Aloha, Corruption!

THE HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ASSOCIATED PRESS HAVE LIED TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT BIRTH INDEX DATA

by Sharon Rondeau

The Hawaiian Islands are almost 2,000 miles from the nearest continent

(Sept. 17, 2010) — The Post & Email can confirm that the communications director of the Hawaii Department of Health has either been misquoted and failed to correct the record or has blatantly lied to the public about the availability of birth index data for a one-year period.

Via a reporter for the Associated Press whose article was widely disseminated on the internet in early August but has now been removed from several websites, Janice Okubo stated that birth index data is available in one-year increments for a cost of $98.75 but that no one had sent payment to the Health Department for it.

The Associated Press article stated, in part:

“No one here is requesting Obama’s birth certificate, since it is obvious that he doesn’t possess a valid one,” said one of the requesters, Sharon Rondeau, editor of The Post & Email website that publishes efforts to disprove Obama’s birth in the United States.

In response, the Department of Health has offered to provide hundreds of sheets of index data if requesters will pay for it. At 25 cents per page, the 1961 birth index data would cost $98.75. So far, no one has paid for the papers.

The Post & Email has verification from two individuals who have prepaid, by money order or cashier’s check to the Hawaii Department of Health, for birth index data for the year 1961 and whose payments have been returned to them uncashed.

In the instance below, the Department of Health granted the requested documents on the condition that an “outstanding balance of $876″ be paid to the department, even though that request had never been processed and had, in fact, been canceled by the requester months before.

In addition to the 1961 birth index, the requester asked for death index data for 1961, 1962 and 1963.  The following is her request for the birth index data:

8/14/10

Aloha Ms. Okubo and HDoHInfo,

Attached is my formal UIPA request pursuant to HRS 338-18(d) and HRS 92F-12(a)(15), , I hereby request to inspect and copy the following records:

A birth index report for all births recorded at the HI Department of Health in the year 1961.

According to an AP article written by Mark Niesse on August 7, 2010, Ms. Okubo was quoted to have stated that this birth index report was available for $98.75.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_BIRTH_CERTIFICATE_HIOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I wish to have these records sent to me in paper form via certified mail w/delivery confirmation at the following address:

Redacted

Please let me know at your earliest convenience the estimated cost and fees associated with my request so I can remit a certified or cashier’s check in order for the DoH to complete/expedite my request.  It is not clear based on my shipping preferences and location, if the estimated $98.75 is still a valid amount to remit.  Please confirm the amount I must remit in order to obtain these records.

Kind Regards,

Editor’s Note: The AP story written by Mark Niesse was also removed from the link in the above letter.

The following is the email canceling the prior request for which the Health Department attempted to extort $876:

From:  Redacted
To: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
CC: oip@hawaii.gov; chyiome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov
Subject: Response to Third Incremental Disclosure to UIPA Request 121509-1 and 121509-2 xxxxxx (DM 1-4-09)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:08:45 -0700

Aloha Ms Okubo,

I analyzed the 700 pages of DoH UIPA requests and responses I received on April 6, 2009, and to be honest I am disappointed in the degree of detail and effort made by the DoH to provide me clear and concise copies of the UIPA requests and responses I requested. In both incremental disclosures there are multiple copies of the same information with nothing of additional value or information added, copies of blank pages, etc. Essentially, I was charged and paid for the same information over and over again.

In the latest set of documents I received there were no less than six copies of the HISO Functional Statement and Organizational Chart I requested in reference to a separate UIPA Request, and no copy of the OHSM Functional Statement and Organizational Chart that I also requested in another UIPA Request. There is not less than 35 pages of blank or non-relevant information.

Based on what I received thus far, I have zero confidence that the third and final increment will be any different and the actual cost and fees will be far in excess of the latest estimate. i also have zero confidence that the DoH is fully complying with my request and is purposely withholding some request and responses.

In a letter you sent dated February 2, 2009 (attached) you informed me the 2nd and final increment would complete my request and include all requests and responses between November 24, 2009 to Present Date with a prepayment of $351.00 which was supposed to cover 50% of the estimated fees and 100% of the estimated costs. I remitted the $351.00 and the balance due for the first increment of $557.05 for a total of $908.05. Based on this estimate, I expected to receive the remaining requests and responses with a possible balance due in the $200.00 to $300.00 range and remittance of the balance due would complete my request.

In the most recent letter dated March 30, 2009 (attached) you indicated the second increment covered 700 pages of UIPA requests between November 2, 2009 and March 16, 2010.

You then stated the DoH needed to compile a third and final increment of records I requested consisting of all records of related UIPA Requests from November 2, 2009 to March 16, 2010, and all records of responses to UIPA related requests from August 5, 2009 to March 28,2010 to the tune of an additional $875.00.

Based on what I have received so far, and the date ranges of the requests and responses received, what exactly am I going to receive that I have not already received in this third and final increment? This just seems redundant.

Based on my aforementioned experience thus far, I am hesitant to fork out several hundred more dollars and just to receive the same documents I am already in possession of.

Please provide me a clear and concise justification for the additional $875.00 you have requested and what I can really expect to receive upon remittance of my payment. Should I decide not to pursue obtaining the third and final increment, please inform me what if any balance is due for the most recent increment I received on April 6, 2009.

My final comment: This whole experience from a financial perspective reeks of retaliation by the DoH for being identified as to what you define as a “”vexatious requester”.  I am more than happy to share with the OIP, Lt Governor, Dr. Fukino etc. pdf copies of the documents I have received thus far to show how unfairly the DoH compiled and charged me for the same documents over and over again and for blank pages at a cost of $.25 per page.

The whole purpose of this request was not to harass the DoH, but to gain a better understanding of the nature of the requests the DoH is receiving and the responses the DoH provided. I am business process analyst/auditor, so I have an inquisitive and intuitive nature to compare and contrast and look for consistency and variation in order to verify that everything is on the up and up or there is anomalies that warrant further examination.

Please reply at your earliest convenience so I know how to proceed.

Regards,

Page 1 of the UIPA Notice to Requester to the researcher who prepaid for one year of index data and was then told she had a "balance" from a canceled request

Page 2 of UIPA Notice to Requester

On page 2 following the subheading “Timing of Disclosure,” the form indicates that the death index data will be released:

X After prepayment of fees and costs of $1,286 (50% of fees + 100% of costs, as estimated below, plus outstanding balance of $876 from a previous request in accordance with OIP Administrative Rules Section 2-71-19).

Payment may be made by cash or:   X other cahier’s (sic) check, certified.

The researcher stated to The Post & Email that “this was never responded to so I considered the matter closed.”

OIP Administrative Rules, Section 2-71-19 states:

§2-71-19 Assessment of fees; prepayment.

(a) When a person requests access to a government record under part II of chapter 92F, HRS, the agency may charge the requester:

(1) Fees for searching for, reviewing, and segregating the record; provided that these fees shall be assessed in accordance with this chapter; and

(2) Any other lawful fees.

(b) An agency may require a requester to prepay the following before the agency begins the search for and review of records in order to respond to a request for access:

(1) Fifty per cent of the total estimated fees for searching for, reviewing, and segregating records when the estimated fees exceed $30;

(2) One hundred per cent of the estimated fees under paragraph (a) for other services to prepare and or transmit the record; and

(3) One hundred per cent of the outstanding fees from previous requests, including abandoned requests, in accordance with subsection (d).

(c) The agency shall inform the requester of the requirement to prepay in its notice in accordance with section 2-71-14.

(d) A requester is liable for and shall pay any fees outstanding for services rendered by an agency to respond to any previous or current request. Upon written request, the agency shall provide an itemized bill of all fees assessed.

No bill was ever presented to the researcher, as she had clearly abandoned her previous request.  The 700 pages mentioned in her letter to the Department of Health were paid for by The Post & Email’s Legal Fund and cost over $1,200.

The researcher’s response to the Health Department’s demand for the “outstanding balance of $876 from a previous request” is as follows:

From: Redacted
To: hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov; janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov
Subject: RE: UIPA Request 0801210 xxxxxx Death Index Report 1961, 1962, 1963
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 23:20:07 -0700

Aloha,

I decline to pay for a five year increment of the birth index in lieu of obtaining the singular birth index for 1961 specified in my official request dated August 14, 2010.

On August 7, 2010, in an AP article Ms. Okubo went on record that the 1961 birth index could be purchased for $98.75. Based on what Ms. Okubo stated to AP reporter Mark Niesse, thus my request and payment referred to below.
See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_birth_certificate

As of this time, it does not appear that the article has been updated nor has Ms. Okubo retracted her statement. The statements contained therein and Ms. Okubo’s public statements are incongruent. I think it is disingenuous at best to state to the public in an international publication the availability of the 1961 Birth Index for $98.75 and then deny access when a UIPA request is submitted and more than paid for.

Furthermore, based on this formal HDoH response, it implies that I owe the HI Dept of Health an undetermined balance. If this is true, then why was my cashier’s check for the birth index returned to me?

Attached is a pdf of the email I sent on April 19, 2010 for your review. The HDoH never responded to this email, thus I considered the request closed. This should resolve this matter. If it does not, then please provide a justification as to the HDoH’s position on the balance I allegedly owe.

Mahalo

Cashier's check returned to sender despite Janice Okubo's statement to the AP that birth index data could be purchased in one-year increments

The researcher reports that she has received neither a bill nor a response from the Hawaii Department of Health.

The Health Department is not the only government agency which fails to disclose records which are, by law, available to the public.  It has recently been reported that the Hawaii Democrat Party had utilized a Certificate of Nomination for presidential candidates which included wording stating that the candidate was “legally qualified” to serve.  However, in 2008, that wording was apparently removed, yet the Democrat National Committee (DNC) had provided a notarized Certificate of Nomination which had included the “constitutionally qualified” wording.  Hawaii was the only state which received a nominating certificate with the eligibility wording.

Why did the state of Hawaii say only that Obama and Biden were “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic parties balloting…” but the DNC stated that they were “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”?  Why did the state of Hawaii receive the only Certificate of Nomination with that assurance on it?  Why not the other 49 states?

This writer has requested the same national and state Certifications of Nomination referenced above for the last six weeks and been met with nothing but stonewalling and excuses.  The request began:

To: <elections@hawaii.gov>
From: Sharon Rondeau
Date: 07/28/2010 05:49PM
Subject: REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

Hello, I would like to request the following documents:

Certificates of Nomination for the 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections for both major parties (DNC and RNC) plus the Hawaii state DNC and RNC.  Could I get paper copies mailed to me?  If not, I will take PDFs.  I am willing to pay for any copying charges.

I am not sure if your agency falls under the UIPA law, but if it does, please consider my request a UIPA request.
Thank you very much.

If I do not hear from you via email, I will call you by the end of the week to ascertain whether or not I have contacted the right department for these documents.

Sharon Rondeau

to which the following reply was received:

From: Elections@hawaii.gov
To: Sharon Rondeau
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

Aloha Sharon Rondeau,

As you want records from 10 years ago and this is the middle of our election cycle, it will take us some time to gather the information as it is packed in our warehouse. The information is not in pdf format.

Please know that we have not forgotten your request but are making attempts to get the information together.

We will be in touch shortly.

Mahalo,

Lori Tomczyk
Ballot Operations
Office of Elections

to which we replied on August 8:

Thank you for your response to my request. I appreciate the fact that you can search for these documents dating back some time. Again, please let me know the cost of retrieving the documents.

Nothing was received, so we sent the following message:

From: Sharon Rondeau
Sent: Thu 9/09/10 5:02 PM
To: elections@hawaii.gov

Hello, were you able to find any certificates of nomination filed with your state for past presidential elections?  It doesn’t have to be every single election; even if you can find those for the last two, it would be very helpful for my research project.

Once again, I have requested Certificates of Nomination filed with the state of Hawaii Elections Office for presidential elections 2008, 2004, 2000, and anything else you might be able to find.

Thank you so much.

Sharon Rondeau

and on September 15, we received the following reply:

From: Elections@hawaii.gov
Sent: Tue 9/14/10 11:57 PM
To: Sharon Rondeau

We will be able to assist you after the 2010 Elections are done.  Currently our resources are limited to current election activities, but we will keep your request on file for followup after that time.

Office of Elections
State of Hawaii

Why was the Elections Office apparently willing to produce the requested documents before Butterdezillion’s excellent analysis was published on September 10?  A former Elections Office employee, Tim Adams, said, “There is no long-form birth certificate, because he (Obama) was not born on U.S. soil.” Was it widely known at the Elections Office, as Adams has claimed, that Obama could not “legally” qualify to have his name placed on the ballot?

What did the Elections officials hide during the 2008 campaign, and what are they hiding now?

The Post & Email has appealed the decision by the Elections Office to withhold the information we have requested and sent the following email on September 15, 2010:

From: Sharon Rondeau
Sent: Wed 9/15/10 9:58 AM
To: Linden Joesting (oip@hawaii.gov)

Good morning, Ms. Joesting.  Unfortunately I have to contact you again regarding information that a Hawaii department will not produce.  I believe their decision to put off producing the documents until after the November election is a violation of the UIPA law, ridiculous on its face, and unnecessary stonewalling.

All I have asked for is certified copies of the DNC and RNC Certification of Nomination forms for presidential elections 2008, 2004, and 2000.  I would think that the 2008 ones are in PDF format and can be quickly accessed and emailed to me.  I cannot imagine that the others would not be easily accessible as well.

I am therefore appealing the Elections Office’s decision to withhold the documents for at least two more months.

This request was originally placed six weeks ago, and I believe I have been courteous and patient with the Elections Office.  I have also offered to pay for all copying and other costs involved in procuring the documents.

Please let me know what else you need to intervene so that I can obtain these documents which should be available to the public.

Thank you.

Sharon Rondeau

We have not yet received a response.  Why not?  In response to the Elections Office’s statement, one researcher commented, “They have to respond within 20 business days. They are only allowed to extend the standard 10 business day response by another 10 business days due to extenuating circumstances. This is a 15 minute job, max. i would push back. See pages 30 on in
http://hawaii.gov/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf

Does the Elections Office know that the floodgates are about to open?

How many people from the Hawaii Department of Health, Elections Office, and other state agencies will go to jail when the truth is finally out?

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Hawaii

53 Responses to Aloha, Corruption!

  1. Don .

    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

    To ksdb, that is one more good point we must keep in mind, as we have fraud in the highest office of America, that has proven to us all he is a master at long range planning, deception and selective amnesia. With a legal background, and his exposure to some of the most socialistic and Marxist people in America, and anti-America input from his parents and a few friends growing, per ‘Dreams from My Father’, he has anticipated about every challenge to his legitimacy we can find. Now he is checking off the Marxist checklist, and is well over half through the list of how to turn a great, free country like America, where millions all over the world wanted to come, including his father and aunt, for one reason or another, into a horrible socialist government. What is really scary is he has pulled this off in less than two years, from our White House. Our great forefathers warned us to be vigilant, or we could lose our freedoms. Everyone of us needs to urge as many people as we can to vote for the best candiates in November who will take on the current corrupt Congress. Finally, we all need to keep sending contributions to Sharon who has given millions of us a site to communicate from, and stay informed. God bless America.

  2. ksdb

    Thursday, September 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM

    That certificate was the reason people didn’t accept the alleged COLB. We know Obama had a birth document prior to June 2007. Presumably he would have used this same document to get a passport. And speaking of passports. He reportedly carries his Kenyan grandfather’s passport as a personal memento. Why would he be able to keep track of that and not his own original birth certificate??

  3. Mike

    Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM

    It is an excellent point. Forget the COLB, forget the ‘long form’. Let’s see the ‘shoebox certificate’. It existed before 2007, it existed before the political career. And Obama admits he has seen that specific document.

  4. Don .

    Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 2:37 AM

    We all must not forget the fact BHO has, or knows exactly where his original or certified birth certificate is. He personally confirmed he found it when he wrote about it in his own book, Dreams from My Father, page 26. We must all keep in mind that he has to be laughing at all of us spending thousands of hours and money, trying to get a copy, when he has it, or knows where it is. We must not forget that he has spent around one million dollars, and used US DOJ attorneys, and high priced private attorneys to stop all legal actions to seek his BC and life records. We must not forget that his first act as POTUS was to issue the Executive Order on 1-21-2009 to set up a firewall so the head of the National Archives had to send him all requests for any information about him, and he has sole authority to say they can not be released. He planned this whole scheme very well, and a long time before running for POTUS. We all need to keep that in mind in November. If there is not a balance of power in Congress after the elections, and we have two more years of this, our great country will not survive.

  5. MissTickly

    Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 12:33 AM

    “My theory is that the HDP knew that Mr. Obama was not qualified…”

    Or they knew that the vital records on file with the DOH lacked the legal veracity to verify anything–*ahem* including his age–at the time the certifications were sent.=)

  6. plain jane

    Monday, September 20, 2010 at 11:38 PM

    wow, that’s great news. i hope you’re right.

  7. 2discern

    Monday, September 20, 2010 at 11:34 PM

    Ran across a forum with info pertaining to the ongoing fraud of barry soetero as putative president. http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/hawaii-democratic-party-refused-to-certify-obamas-eligibility/

    It may be old info with new comment but it is worth repeating to all sources of media. The dilemma still lingers of an impostor occupying the oval office. A teleprompter reading liar extraordinaire. The goals are obvious at this point of his term and malicious policies to take down America. We need direction of action as citizens to aid in the arrest of this fraudulent non-vetted demosplat.

  8. Vic Hern

    Monday, September 20, 2010 at 6:58 PM

    Citizen Concerned says…
    “While I have not checked it out, I am quite certain that the Obot blogs had a real heyday with Mr. Smith’s latest antics.”

    Yes, I am certain too, but certainly concerned NOT.
    They will be who they are. They will say what they will. Mr Smith or someone else.
    Each day they tell us who they are and what they stand for, and we take comfort that we are who WE are.
    They believe they have the hearts. minds, souls and ears of the majority, but they do not.
    Alas November is coming and tho we can’t seem to gain traction on the issues
    we want resolved NOW,
    CHANGE is coming, our style, and yes indeed, we can all see it ALL from our front yards.

  9. Citizen Concerned

    Monday, September 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM

    This is pure speculation. I believe that Riggs joined Donfrio as a researcher/investigator, Donofrio likely asked him to take down his website, and to not publish any of his findings.

  10. plain jane

    Monday, September 20, 2010 at 8:29 AM

    I also wonder. He dropped out really quickly. I hope he wasn’t intimidated by someone. He had done some really great work. The problem is that he needed an attorney to back him up and like all of us, who has the money to fight the goverment. There has been no clear path as to how to fight this battle legally. If nothing else comes out of this, it should be clear that there should be no appointed judges.

  11. kittycat

    Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM

    Speaking of Justin Riggs, does anyone know what’s happened to him?

  12. Citizen Concerned

    Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 11:23 AM

    I am starting to believe that Mr. Smith is a “plant for distraction” as well. He is possibly something the administration trots out when the birther movement hits a fevered pitch. The lower Obummer’s approval ratings dip, the more people are going to scrutinize this empty suit. When they wake up and realize how opaque his past is, the more likely they are going to take what we have been saying all along seriously.

    The letter Mr. Smith sent to Congress contains so much ambiguity it looks like a piece of Swiss cheese. In his letter, he stated that he “travelled to the dark continent to look for a cryptic dinosaur-like creature in the Congo.” (paraphrased) He goes on and refers to the “mystical creature” as the “African Unicorn.” Need I say more?

    I posted over at the latest Lt. Col. Lakin article thread that Dr. Taitz submitted an affidavit from Lucas Smith to the U.S. District Court for Southern California last September. She also submitted a copy of the Kenyan b/c, not as evidence, but as a request for the court to verify its authenticity. It went nowhere. Even Dr. Taitz knew it had no probative value until it was authenticated.

    If funding is a concern in order to have the document authenticated, then why does Mr. Smith not have a fundfraising feature built into his new website? Why has he not put up on his website the evidence he was in Kenya and more specifically, in Mombasa, on February 19, 2009?

    Mr. Smith tried to sell the Kenyan b/c on eBay. He also met with a group who offered a substantial sum of money for it, and Mr. Smith backed out of the deal when they wanted to have it authenticated first. So he puts it in a box for several months and then trots it back out as if it were something new.

    I know these are dark and desperate times, and people are looking for anything that can be used to dispose of the usurper, but we must look at what is thrust upon us as “evidence” with an objective eye. Mr. Smith falls far short of providing anything remotely close to what I define as “objective evidence.”

    My point is we cannot let our emotions rule our responses to such claims; we need to be skeptical of everything until irrefutable proof is presented that either proves or disproves the claim. When we react the way a lot of bloggers or commenters have to Smith’s Kenyan b/c as if his word is golden, it only gives the enemy more ammunition to paint people who question the eligibility of Obummer as “crazy birthers,” “racist,” “right-wing extremists,” “Nazi” or “fringe.”

    While I have not checked it out, I am quite certain that the Obot blogs had a real heyday with Mr. Smith’s latest antics.

  13. William

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM

    It’s VERY INTERESTING to call them (808) 586-4539 and just ask “do you verify the online COLB?”
    They get all nervous squirm transfer terminal hold. It’s interesting to actually talk to the criminals themselves. They’re so guilty, they know it.
    It’s probably a good thing to remind them that we may go easier on them in their treason trials if they come forth now.
    ———————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Glad you’re documenting everything! This could also be useful for our Intervenor’s Motion to be filed by the end of the month.

  14. William

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 9:56 PM

    The Law of Nations is mentioned in the Constitution as its basis, and it defines a natural born citizen. When is the usurper going to be removed?
    Signed Proud Birther (better than being a traitor/fraudster!)

    JOHN ADAMS SAID THAT ALL GOOD LAWYERS SHOULD KEEP A COPY OF THE LAW OF NATIONS BY THEIR BEDSIDE…
    § 212. Citizens and natives.
    “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, ARE THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS”

    Minor v. Happersett
    “It was never doubted (that)…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves… natural-born citizens”
    John Bingham, father of the 14th amendment, in the United States House on March 9, 1866
    (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    “…every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” . .
    Barack Obama
    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizenS {plural} on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

  15. William

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 9:51 PM

    Hawaii’s HRS 338-18 requires them to “verify” “any document”…but if you mail them the COLB and the fee, they refuse to verify it.

  16. Researcher

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 8:25 PM

    Several requests have been made for vital records other Mr. Obama’s. I know this because i have personally examined over 1400 pages of HDoH UIPA requests and responses.

    Those requests include:
    The COLB
    A verification letter per HRS 338-18 (g)
    The non-certified, abbreviated copy of the COLB per HI Public Health Regulations Chapter 8B.

    In every single instance, the HDoH has denied access citing the requester did not have a “direct and tangible” interest per HRS 338-18.

    The HDoH is a fortress, irregardless of what provisions allow them to release such information. Fukino has always had the authority to release Mr. Obama’s birth records in accordance with HRS 338-18 and PHR Chapter 8 and 8B; she just refuses to do so.

  17. Researcher

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 8:05 PM

    I’ll try to answer your questions the best that I can.

    While it is not entirely crystal clear if both the state and national party are required to submit a Certificate of Nomination to the HI Office of Elections per HRS 11-113, a precedent has been established based on what has been submitted by both parties for previous elections.

    One could draw the conclusion that is what the OoE expects. It is considered to be a sworn statement and must include the language that the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution” or something along those lines. I assume it is up to the respective party as to whether or not they actually verify the eligibility of the candidate they are nominating. One would think they would want to or they otherwise risk making a false statement.

    The CoN is the ONLY documentation that the HI OoE requires to gain a spot for a national party on the General Election Ballot. HI uses caucuses to determine who is awarded the DNC/RNC delegate votes; there is no primary. I did not see anything in HRS 11 that dictates how Presidential caucuses are conducted but I may have just missed it. HRS 11 is a rather large statute.

    The RNC/HRP is as tight as a drum in regard to compliance with HRS 11-113. It submits one certificate that includes the “legally qualified” language, both the RNC and HRP sign off on it, and each signature is notarized.

    The laws vary from state to state. Some require verification at the state level (TX, SC?), and some states such as AZ and OR require that the candidate submit a Declaration of Candidacy and sign an affidavit that they are “constitutionally qualified.” Oregon’s DoC for example, even includes the language that it is a punishable offense for providing a false statement.

    Everyone mentions the CoN being sent to all 50 states. I do not think we can assume that to be true. I believe the CoN is only sent to the states that require one per each respective state’s law. I personally obtained a copy of what was submitted to my state’s Secretary of State, and it did not include the CoN. There is no evidence the state elections statute that one is required.

    Other than the SoH, I know of no state that requires that the national party certify that the nominated candidate is constitutionally eligible to serve. The FEC has no laws on the books, and if I recall correctly, when this issue started to bubble up to the surface prior to and just after the 2008 election, someone contacted the DNC. They were informed that it was the responsibility of each individual state to verify constitutional eligibility.

    In short, other than HI, the DNC is not required to verify constitutional eligibility unless it is specified in its bylaws.

    I do not believe that the HDoH is basing its “natural born citizen” statement issued on July 27, 2009 on the CoN provided by the DNC or any information that might been provided by the Office of Elections. I also do not believe that the HDoH and the Office of Elections were necessarily in collusion with each other, although it is quite plausible that the HDoH informed the OoE that there was no b/c on file for Mr. Obama or at least not one that would support his eligibility. Tim Adams stated that the OoE had access to the SoH databases to confirm voter eligibility but I am not entirely certain if that included the HI Vital Records database.

    I know this is all so confusing, but hopefully I have provided an adequate explanation.

  18. thinkwell

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 3:37 PM

    Hello Researcher,

    As I understand Hawaiian law, if Obama’s internet COLB were genuine and actually from the HDOH, the fact that Obama authorized its publication for all to see would release the HDOH from all privacy restrictions and compel the HDOH to produce a copy for anyone willing to pay the reproduction fee. Yet they will not do so. Ergo, this alone should prove that the online COLB is a forgery.

    What I am thinking is that it might be useful to be able to send certain people a link to the Hawaiian law that should compel the COLB’s release and challenge them to obtain a copy (with me paying if they are successful). Failing their willingness to do that, l could at least link to a statement by some HDOH official claiming the COLB is still private. Getting “birther” denigrators to uncover the evidence of Obama’s fraud with their own eyes might win over lazy doubters.

    I wonder if the HDOH will produce a copy of a public domain COLB of someone other than Obama? An obvious example would be the Nordyke twins, but that might be too blatant. Perhaps using the Hawaiian birth certificates of Miki Booth’s husband or son that she make public would be a good test case. I suppose any living person’s Hawaiian COLB or long form that is available publicly online would do. Has this been tried?

    I have decided it is important to express open doubt about Obama’s eligibility and other issues of respect for the Constitution. I have received both approval as well as ridicule (and even one case of threatening road rage behavior). I do this to educate people both about the facts and that there are a lot of regular people who still support the rule of law (hopefully encouraging others to go public as well).

    Right now the rotation of placards in the rear window of my car state things like:

    Usurper OUT – NObama!

    Deport Ground-Zero-bama!

    Born a Brit? NOT Legit!

    Foreign Father? NOT Natural Born!

    Who is Barry Soetoro?

    I can see November from my house!

    And finally, a new one I was thinking of trying (this one might be too subtle):

    OBAMA – Forging a New Beginning

    These are printed from Word to 11×17 paper and then paper-clipped to light cardboard backing for easy rotation and are placed behind the two side head rests of the rear window of my car during my commute.

    Maybe such files could be made available as PDFs for download here from The Post & Email?

  19. Researcher

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 2:54 PM

    The Post and Email would need to raise approximately $1200 to cover travel costs all inclusive of airfare, ground transportation, lodging, meals, misc expenses, etc.

    The amount needed to secure the evidence the COLB is forged could be as little a a few hundred dollars, but it might be much more. I have no way of knowing until I arrive and there always is the distinct possiblity that it will yield nothing. It is all contingent on cooperation and what the evidence tea leaves reveal.

    I wish I could provide a higher confidence level but I have no way of narrowing it down any further to be certain we are on the right path. All I can say is based on information gathered by another experienced and astute researcher, and information I gathered during my investigation this summer, it is worth pursuing and it cannot be pursued from the mainland.

  20. Maine Street

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 2:52 PM

    I saw an article with this statement:
    “The basis for the discrepancy between the two documents by the DNC appears to be that the state of Hawaii has a very specific state statute that requires each nominating party to certify a constitutional eligibility of the candidates using specific text. Based on these documents, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party did not certify Obama as eligible in the other 49 states.”

    Is it that there is a statute that says such or is the claim made that THIS IS HOW Hawaii certifies presidential eligibility (meaning each party claims that their candidates are A-OK and that’s fine with Hawaii). I’m still confused on this. Are people gathering that this is how DoH can legally call BO an NBC? That still doesn’t explain their outright claim that he was “Born in Hawaii” although it could explain the outright Fukino NBC statement after that …

    Any thoughts?

  21. Researcher

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 12:46 PM

    JR wrote:

    “THE HAWAII OFFICIALS WERE SMART, THEY DID NOT WANT THEIR NAME ATTACHED TO THE FALSE CERTIFICATION THAT OBAMA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED.”

    Exactly. The only point you missed is that the language purposely removed from the DNC Certificate of Nomination it sent to the other 49 states. The DNC to my knowledge, with the exception of HI, has never included the “meets the constitutional requirements for the Office of the President and Vice President of the United States” language in the DNC Certificate of Nomination. This is evidenced by the DNC CoN sent to the other states on behalf of Gore and Kerry.

    Justin Riggs conducted some excellent research in late 2008. He obtained the certification documents on file with most, if not all states. He has since taken down his website where he posted the various responses he received. There are a handful of documents are still available at his Scribd site, but none from the other 49 states.

    http://www.scribd.com/juriggs5544

  22. Researcher

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM

    Pixel,

    My investigation took an unexpected turn that I had not planned on. I made an attempt to change my plans to stay an additional day so I could go to the Office of Elections, the HDP, and make a return trip to the State Library.

    Logistically, changing plans was a nightmare. The hotel I was staying at was fully booked, and a great 8 hr return flight turned into having to spend the night at a major airport before catching my connecting flight home the next morning. It was something like a 12 hour layover.

    if I were to make a return trip, in addition to going to the OoE and the HDP, there are other things that could be followed up on, one item in particular, however, requires at least an additional few hundred dollars to complete. If we are correct, and we are successful, it will irrefutably prove the COLB is a forgery. It is however a gamble, so there are no guarantees.

    I cannot state more than that, to do so would jeopardize being able to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If you read the interview I did with Mrs. Rondeau last month, you might perhaps be able to glean what I am referring to. See: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/21/results-of-investigation-made-possible-by-donors-to-the-post-email-legal-fund/

    I would also like to revisit something to see if any changes were made since my last visit. A return trip to the Library would be useful as well, as there is plethora of historical information available, including the Punahou yearbooks during the “Obama Years.”

    I live on the left coast so travelling to HI is relatively easy for me. I think the best timing for another trip would be shortly after the election. There is a related lawsuit that will be heard that I could attend in person. I have a vested interest in this as well as I helped prepare documents that support the Plaintiff’s complaint. The Office of Elections and HDP is not going to give me the time of day until after the election anyway. Mrs. Rondeau cannot even get the OoE to fulfill a simple, straightforward UIPA request she made over a month ago.

    If readers such as yourself want the research to continue, and you want to fund another trip, please make a contribution to the P&E Legal Fund. A return trip will be more expensive this time due to the additional financial needs mentioned above, and the purchase of airfare. I procured airfare for the last trip. In other words, please as generous as you can afford to be. The monies donated will be put to good use.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

    Readers making donations via Paypal, need to scroll down to the bottom of the page to locate the LF donation Paypal button. Readers who make contributions via check need to make the check out to The Post and Email Legal Fund and send to the address identified in the provided link. As I understand it, that unless either of the aforementioned protocols are followed, Mrs. Rondeau has no choice but to put the funds in The P&E General Fund to cover operating costs; she cannot re-allocate the donation to the LF which was set-up to pay for such research and legal fees.

    I know times are tight, but if all the readers who frequent this site made a small contribution, or whatever they could afford, it would give The P&E the financial ammunition it needs to vigorously pursue uncovering the deceit and fraud we have witnessed for well over two years now.

    Thank you for asking, btw.

  23. OrangeMonkey

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 9:19 AM

    Proof of what travel? Mr. Smith has never stated any mode of travel or dates of travel. He has avoided providing any particulars. Did he travel by train, plane, or automobile? Was he in the “dark continent” for a year before traveling to Nairobi, or was he only there for a day.

    Why do so many people expect Mr. Smith to provide proof of travel when they haven’t managed to even get him to lock in the dates and mode of travel?

    Is Smith a distraction put in place by Obama? Could it be that Obama was not born in Mombasa (as the Smith document claims) but in Nairobi (as a number of Kenyan sources have alluded to)?

    “Seek out the company of those who are searching for the truth. But avoid at all cost those who claim to have found it!”

    “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” ~Bertrand Russell
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Do you have links to the sources which have implied that Obama was born in Nairobi?

  24. Vic Hern

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 6:59 AM

    Just getting even with us for taking over HI

  25. Pixel Patriot

    Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 6:34 AM

    Researcher says: (excerpts)
    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 9:51 PM

    “I have posted on this subject repeatedly over the last several months. The evidence of corruption regarding this issue lies at the feet of the Office of Elections and the HDP, not the DNC, although it is likely the HDP tipped them off. The HDP stripped the aforementioned language from the Certificate of Nomination it submitted to the Office of Elections on behalf of Mr. Obama.

    My theory is that the HDP knew that Mr. Obama was not qualified and purposely stripped the language so not to perjure themselves based on information it received from a party inside operative such as Mr. Gilhardy or they were tipped off by the Office of Elections.

    We now have someone on record who worked at the Office of Elections who stated it was “common knowledge” that there was not a long form b/c on file, or at least one that would demonstrate that Mr. Obama met the Constitutional requirements for the office he sought. Whether or not the Office of Elections was in collusion with the HDoH remains to be seen.

    We need to go after the HI Office of Elections and the HDP. It is where this “Certifigate” starts and ends.”

    Also from a previous post from Researcher:

    “I had planned to visit the Office of Elections and the HDP headquarters during my investigative trip this summer but opted to pursue another matter instead. I regret not being able to fit this into my schedule. I had hoped to get some answers as to why the HDP CoN was so radically modified.”

    ___________________

    To Researcher,

    Were you not able to visit the Office of Elections and the HDP headquarters because you did not have sufficient funds at the time to do so? Did you need more money for hotel, food, etc.? I would venture to claim that there are literally millions of patriotic Americans that would like to see this resolved regardless of the outcome who are merely seeking Truth & Justice, and would have financially come to your aid like there’s no tomorrow; but we just didn’t know there was an immediate need.

    Now hear our plea…with all do respect, you seem to be the logical choice for the conferring of further investigative work on the matter for three reasons:

    1. Based on both your level of expertise
    2. You fully understand the intricate nuances and details of this dilemma and completely comprehend the travesty it has bestowed upon our nation.
    3. You have already invested a substantial amount of time and energy into this matter.

    Since you have pinpointed the target might I suggest you henceforth go after it in haste?

    Therefore…when can you start, how much do you need, where do we send the money?

    Pixel Patriot
    9.18.2010

  26. plain jane

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM

    wow, this is interesting….

    just email him and ask for the missing sheet in the divorce papers. i wonder…where is that sheet….who posted the divorce decree? where did it come from? does anyone know?

    can there possibly be any more people involved in this cover-up? wait, stanley ann dunham is going to show up next. i know, i know, a little off color but i’m really punchy right now…too much caffeine.

  27. Researcher

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 10:10 PM

    Why don’t you run with it Bob? It would be nice to see other readers step up and lend a hand in the research.

  28. Researcher

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 9:51 PM

    The HI Office of Elections REQUIRES the legally qualified language be included in the Certificate of Nomination. See: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0011/HRS_0011-0113.htm

    Now while I will not dispute your supposition that Mr. Gilhardy knew something, and he may have influenced the gutting of the “legally qualifed under the provisions of the US Constitution” from 2008 Hawaii Democratic Party Certificate of Nomination.

    The DNC, however, did not do anything out of the ordinary by including this language in the DNC CoN it provided to the HI Office of Elections. The DNC was merely following HI LAW. Now why they don’t include this language in the certificate it sends to the other states that require one is a question for the DNC. It is likely because they are not required to, so they don’t.

    Now whether DNC actually verified that Mr. Obama was constitutionally qualified is entirely different matter. There is no evidence to that the DNC contacted the HDoH to obtain a birth record letter of verification it was entitled to per HRS 338-18 (g).

    I have posted on this subject repeatedly over the last several months. The evidence of corruption regarding this issue lies at the feet of the Office of Elections and the HDP, not the DNC, although it is likely the HDP tipped them off. The HDP stripped the aforementioned language from the Certificate of Nomination it submitted to the Office of Elections on behalf of Mr. Obama.

    My theory is that the HDP knew that Mr. Obama was not qualified and purposely stripped the language so not to perjure themselves based on information it received from a party inside operative such as Mr. Gilhardy or they were tipped off by the Office of Elections.

    We now have someone on record who worked at the Office of Elections who stated it was “common knowledge” that there was not a long form b/c on file, or at least one that would demonstrate that Mr. Obama met the Constitutional requirements for the office he sought. Whether or not the Office of Elections was in collusion with the HDoH remains to be seen.

    Read the law in the provided link, then compare the 2008 HDP CoN to the 2000/2004 CoN, and see for yourself. It has been posted here multiple times.

    It is completely false and a misnomer that the DNC did something “special” for HI. I submit that is not the case. The DNC simply followed HI LAW. The RNC and HRP were in full compliance in regard to the Certificate of Nominations it provided HI Office of Elections for the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections. The DNC and HDP not so much.

    2000: DNC: Maybe, maybe not. The language was type added after the document was printed; it is not clear if it was signed before or after it was modified. HDP: Full compliance.
    2004: DNC: No, the language was missing. HDP: Full compliance.
    2008: DNC: Full compliance. HDP: No, the language was completely gutted from the CoN it submitted.

    We need to go after the HI Office of Elections and the HDP. It is where this “Certifigate” starts and ends.

  29. A pen

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM

    Obviously someone of authority at HDoH is abusing it to spite you. Only government can generate red tape and false charges intentionally and get away with it. I hope you are vindicated with a verdict including the words with malice.

  30. Bob1943

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 7:20 PM

    Someone want to drop Gilardy an e-mail and ask him what he knows about Barry and the nomination forms?

    Here is his e-mail address: wgilardy@yhpro.com

  31. Guy4013

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 5:42 PM

    His name is William H. Gilardy, Jr.

    Who is he?

    He is the attorney for the Hawaii Democrat Party[ HDP] for over 15 years.

    According to a recent story about 2008 nomination forms for Obama [see Sharon's report ], Mr Gilardy appears to have played a major part in HDP certifying the DNC nomination form.

    Out of 50 states, only Hawaii demanded the nomination form declare the candidate “Constitutionally” eligible. Why? Mr. Gilardy.

    Who was the divorce attorney for Stanley Soetoro in her divorce? Mr. Gilardy!

    Who probably knows the exact birth history of Obama? Mr Gilardy!

    Who has probably seen the birth certificates of Soetoro’s children? Mr. Gilardy!

    Who might know the location of the “missing” page from Obama divorce file? Mr. Gilardy!

    Who probably knew that Hawaii could not “certify” the DNC form used in the other 49 states? Mr. Gilardy!

    Who really knows where Obama was born? Mr. Gilardy!

    HDP was concerned with the certifying of the DNC Form. Why? Mr. Gilardy.

    In short, Mr. Gilardy knows where all of the “bodies” are buried and Obama is just one.

  32. ch

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    It would be revealing to see the Democratic and Republic rules of order for electing and selecting a candidate from their parties for the last 30 years, to see what revisions have been made, and what their criteria for selection is. This is really where the problem is. Obama is a symptom of the problem of corrupt political parties breaking the laws, and probably breaking their own laws, or developing party laws that are not compliant with state and federal laws.

    What are the legal steps for creating a political party and does anybody oversee them?

  33. 2discern

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM

    The state of the Union is in a state of bewilderment. How can an undocumented politician become the putative president? Maybe the term embarrassment keeps surfacing (Lakin’s judge words, and other articles) because the entire security, political system, election process and the Constitution has been breached. To admit that to the world is beyond excuse. Therefore, even high ranking officials of normally high integrity have succumbed to the hush of their own blush (embarrassment) for not demanding a proper vetting of barry soetero.

    It is imperative at this point, that “we the people” do the job we are called upon to do (as Sharon and so many others are doing) in upholding the values and Constitutional precepts originally implemented and ordained to be upheld. We are the force to dig out the fraud, lies, obfuscation and deceit being thrust upon us as citizens of this once God fearing Republic.

    It is going to get ugly before the stars/stripes shine bright again. However, it will be worth it for the sake of future generations that are yet to comprehend the devastating effects of barry soetero’s actions and administration. Hawaii being the tropical paradise it is, has not reflected the truth of it’s greeting “Aloha”. The officials in this cover up will be found out. Very soon.

  34. Jon Carlson

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 1:15 PM

    The rule on ‘Obama’ documents is if it has the birthdate August 4, 1961 it is forged. The typeface is from a Royal standard manual typewriter circa 1961. I have one in a closet. See:
    http://www.hoaxofthecentury.com/Annwriting1_files/Royal.jpg
    Each and every typeface matches the Royal typeface to a T on the Kenya ‘birth certificate’.
    Why isn’t the Hawaii DA or AG going after the forgers?

  35. plain jane

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 1:06 PM

    Maybe there should be a boycott on all things Hawaiian, Travel, goods, whatever.

  36. Stock

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 12:14 PM

    The fraud and corruption will continue until a member of the Judiciary does its job, to quote Judge Napolitano in his book, ” without a judiciary checking the behavior of Congress and president-making certain they conform to the Constitution-nothing could prevent the majority from taking property or freedom from those it despised.” (see pg 189 Constitutional Chaos) If they continue to make excuses for the “dismissal” of cases on falacious premises of “standing” ruling that there is no injured Plaintiff, if they continue to deny the production and discovery of evidence by Terry Lakin, (for no reason at all which is legally discernable) we will become a society without law. I would hate to say that we are there but we are at the edge-now!

  37. Bob1943

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM

    Citizen Concerned,

    How is this, I agree with this statement below from you, at the very least let’s see some travel documentation right away:

    “Mr. Smith, if you are reading this, please back your claims with supporting evidence in the form of authentication and travel receipts. No one in the ruling class or the LSM is going to take you seriously until you do. You say you have a authentic Kenyan b/c, I say prove it.”

  38. Pete

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 11:43 AM

    While I’m not certain, I believe that the metric system wasn’t adopted by Great Britain or its colonies, especially in medical practice until recently.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units

    While I’m not an expert in British unit history, I would (from my clinical experience and time in England) expect the units in 1961 to be non-metric for child birth in the UK, i.e. as Kenyan BC.

    Pete

  39. Harry H

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 11:14 AM

    As noted at the top of Mrs. Rondeau’s article, Hawaii is thousands of miles away from America. It is not united to America by geography or culture. The Hawaiian islands should never have been made a state.

    Before history turns the page on the Obama fiasco, Hawaii should be expelled from the United States. Its status as a state is as phony as its phony favorite son.

  40. JR

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM

    ITS REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE HAWAII DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE REMOVAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION LANGUAGE AS WELL AS PELOSI’S DNC CERTIFICATION TO 49 STATES WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE REMOVED. WHY ONLY ONE STATE (HAWAII) CONTAINED THE DNC CERTIFICATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND A CERTIFICATION WAS NEEDED TO KEEP THE HAWAII OFFICIALS FROM KEEPING BARRY’S NAME OFF THE BALLOT. THE HAWAII OFFICIALS WERE SMART, THEY DID NOT WANT THEIR NAME ATTACHED TO THE FALSE CERTIFICATION THAT OBAMA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED.

  41. Citizen Concerned

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

    Mr. Smith does not win anything until he coughs up proof he has an authentic document. Has he done that yet? Nope. Has he provided any evidence that he was in Mombasa on February 19, 2009? Nope. A hotel receipt, receipt for meals, anything of the kind would suffice. Pictures placing him in Mombasa or better yet at the hospital would be helpful as well.

    I just posted something on the latest Lt Col Lakin thread about recalling that Mr. Smith met with a group several months ago who offered him a rather large sum of money in exchange for the Kenyan b/c. They wanted to have it authenticated before paying for it (I believe they even had a document forensic expert already lined up) and Mr. Smith back out the deal. If true, very suspicious, IMHO.

    Bob1943 seems to be taking Mr. Smith’s (who is a convicted felon btw) word at face value when we really have no idea what he has in his possession. He must have that document authenticated before anyone will accept it as legitimate and provide evidence that places him in Mombasa.

    Not to do so damages the credibility of all the people who do real research and discover irrefutable proof of deceit. When people spout off about having something that will blow this wide open without providing or having supporting evidence it is just flat out harmful to the overall cause. We are after all just a bunch crazy birthers according to the ruling class and the LSM.

    Mr. Smith, if you are reading this, please back your claims with supporting evidence in the form of authentication and travel receipts. No one in the ruling class or the LSM is going to take you seriously until you do. You say you have a authentic Kenyan b/c, I say prove it.

    If you don’t have proof or the document is fake, I pray that the ruling class does not come after you for fraud mainly because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are well intended. People however are being tried and convicted for just accessing Obummer’s student loan records even though they never released any information to the public.

  42. kj

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM

    The 2000 and 2004 certifications are available as a single document at
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/20761067/Hawaii-2000-and-2004-Certs-Rep-and-Dem

    The 2008 certifications are available as individual pages at
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible

    Justin Riggs has posted several items on scribd including a series of letters to Lamar Alexander.

  43. kj

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 9:44 AM

    Justin Riggs had posted the Hawaii democratic party certifications and the “to Hawaii” DNC certifications for 2004 and 2008. I can’t find his website “yourfellowcitizen” anymore. Perhaps someone made a copy of what he had posted and can provide you copies if you want to see them.

    P S I know that Hawaii should cough it up.

  44. Gianni

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 9:06 AM

    JR, thanks for posting these. Notice that the language for putting Obama on the ballot has removed reference to the US Constitution, whereas the earlier language (for Kerry and Gore) includes language referring to the Constitution. Why was this changed?

    This is a great find, yet another smoking gun about the shenanigans that got Obama into office. It all smells really fishy. How long can this charade last?

  45. Sam Sewell

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 8:34 AM

    Installment Two – Pravda Eligibility Article by San Sewell
    No evidence of Hawaiian birth for AKA Obama. What about Kenya?

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/17-09-2010/114965-obama_birth_certificate-0/

    Obama’s ‘CERTIFICATION of Live Birth’ form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar’s Office. Hawaii is covering this up for political reasons to protect Obama. Only they know the ultimate reasons they are all willing to commit Misprision of Felony at this point in time given the…

  46. Bob1943

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 8:17 AM

    I think Lucas wins again……..Kenya converted to the metric system in 1967, 6 years after Barry was hatched.

  47. Citizen Concerned

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 7:54 AM

    According to Wiki, the UK did not adopt the metric system until 1965. Body weight was previously measured in stones (14 lbs), lbs, and ounces.

    Mr. Smith still has a lot of work to do before that b/c will ever be considered as legitimate. Until he is forthcoming with more information, one can only speculate as to its authenticity.

  48. Researcher

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 7:18 AM

    It must be this clause contained within HAR 2-71-19 that the DoH is relying on to extort $876.00 from me before responding to any additional requests.

    (3) One hundred per cent of the outstanding fees from previous requests, including abandoned requests, in accordance with subsection (d).

    (d) A requester is liable for and shall pay any fees outstanding for services rendered by an agency to respond to any previous or current request. Upon written request, the agency shall provide an itemized bill of all fees assessed.

    This stinks to high heaven. Where’s the bill? Why was my cashier’s check for $115.00 returned uncashed? Why won’t the HDoH respond to my inquires as to why it believes it I owe $876.00?

  49. Tom the veteran

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 7:01 AM

    I’m just being curious here, but; I was looking at the birth certificate acquired by Lucas Smith and I’m wondering why the “Weight of Child at Birth”, “Length” and “Width Between Shoulders” dimensions aren’t listed in metric units (i.e. millimeters instead of inches, kilograms instead of pounds)? Since Kenya was under the possession of Great Britain, I would think the unit of measure would be the metric system!

    I want to believe the BC is real, so somebody please offer a logical explanation.

    For God and Country

  50. Researcher

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 6:37 AM

    Great job, Mrs. Rondeau. I never did receive a response from the HDoH to my request for the justification of $876.00 I allegedly still owe.

    I suppose I am to assume that The HDoH will not respond to any further requests I may make until I submit payment for a request that I clearly canceled within two weeks of receiving the estimated costs and fees and abandoned due lack of response from the HDoH when I asked it to inform me what exactly I should expect to receive for the additional $876.00.

    That is extortion, pure and simple.

    The language contained in the 2008 HDP Certificate of Nomination (or lack thereof when compared to the HDP 2000 and 2004 CoNs) is the most disturbing. What did the Office of Elections and/or the HDP know and when did they know it? I obtained copies of the 2008 HI DNC and HDP CoNs back in December and knew something was amiss then when I compared them to the HI CoN submittals made in 2000 and 2004. The HDP broke its established precedent in 2008 when it gutted the “legally qualified” language from the CoN submitted on behalf of Mr. Obama and the Office of Elections accepted it.

    I had planned to visit the Office of Elections and the HDP headquarters during my investigative trip this summer but opted to pursue another matter instead. I regret not being able to fit this into my schedule. I had hoped to get some answers as to why the HDP CoN was so radically modified.

    It should be noted that the DNC prepares a special Certificate of Nomination for HI to include the “constitutionally/legally qualified” language because it is required to per HRS 11-113. No other state has this requirement to my knowledge nor has the DNC ever prepared a standard CoN that includes the aforementioned language and sent it to all 50 states.

    My theory is that it is to minimize liability should for whatever reason either candidate not meet the constitutional requirements defined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. That however does not absolve the DNC of properly vetting its nominated candidate, something the DNC clearly did not do in the case of Mr. Obama.

    It should also be noted that the DNC nor the HDP made a financial transaction with the HDoH to obtain a birth record verification letter per HRS 338-18 (g). Both had a justifiable “direct and tangible interest” in such a letter and could easily have obtained one. According to the HDoH, there are no records of a financial transaction with either party going back as far as February of 2007.

    Sooner or later this tangled web of deceit will unravel and the truth will finally see the light of day. I have no intention of letting up. The HDoH can go pound sand if it thinks it is going to deter me from making legitimate requests by threatening to charge me for something I was clearly no longer interested in obtaining.

  51. Bradley Brooks

    Friday, September 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM

    Way to go, Sharon, You are a true patriot and there are many, MANY of us out here that are proud of the work you are doing…keep it up. They have only so many fingers to plug the holes in this charade. The dam is about to burst! Thank you for your tireless effort to save our Republic for my family.
    ————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: You’re welcome, for you, your children, your grandchildren, and mine.

  52. misanthropicus

    Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 11:24 PM

    yeah – cleaning Augias’ stable, sorry, the Hawaii DOH, this is the situation –

    I congratualate Sharon Rondeau for her patience, persistence and civility in pursuing this matter – it is blatanntly clear that in Hawaii, they have circled the wagons and, probably relying on some asurances that they will not face legal penalties, block all information on dba Obama be released -

    Hopefully, we’ll hear more about this -

    Regards -

Leave a Reply

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

*

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