state level, on the federal level how could the State of Hawaii afford identity protection to someone violating:
The felony fraud provisions of the Title II programs found in 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(1)-(8) of the Act.
• forging or falsifying SSA documents;
• using a Social Security Number (SSN)
obtained on the basis of false information or
falsely using the SSN of another person, for
the purpose of obtaining or increasing a
payment under Social Security or any other
federally funded program, or for any other
purpose
• making or causing to be made a false
statement or representation of a material fact
for use in determining rights to Social
Security benefits, Medicare, Supplemental
Security Income, or Black Lung benefits
In the description for your LEGAL FUND you state:
“Those who have made such UIPA requests and have been refused, can indicate their willingness to sign on as potential plaintiffs”.
Do you foresee the LEGAL FUND ever getting to the stage of actual litigation? Could you possibly be paying for research unnecessarily when a judge could order it to be done in the course of a trial?
Pixel Patriot 8.22.2010
I believe you completely miss the point that the state of HI was, is, and perhaps always will be the most Communist-impacted state in the country. With that being the case (and you should read “Blacklisted by History” by W. Stanton Evans should you think otherwise), it is no surprise that America-haters such as Frank Marshall Davis, Lloyd Bridges, and many other well-known Communists found solace and acceptance there.
That is almost undoubtedly why the Stanley Dunham family moved there with Stanley Ann and how Stanley (Ann’s father) hooked up with his drinking buddy Frank Marshall Davis. It is very clear that the whole Dunham clan in HI (including Grandma “Toot”) were Communists and that Ann became enamored with Islam through her brief liaison with Obama Sr. which was reinforced later with Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia. They ALL hated and despised America (still do).
Even today, there are far more out-and-out communists in our government that you would even guess at … and the CIC really stands for Chief IslamoCommunist.
You should send all of these findings to LTC Terry Lakin’s Legal team to see what they can do with it. As an addition to this story, you should think about interviewing Lucas Smith to have him explain the circumstances in which he obtained Obama’s alleged Kenyan Birth Certificate.
Steve Cooper at theconservativemonster interviewed Lucas Smith, here’s part of one of the comments which sums up the interview:
Robert wrote:
…I’m glad we listeners heard Lucas Smith’s account of procuring this document. He paid a hospital worker $200.00 USD (United States Dollars) and a military officer $400.00 USD, and then finally the hospital worker that procured the document Lucas Smith has in his possession $5,000.00 USD.
Keeping in mind that in February 2009
$5,000.00 dollars = 405,000 Kenyan Shilling.
And 5000 Kenyan shillings =61.72 US Dollars.
Can you imagine the look on the face of the person that Lucas laid down $5,000.00 in front of? I bet their knees were weak while getting that document. LOL! They’re well off now!
It’s easy to see how he went in and procured what a military check point was set up to prevent from happening, but as we all know, …MONEY TALKS, especially with a very poor nation, and also they did not commit treason against their President, it was just releasing a birth certificate of a Kenyan, who is in another country. It’s not like they were selling out their own nation, and I am certain they thought of that…
You can read the article, all the comments and link to the radio interview at http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/08/19/recap-of-the-conservative-monster-radio-show-from-aug-18th-2010-the-lucas-smith-interview-and-ground-zero-mosque-commentary.aspx
——————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: I do not see any documentation that the above statements contained in the interview are accurate. They could well be, but I would like to see some type of proof of Smith’s travel there, receipts, etc. However, I will reserve judgment until I listen to the complete interview.
Hmm . . .my problem with the alleged Kenyan BC for BHO II — and I’ve seen it online; it’s quite good — is that Lucas obtained the alleged BC too late in the game. By the time Lucas supposedly obtained this BC, the Kenyan Govt (that wanted Obama to become POTUS) would have already cleared out ALL evidence of BHO’s birth (BCs, whatever) from Mombaso hospitals — everything, everywhere. Obama, himself, would have taken care of all possible incriminating Kenyan records prior to 2004 when he was running for the US Senate.
We need to step back and consider matters logically. The Obama campaign people just wouldn’t have made such a collassal mistake as to leave his Kenyan BC in the Kenyan hospital/govt records. The Brits, however, could have records but there too, you’ve got a lot of “insiders’ in GB who would have supported a leftist presidential candidate like BHO and would have done what was necessary to purge their records too.
Here’s the KEY: Fitzgerald began investigating Rezco, Blago (and most assuredly Obama & Emanuel) back in early 2004 when Obama began to run for US Senate. There was a reason for that. Very interesting that Blago won his case; Fitzgerald will be re-trying him. This time, perhaps, we’ll need the testimony of Rahm, Jarrett and others.
It’s just overwhelming and mindboggling what’s going on now in our country.
Scary. It’s truly scary. i worked on McCain’s campaign. He threw the election in the 11th hour. I just don’t understand why. In fact, the possible (perhaps even likely WHY) scares me. I sure hope someone is protecting our country.