Spread the love


News Summary by John Charlton

(Sept. 23, 2009) — The continuing revelations regarding the concerted, quasi-conspiratorial efforts of Hawaiian officials to hide evidence regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s birth story have exceeded the wildest expectations of observers on both sides of the controversy.

The Post & Email, for the sake of the usefulness of its readers, will summarize the action being contemplated by Attorney Leo Donofrio and the American Citizen who broke the story, TerriK (a.k.a. Miss Tickly), as a follow-up to our original story.

The Fukino Statements

The controversy began last year when Attorney Philip Berg, former Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania, filed suit arguing that Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States and therefore was not eligible as a candidate for the presidency.


In October, in response to growing concerns expressed on the Internet and in the media, not to mention the lawsuit by self-proclaimed “internet powerhouse” Andy Martin to release the birth certificate, the State of Hawaii responded. KITV Honolulu reported on October 31st, what HI Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino had said in her first official public statement:

There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record, Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

The controversy over this statement raged for nine months, with various HI officials stating that further information violated privacy concerns:    until a concerned citizen decided to read the HI laws carefully to determine if she could oblige HI officials to give more information.

This concerned citizen posted at various sites, such as Texis Darlin, Free Republic and Donofrio’s WordPress blog, Natural Born Citizen: with the names TerriK or Miss Tickly.  Her identity remains undisclosed at this time, but, in the court filings, it is expected to be revealed shortly.

The primary concerns regarding this first statement by Fukino were as follows:

1) The birth certificate was not properly identified either as a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) nor as a Certificate of Live Birth (COB); because Hawaii does not issue a document called a “Birth Certificate”.

2) Nothing is disclosed as to whether this “birth certificate” was the original or an amended copy.

3) Nothing is disclosed as to whether this “birth certificate” was issued by the State of Hawaii.

4) Nothing is disclosed as to whether the birth certificate indicates that Barack Hussein Obama bore that name at birth, or whom his parents were claimed to be, or when and where, or even in which hospital he was born, etc..


In response to Miss Tickly’s inquiry, Fukino issued her second statement in July 27, 2009, which was made known to the Main Stream Media hours later:

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago

Concerned Citizen Now Questions the Discrepancy in Fukino’s Statements

Miss Tickly noticed, as did many, that now Fukino was talking about vital records, not a birth certificate, and in the plural, not the singular; and distinguished her two statements; she further questioned how a Department of Health official determined who was and who was not a natural born citizen.  Speculation on Donofrio’s blog, let to further investigation into Hawaiian Laws and Miss Tickly promised to write again.

This week Attorney Donofrio announced at his blog that Miss Tickly (TerriK) had made a lawful request for the information used to prepare the statements made by Fukino, as HI laws allow; and that her request was denied. Donofrio explains the course of events:

TerriK was originally interested in whether or not he made a request to amend his records and to inspect them for the purpose of amending. Those requests (not the actual amendments) do not appear to be protected according to the statute and various opinions issued by the state… regardless… TerriK’s requests to see the amendments had to be answered in one of three ways according to the statute and the manual:

1. we have the record you requested and will provide them

2. we don’t maintain the records you requested (aka we don’t have any such records in file)

3. we have the records, but you are not entitled to see them

She was told on two occasions by an OIP staff attorney that if no such records exist, they must notify her of that fact.

Eventually that same staff attorney, acting on advice of the DoH told TerriK that the records were not available as they were protected. Their official response was that she wasn’t allowed access to those records… They never told her that they didn’t maintain these records she requested. If they didn’t have such records, then they would have been required to tell her the records don’t exist.

She then sought statutory relief, in accord with Hawaiian law:

§92F-15.5 Alternative method to appeal a denial of access. (a) When an agency denies a person access to a government record, the person may appeal the denial to the office of information practices in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to section 92F-42(12). A decision to appeal to the office of information practices for review of the agency denial shall not prejudice the person’s right to appeal to the circuit court after a decision is made by the office of information practices.

And thereby received correspondence from the Office of Information Practices, staff attorney, indicating that the Hawaii Attorney General did counsel Fukino, uncovering by this means that Fukino made her statement regarding the natural born citizenship of Obama, after seeking counsel from office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Mr. Mark Bennet.

Donofrio has explained his legal motives for assiting TerriK in filing suit:

However, I am going to raise the issue that since Fukino made a public statement about his place of birth, then all records viewed by her for the purposes of making that statement are supposed to be made public under 92F-12(15), information required to be made public. Regardless, the other statement she made about him being a natural born citizen involves a whole other can of worms concerning the advice of the Attorney General and it is the AG opinion letter that we are really after and which was denied to TerriK. The statutory and case law indicates that this information MUST be made public. That means we should get an answer as to what definition of nbc Fukino used to make that statement

It also appears that Hawaii has very strong statutes to protect the general public’s right to know how public statements made by Hawaiian officials were processed and crafted, even to the point of granting standing in lawsuits brought by ordinary citizens, and requiring the State to pay for their legal fees, HI 92F-15:

(d) If the complainant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall assess against the agency reasonable attorney’s fees and all other expenses reasonably incurred in the litigation.

(e) The circuit court in the judicial circuit in which the request for the record is made, where the requested record is maintained, or where the agency’s headquarters are located shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under this section.

(f) Except as to cases the circuit court considers of greater importance, proceedings before the court, as authorized by this section, and appeals therefrom, take precedence on the docket over all cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.

Join the Conversation

No comments

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.