If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by Sharon Rondeau

Iolani Palace, located in Honolulu, was once the residence of the monarch. Hawaii was a monarchy until 1893, when a provisional government overthrew the Queen. President Clinton apologized for the queen's removal in 1993.

(Jul. 28, 2010) — A citizen who had requested information from the Hawaii Department of Health regarding practices and procedures under the state’s UIPA law filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman after discovering that her background was being “checked out” by employees at the Vital Records Department before responding to her request, a response which did not come for nearly nine months.

The Post & Email, through its own UIPA request, had received copies of emails exchanged among Vital Records staff which proved that internet background checks had been performed on several requesters of information, including this citizen.

The behavior of the Vital Records employees in question appears to be a clear violation of U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter 1, §1985, which states, in part:

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

Hawaii’s Open Records Law, or UIPA, was passed in 1988.  The introduction to the UIPA law manual, published in 2008, reads, in part:

Recognizing public scrutiny and participation to be essential to the exercise of that power, the Legislature declared it to be the policy of this State to conduct government as openly as possible tempered by the right of the people to privacy as embodied in our State Constitution.

To that end, the UIPA mandates that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is specifically restricted or closed by law.

Ms. Gotto had not requested information about Barack Hussein Obama or any other individual’s records which are protected by Hawaii law. Earlier this year, numerous requests for Obama’s birth certificate from others were supposedly the reason that Hawaii passed a “Vexatious Requester” law.

On a national level, the Associated Press recently reported that the Department of Homeland Security routed Freedom of Information Act requests to political advisers to investigate the requesters’ backgrounds.  The report states that when the AP investigated DHS due to the stonewalling of its own requests, the practice was halted.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ms. Gotto’s complaint to the Ombudsman was a result of her having submitted questions about a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth to the Vital Records Department within the Hawaii Department of Health in October 2009. Her original request was:

“If amendments are made to a Hawaiian Cert of Birth and a late birth certificate is issued in lieu thereof, is it reasonable to assume it is called a Late Hawaiian Cert of Birth?”  (Dr. Okubo replied) I do not understand your question.  Please send this request with clarification to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov

I just want to know what an amended Hawaiian Cert of Birth is called after it is amended.  Is it then called a “late birth certificate”, late Hawaiian Certificate of Birth or something else?  The amending of Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian birth certificates appear to be different in your DOH Vital Records section.

Also, perhaps you can provide me more clarification on the last question I asked Dr. Okubo:

“From the amendment instructions above for a non-Hawaiian cert of birth, once it is marked up with the changes, does it stay in the file like that or will a new one be issued similar to the late HI BC?: (Dr. Okubo replied) As I understand, any changes to Hawaii vital records are noted on the record.

Here’s my point:   What Dr. Okubo stated is true for what (appears to be) non -Hawaiian BCs only.  The Vital Records Amendment section appears to differentiate how amendments are done to both  Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian birth certificates.  The amended  Hawaiian BC must be cancelled and a “late” birth certificate is issued in lieu  thereof.  However, that does not appear to be the procedure for  non-Hawaiian BCs.  They are to be amended on the face of the record, not replaced with a new BC apparently.

Therefore, in addition to the question above asking what a “late” cert of birth is officially called after an amendment is this question:  are Hawaiian birth certs amended differently from non-Hawaiian birth certs?  It reads that way to me.  It is clear that the amended Hawaiian BC is replaced with a “late”/new BC.  What is not clear is whether the amended/marked-up non-Hawaiian BC stays in the file marked up or is it replaced with a new BC incorporating the changes?

Thank you for clearing this up for me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any more clarification on my questions.  They come right out of the Vital Records requirement.  It’s just a bit confusing with Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian BC amendments.


Kathleen Gotto

Instead of providing a response, Ken David of the Vital Records Department sent the following email to Janice Okubo, Communications Director at the Hawaii Department of Health:

Subject: FW: Per Dr. Okubo
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Cc: Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: Per Dr. Okubo

Hi, Janice,

I checked online for a “Kathleen Gotto” and I came across this letter that I presume she wrote http://blogtalkradio.com/MenifeeValleyRadio/blog/2008/11/15/Letter-to-the-US-Supreme-from-Kathleen-Gotto-This-is-a-vital-issue-to-us-all who accused Obama of “…who almost got away with stealing the Presidency…” I doubt that any answer I might send her would satisfy her since she has the same agenda as Rob Lamb (who accused me of lying and that I should be fired). Although Rob Lamb did not mention Obama’s name, he can be found online as another person who has a hidden agenda. It is interesting that in all of Rob Lamb’s emails he did not mention Obama’s name even once.



The last Ms. Gotto heard regarding her information request was on October 5, 2009, and then communications from them ceased.  She filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on March 7, 2010, which reads as follows:

From: Kathleen Gotto
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 12:05 PM
To: Office of the Ombudsman
Subject: Gotto Complaint (final)
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Matsunaga,

Re: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/05/hawaii-department-of-health-has-conspired-against-the-public-for-5-months/

I initially contacted you a few months ago (see your acknowledgement below), but may have done so online as I do not seem to have a copy of it and your response did not include my initial email.  However, I did follow your instruction on your website to try to resolve my difficulty in getting clear and unambiguous information releasable under UIPA laws from the Hawai’i Dept of Health and their Vital Records Dept.

Unfortunately, I have just discovered that Janice Okubo and Ken David apparently conspired to withhold information from me.  To make matters even worse, Mr. David took it upon himself to “Google” my name and investigate me!  I feel very violated over his actions.  I am requesting that your office investigate this matter and provide me a report of your findings and recommendations.  There needs to be consequences for this kind of conspiratorial behavior by state officials who are sworn to uphold the law; specifically, U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I of §1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.  The rights deprived are those granted in the UIPA for disclosure of government records.

I am also requesting the information that has yet to be provided.  Please see my attached email to Janice Okubo, et al.  The attached email gives a good audit trail for this issue.  However, I would like to correct the  assertion that Ms. Joestling made in her January 2, 2010 response to me.  She stated in her first paragraph, “…First let me clarify that a request under the UIPA is for records, not for information that needs to be compiled or collected.” However, IAW Hawai’i Revised Statues 92F-12, it states

§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

(1) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency;

So I do not believe Ms. Joestling was correct in her statement above.  I was requesting policy information on the two questions still not satisfactorily responded to (in the attached email and excerpted here below), not for information that needed to be compiled or collected.

These are the questions still requiring a clear, honest and unambiguous answer.  As you can plainly see, Ms. Okubo is giving me a disingenuous answer in no. 3) and when I did as she requested in no. 4) and sent the question to the Vital Records Dept., Ken David investigated me online.

3) If there is only one index database, is there any indicator applied to the names therein that denote whether the party was born in Hawaii or out of Hawaii?  The index includes index data from Hawaii vital records.

Also,  (4)  If amendments are made to a Hawaiian Cert of Birth and a late birth certificate is issued in lieu thereof, is it reasonable to assume it is called a Late Hawaiian Cert of Birth? I do not understand your question.  Please send this request with clarification to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov

In addition to the two questions above, I would like to know where and how out-of-state births are recorded.  According to Ms. Joestling, she believes that the Vital Records Dept only has in-state births.  Therefore, that begs the question where and how out-of-state births are recorded.

To sum up, I am requesting that (1) your office would investigate the violation of my civil rights by Mr. David and Ms. Okubo and provide me a copy of your findings and recommendations; and (2) to afford me the courtesy of an unambiguous and complete response to my three questions above.

With all the disinformation and disingenuous responses from Hawai’i’s Dept of Health on releasable information under UIPA, the American public needs to see that someone will hold state officials accountable to the law and adhering to their own policies and procedures.  I assume and trust that that responsibility falls to your Ombudsman office.  I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.  Kanshaitashimasu.

Most sincerely,

Kathleen Gotto

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email message below.
Please call me at 808-587-0770 so that we may discuss your complaint further. If I am not available when you call our office, please leave a telephone number at which I may reach you.

Sincerely yours,

Ombudsman, State of Hawaii

Ms. Gotto also wrote to Governor Linda Lingle, but because the governor’s  email box apparently could not accept messages at that time, Gotto addressed her email to the Lt. Governor’s office:

—– Original Message —–
From: Kathleen Gotto
To: ltgov@hawaii.gov
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:21 PM
Subject: Ombudsman Assistance

Dear LtGov Aiona,

I’ve tried several times today to send the email message below to Gov Lingle; however, the message keeps popping up that the site is down for maintenance.  So, I am sending this to you in the hopes that you will share it with Gov. Lingle.  Thank you.

Dear Governor Lingle,

I am writing as a courtesy to inform you of my request for assistance from Mr. Matsunaga, Hawai’i’s Ombudsman.  I am unable to attach any correspondence to this email, but Mr. Matsunaga can fill you in.  The issue concerns inappropriate behavior by high-level Hawai’i Dept of Health officials and the lack of adherence to Hawai’i’s UIPA laws, et al.

As governor, I am sure you are concerned about any actions coming from state officials that cast discredit upon Hawai’i, especially those that flagrantly violate state and federal laws.  I trust that the Ombudsman Office has the integrity to investigate the matters presented to them and that I will be provided a report of findings and recommendations upon an investigation.

Should you need any further elucidation on the matters presented herein, I will be most happy to assist in any way I can.


Kathleen Gotto

After filing her complaint, Ms. Gotto received the following email from the Ombudsman’s office:

—– Original Message —–
From: Office of the Ombudsman
To: Kathleen Gotto
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 5:52 PM
Subject: RE: Gotto Complaint (final)

Dear Ms. Gotto:

We are in receipt of your email below dated April 6, 2010.  The investigation of your complaint regarding the January 2, 2010 email response from the Office of Information Practices is still ongoing.  We will report our findings to you when it is completed.

Sincerely yours,



To which Ms. Gotto replied:

—– Original Message —–
From: Kathleen Gotto
To: Office of the Ombudsman
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Gotto Complaint (final)

Dear Mr. Dela Cruz,

Thank you for the status on my complaint.  However, in your email below, you mentioned nothing of the conspiring of Mr. Ken David and Ms. Janice Okubo to withhold information I requested under UIPA, which led to Mr. David’s investigation of me online.  That looms large in my complaint, and I trust that an honest and thorough investigation by you of the issues raised will be done and properly addressed in your report.  By the way, I appreciate the audit trail of previous correspondence.  It helps us both.


Kathleen Gotto

Having heard nothing more from the Ombudsman’s office, Ms. Gotto sent the following email:

Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 9:09 AM style=”padding-left: 30px;”>
Gotto Complaint
Kathleen Gotto
Office of the Ombudsman

Dear Mr. Dela Cruz,

I last spoke with you at the end of May 2010 for an update on my complaint.  It has now been five weeks since then and I have not yet received a response from the Ombudsman. As mentioned to you in our May telecon, I would like a written response.

Please provide me an update on my case and when I can expect to receive the written findings, recommendations and conclusions on all the issues presented to your office.  Thank you.


Kathleen Gotto

Ms. Gotto then received the following email from Mr. Ken David of the Vital Records Department:

—– Original Message —–

Subject: Re: Per Dr. Okubo
David, Kenneth H.
To: Kathleen Gotto
Cc: alvino@hawaii.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:06 PM

Dear Ms. Gotto:

In response to your question regarding what an amended Certificate of Hawaiian Birth is called:
It is called a Late Certificate of Birth.

In response to your second question, whether amendments to a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth are treated differently than a Certificate of Live Birth:  The answer is “Yes”.



To which Ms. Gotto responded:

From: Kathleen Gotto
To: kenneth.david@doh.hawaii.gov
CC: OfficeoftheOmbudsman@ombudsman.hawaii.gov
Subject: Re: Per Dr. Okubo
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:22:11 -0600

Hello Mr. David,

Thank you for your response below to the last two remaining questions that I have been awaiting on the Hawaiian birth certificate issue.  However, I am still awaiting the Ombudsman’s investigation into why you, Mr. David, took it upon yourself to research me online after I made requests for information, as provided for by your own Hawaiian UIPA laws.  While I await Mr. Matsunaga’s formal response, I would be interested to hear from you why you did that.  I believe you owe me that courtesy.

Thank you,

Kathleen Gotto

The Ombudsman’s office finally responded to Ms. Gotto’s complaint:

—– Original Message —–

From: Office of the Ombudsman
To: Kathleen Gotto
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:19 PM
RE: Gotto Complaint – Ombudsman

Dear Ms. Gotto:

Pursuant to your request, we are providing you with the written findings of our investigation of complaints that we received from you regarding the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH).  Your complaints and our findings are reported below.

Vital Records

You complained that you received ambiguous and incomplete answers to your inquiry to the DOH regarding procedures for recordation of vital records.

We reviewed your October 3, 2009 email to DOH Public Information Officer Janice Okubo, as well as Ms. Okubo’s response.  We note that Ms. Okubo referred one of your questions to the vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov, which is an email address maintained by DOH Office of Health Status Monitoring Supervisor Kenneth David.  On October 3, 2009 you forwarded the same inquiry to Mr. David and you also asked for clarification of one of Ms. Okubo’s responses.  Mr. David informed us that he was out of the office for several weeks subsequent to October 3, 2009 and he acknowledged that he had not responded to your email inquiry.  We therefore recommended that Mr. David respond to your email.

Thereafter, we received a copy of Mr. David’s June 29, 2010 email response to you which addresses the two questions you sent him on October 3, 2009.  You acknowledged your receipt of Mr. David’s response in your June 29, 2010 email to him.  We believe Mr. David’s answer is unambiguous and complete and are therefore closing this complaint in our files.

Conspiracy and Online Investigation of You

You complained about a conspiracy by DOH staff to withhold information from you, which you claimed was a violation of Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, also known as Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (UIPA).

We reviewed the October 5, 2009 email exchange between Ms. Okubo and Mr. David, wherein Mr. David indicated that he conducted online research of you.  Notwithstanding the lack of a response from Mr. David until June 23, 2010, we do not believe the email exchange establishes that there was an actual conspiracy between Mr. David and Ms. Okubo to withhold information from you regarding the DOH policies.

However, we questioned Mr. David and his supervisor, Office of Health Status Monitoring Chief Dr. Alvin Onaka, about Mr. David’s online research of you after your inquiry was received.  Dr. Onaka informed us that online research related to an inquiry received by the department is acceptable in situations where additional research would assist the office in responding to the inquiry.  Dr. Onaka was of the opinion that in this case, the online research of you was not necessary.  Therefore, Dr. Onaka informed us that he would review the practice of online research with all of his staff members so that such research would be appropriately conducted in the future.  We believe Dr. Onaka has taken reasonable action to address this complaint and we are therefore closing this complaint in our files.

Thank you for your patience in awaiting our response.

Sincerely yours,


Approved by:


Ombudsman, State of Hawaii


When did Hawaii state employees begin the process of “online research”?  Why are they justifying it under any conditions?  Why does it take them months to answer requests for general information?  Is the Ombudsman’s office breaking the law? violating the U.S. Constitution? violating the Hawaii constitution?

What information are they protecting in regard to Obama?  Why did they “check people out” in regard to their political affiliations or leanings even when their requests did not mention Obama?  Were Ken David and Janice Okubo protecting Obama by refusing to answer Kathleen Gotto’s requests about Certificates of Hawaiian Birth?

Did Obama file a delayed registration of birth?  Does he have an original birth certificate from a foreign country which was amended by a Certification of Live Birth from the Hawaii Department of Health?  Did the Hawaii Department of Health grant anything to Obama?

They are hiding something, and we will find out what it is.

Join the Conversation


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.

  1. Those people in Hawaii deserve long prison terms. They swayed the 2008 election to Obama when they claimed he was born in Hawaii August 4, 1961. Clearly Obama doesn’t resemble Obama, Sr or Stanley Ann Dunham. He lacks all negroid physical features and is dumb as a dodo, unable to give a public statement without a teleprompter. One press conference since 2008. He is a Bush I retread making all decisions contrary to America’s interests. We believe ‘Obama’ is from Thailand as he has all of the Thai physical features.

  2. It’s a major accomplishment that they’re at least going to get a talking to. That’s probably the most one could expect from partisans.

  3. At all meetings with prospective candidates, the public must repeatedly question them as to their stand on upholding the “rule of law” and their interpretation or knowledge of Art II and their knowledge of Obamas self admitted “dual citizenship” and whether they will raise the issue as to his “eligibility” if elected.

  4. LTC Terry Lakin Update!
    Lakin Makes Formal Request of Hawaii Deposition
    What Makes the Terry Lakin Case the most different and the most important of all birther cases?
    “Lakin’s case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution…, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary.”

    The Major General who will be making the decision is Major General Karl R. Horst. It might be helpful to get this general’s email address and phone number so the importance of this request can be conveyed to him.

  5. njre is correct,
    but now we have a situation where government officials are conspiring to break laws for political reasons and to protect Barry Soetero.
    I am wondering what kind of emails are being exchanged with political operatives in the WH and HI DOH on this matter.

    Forget the BC we have a full scale coverup in progress. It’s Watergate all over again.

    Lets not forget HI DOH received a pile of TARP money from EH at the DOJ.

  6. Obama was born before Hawaii was actually a state. Why else would his myspace page say he was 52 last year, when he should have been 48? Whatever cert he has is certainly delayed and it is looking more and more likely that Andy Martin was originally right (the “real” parents are the “embarrassing” info). As Polland says, he wasn’t born on August 4, 1961 and the COLB online is a total forgery.

    He probably got his first Hawaiian certificate on 8/4/1961. The whole thing is crazy.

    BTW, I was right, and Sharon clarified it with a direct question: Polland does NOT say how he “knows” Okubo offered her COLB as a template or aid in creating the forgery. He said he left that detail for his book …

    1. Joseph Maine, for the record, I conceded that you were right in the discussion thread in which you asked how Polland got a copy of Okubo’s COLB. In case you missed it, and it appears you might have, I went back and watched that portion of the video again, listening especially closely that time. It was then that I realized that I accepted, or leapt to the conclusion, that the copy he used came from the Politifact web site, when, in fact, he never states as much in the clip. I then attempted to contact Polland through YouTube to ask him where he got the copy of Okubo’s COLB, but was unable to because he only accepts messages via YouTube from his YouTube friends. Determined to get the answer to your question, I then sent to him a YouTube friend request, to which he has never responded.

      I just want you to know that when I learned that you were correct and I wasn’t, I admitted it in that discussion thread. My motive is to discover and reveal the truth of Oilbama’s ineligibility, and not to always be right. (Between us, I wish I’d discovered two years ago that I was wrong when I first suspected him to be ineligible. If I’d been wrong, my world would still be the safe place that I’d believed it was up until then because the leaders of my country would still be the [mostly] honest people I had until then believed they were. Sometimes being wrong is a good thing.)

    2. Yeah, you’ve got a point. Too little attention has been given to the fact that he was identified as being 52 and that would make him ineligible for the office because of Hawai’i’s status at that time. That would explain a lot of this behavior on the part of Hawai’i’s DOH. Perhaps they do have his original BC and it is a Hawaian BC. It just pre-dates Hawaian statehood and that’s why obama wants that record to remain sealed. As to his school and other records, they would have his correct date of birth too, thus exposing the same set of facts. The problem I have with this theory is that his mother’s age at birth would be 14 and I don’t know that the dates when obama Sr. would have been in Hawai’i match up either.

  7. Why would anyone bother to go after his stinking bc? Obama was born to a British citizen father, therefore born with dual allegiance, as such he is NOTa natural born citizen no matter where he was born and is NOT eligible to be the president. His very own Resolution 511 ‘resolved’ that a nbc is one born to 2 American parentS! Obama himself admits that he was not born to 2 American parentS, so he admits that he is not a nbc, yet he swore to Az that he is a nbc in the candidate paper!!! Just senate trial him on what basis he claims to be a nbc. Place the burden of proof on him. We do not have to prove anything! Why do we so stupidly go on a wild goose chase???!!!

    1. Excellent and right on.
      The Democrats were the original “birthers”; they demanded McCain’s birth certificate and were going to prove he was not a natural born citizen, until they learned that Obama’s father was Kenyan. This was when they passed SR511 as quid pro quo so McCain would not say anything about Obama’s inelgibility if Obama said nothing about McCain’s.

      1. And the Republicans will continue to say nothing because they are looking towards the future, and one of their rising stars for 2012 or later is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Jindal was born in the US to legal immigrant parents from India who were not US citizens at the time of the birth. Jindal is not a natural born citizen.

    2. They go after him on this “wild goose chase” because he has perpetuated a fraud with lie after lie. That is why–coverup is often times greater than the crime ( although it really isn’t in this case).

      Obama is getting away with federal fraud and should be not just impeached but imprisoned.

  8. And what rational reason on God’s Green Earth is there for a low-level functionary in a State governmental office to take it upon himself to check into and – apparently – make desicions about any inquirer’s political leanings???????

    That’s total BS – and they know it.

    For exceedingly pertinent and definitive information about the paperwork (“BC” etc.) in the eligibility matter and how it all came about (including the HI involvement), just follow up on the videos by Dr. Ron J. Polland. You’re in for a REAL eye-opener!!!

    Suggested sequence for watching Dr. Polland’s YouTube “FRAUD IN THE USA” video clips; enter the channel using the #0 link below and then immediately pause the displayed video and open the videos noted in the #1 – #9 sequence:

    #0 http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/1/BWciae2HFKc YouTube channel entry; then select and view …


    #1 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 1)”

    #2 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 2)”

    #3 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 3)”

    #4 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 4)”

    $5 “It’s the conspiracy, Stupid!”


    #7 “BLUE HAWAII”


    #9 “FRAUD IN THE USA: “MAKE A DATE WITH A SEAL” (Chapter 2-2)”