Janice Okubo Denies Impropriety with Posted Birth Certificate

Dan Nakaso of the Honolulu Advertiser writes an article about Janice Okubo and the Obama birth certificate (h/t Ray). First, I copy from the article, then my e-mailed response follows:

Birth certificate in high demand:

Hawai'i birth certificates — just as with death, marriage and certain divorce documents — are released only to people with a "tangible interest," such as the people themselves, their parents, spouses, grandparents or other relatives, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. (Requests for divorce decrees after 2002 go through the state judiciary.)

"'Our state law is very firm on information on vital records. ... You cannot receive someone else's birth certificate — to protect the person's confidential information,'" Okubo said

"'The Obama campaign said it has posted a copy of his birth certificate at www.fightthesm ears.com in response to Internet chatter that the Illinois senator is not a natural-born citizen. But the posting has done little to curb the nearly weekly requests to the Health Department for copies of the original', Okubo said.

"'Some skeptics point to the lack of an official state seal on the birth certificate posted on the Obama campaign Web site.'

"'But seals often are placed on the back of the birth certificate', Okubo said, 'and whether it shows through depends on how much force was put into it.'"

"'Others wonder why a large black rectangle appears next to the words, "CERTIFICATE NO'."

"'The thing that's redacted is just our file number," she said. "Potentially, if you have that number, you could break into the system.'"

"'Health officials contacted the Obama campaign a few months ago in response to the persistent inquiries "to see if they could try and resolve the issue with the people who were asking questions,' she said.

"'They responded and apparently it isn't good enough that he posted his birth certificate,'" Okubo said. "They say they want it because they claim he is not a citizen of the United States. It's pretty ridiculous."

My response to Dan Nakaso, the Advertiser reporter, via e-mail:

I am submitting a petition to the Federal Election Commission on Monday concerning the lack of an administrative system whereby identification and other information necessary to verify a candidate's eligibiligity are collected, reviewed and made available to the public as exemplified in the current questions about Mr. Barack H. Obama's birth certificate. At present, no state or federal agency, to include the state boards of election, the Federal Election Commission, the state Secretaries of State, the Internal Revenue Service (which oversees federal campaign money) or any other administrative body oversees collection of identification information, to include birth certificates, fingerprinting, drivers' licenses, criminal records and related information. In an age of identity theft, are we certain that no elected officials have made use of falsified identification? As a result, more than 5,100 people have signed the petition. Perhaps Ms. Okubo's story shifting and Mr. Obama's unresponsiveness to repeated inquiries have contributed to the public good by bringing the need for a comprehensive identification process for political candidates.

The petition is located at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/index.html

When I contacted Ms. Okubo in July to request a copy of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, she refused to provide it, but she did NOT indicate that there is a publicly available birth certificate nor did she indicate that she could verify the certificate as reflecting the true one. She could have mentioned that she had given a birth certificate to the Obama campaign but she did not. She could have verified that the one posted is the same one she gave them, but she did not do that either. Nor does she confirm this in your article.

There have been allegations that the certificate posted on the Obama website is a forgery on the Atlas Shrugs and other blogs that I've partially compiled here:

http://www.showusthecertificate.blogspot.com/

In particular, note Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog here:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html

Ms. Okubo does not state in the article that the certificate posted on the website is the same as the one she provided to Mr. Obama. And why did she neglect to tell me in her letter in July that a certificate was posted?

In addition, as a reporter have you contacted Mr. Obama to request a copy of the certificate, or have you accepted a single source? In your article, you do not quote Pamela Geller, Larry Johnson, or other bloggers who have taken an interest in this. You only quote Ms. Okubo, whose story now is not the one that she wrote to me about last month.

The fact that the Hawaii Revised Statutes permit anyone with a "direct and tangible interest" in the birth certificate ought to mean that anyone can obtain Mr. Obama's birth certificate since we all have a direct and tangible interest in it.

More than 5,100 individuals from around the country have signed the petition requesting the FEC investigate the birth certificate. The matter is one of inept administration of elections at the state and federal level.

Andy Martin Continues the BOCOLB Battle

I just received the following e-mail from Andy Martin. Martin argues that Barack Obama has hidden his birth certificate with the cooperation of the PAM media. Martin accuses Barack Obama of defrauding the American people by lying about the conditions surrounding his birth and that he may be the son of left-wing writer Frank Marshall Davis, Jr. The Obama campaign has fought vigorously to prevent release of the vault copy of the birth certificate that would reveal the father's name. The record posted on various Obama websites does not include the information contained in the vault copy. The Obama campaign has not attempted to reveal a facsimile of the vault copy and has not publicly denied Martin's claims. It is no crime to be the son of a communist writer. But should Americans vote for a chronic liar like Barack Obama?

>Internet birth certificate poses new problems for Obama "cover-up" says Andy Martin

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin on future litigation in Hawai'i
"My decision to launch an investigation in Hawai'i has been fully vindicated," he says

Andy set for national TV coverage this week

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

"Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct"

ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS

ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW YORK NEWS CONFERENCE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin releases Hawai'i litigation plans

"My decision to launch a Hawai'i investigation of Barack Obama's 'hidden past' has been outstandingly vindicated," he says

Andy is in New York for upcoming TV network interviews

(NEW YORK)(October 25, 2008) Internet powerhouse Andy Martin will hold a New York news conference Saturday afternoon, October 25th (today) to disclose his future course of action on Obama litigation in Hawai'i.

"We began planning our Hawai'i investigation in early September. We announced 'Operation Aloha Obama' in mid-September. People wondered why we were heading for Hawai'i when all of the political action was on the mainland. I believe our action launching an intense investigation in Hawai'i has been outstandingly vindicated by our discoveries and by the reaction of other players," Andy Martin states. "No one questions our news judgment any more.

"Now we are facing decisions on what to do with our pending lawsuit in Honolulu. We have made a fund raising appeal for support to continue the Hawai'i litigation (see below).

"It was only a week ago that we filed our first lawsuit in Hawai'i, on Friday October 17th. The judge in that case promptly signed an order scheduling a hearing. We asked the Hawai'i Supreme Court to reschedule the hearing, and to allow phone participation, and the Supreme Court denied that request.
http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/29414ord.htm

"We will of course respect the decision of the Supreme Court and return to the Circuit Court. How we deal with the November 7th hearing remains an open question.

"My lawsuit is narrowly focused in the right court, seeking relief under the right statute, in the right state.

"The fact remains that a leading candidate for president, Barack Obama, has denied the media and denied the American people access to the original copy of his alleged 1961 birth certificate. No one has seen this document. The 'original' that Obama has distributed is a facsimile of a current computer-generated record. That is why Obama's 'certificate' has been completely discredited.

"Someone has posted on the Internet what is supposed to be a copy of a 1963 birth certificate. http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521

"Although this posting was made some weeks ago, the link was only sent to me yesterday. The online certificate could be considered a 'template' for how Obama's 1961 birth certificate should appear. But using the 1963 document as a template for 1961, it is obvious that Obama has concealed the original copy of his birth certificate.

"Obama has never issued any document that is similar to the 1963 posting; the 'certificate' posted by Obama bears no relationship to the online example posted by someone else.

"I believe the Hawai'i courts can and properly should allow access to Obama's original document. No one has seen that piece of paper and Obama has worked hard to keep that document secret.

"I have one question for Mr.-Wants-To-Be-President Obama: Why are you concealing access to the original copy of your birth certificate. WHY?"

Andy Martin's litigation is not related in any form or fashion to any other lawsuit pending in any other court.

Andy is in New York for TV network interviews.

NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

WHO:

Internet powerhouse and national anti-Obama leader/author Andy Martin

WHAT:

National anti-Obama leader Andy Martin comments on his pending Hawai'i birth certificate litigation

WHERE:

Northeast corner of 57th Street and Sixth Avenue, New York (CapitalOne bank branch corner)

WHEN: Saturday, October 25, 5:00 P. M.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329

TO PURCHASE BOOK: Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from http://www.OrangeStatePress.com

ANDY E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com

----------------------------------------------
CONTRARIANCOMMENTARY.COM
New York-London-Washington-Chicago-San Francisco-Palm Beach

Headquarters mail:
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Tel. (866) 706-2639
Fax (866) 707-2639
Web: ContrarianCommentary.com
E-mail: andymart20@aol.com

Andy Martin, J. D.
Professor of Law (Adj.)
Executive Editor

October 24, 2008

Dear Friends:

I am back in ContrarianCommentary.com's New York office and unpacking after our spectacularly successful Hawai'i trip.

We managed to uncover the truth about the "hidden Obama" and his true family origins. Many Americans believe that our disclosures may have drawn Obama back to Hawaii, as well as attracting other authors (Jerome Corsi is now there) to begin additional research. Few credit the "grandmother is sick" story for the suspension of Obama's campaign; Michelle now says "Toot's doing fine." Hmmm. Pretty fast recovery.

As you are probably aware, on October 17th I filed a lawsuit in the Honolulu Circuit Court seeking access to Obama's original birth certificate. I am seeking the right remedy, under the right statute, in the right court, in the right state.

The birth certificate case is still pending and I will be holding a New York news conference on Saturday (October 25th) to discuss the matter. The trial judge set a hearing for November 7th. I did not feel that November 7th was a sufficiently expeditious date in light of the election on the 4th, and I challenged that date in the Hawai'i Supreme Court through a petition for writ of mandamus.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court denied my request to expedite the hearing or to allow me to appear by telephone.
http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/29414ord.htm

So the lawsuit is back in the Circuit Court. I have to show up in Hawai'i on November 7th if the lawsuit is to proceed. I do not know how many people will still want to pursue the disclosure of Obama's true birth certificate after November 4th. There may be many, or a few, or none.

ContrarianCommentary.com is a small organization. While we have had a massive impact on the 2008 election we operate on a limited budget. We exhausted our travel budget with the trip to investigate Obama's Hawai'i years and to file the birth certificate lawsuit.

If you would like the birth certificate battle to proceed, you can consider contributing to a fund to continue the litigation.

We will have to cover the costs of a last-minute trip to Hawai'i on November 5th, as well as the costs of appeals, perhaps more travel, etc.

Unlike the $100 contribution limit imposed by http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com on political contributions, there are no limits on contributions to defray the expenses of Obama-related litigation. There is no limit on contributing to the travel and litigation expense fund because we need to fund the litigation expenses into the indefinite future.

We don't know what the costs will be but they will run in the thousands to pursue the lawsuit to a conclusion. Expenses tend to add up, particularly when you have to make last-minute reservations, pay appellate filing fees and transcript costs and generally be able to respond to court orders. In my case I will also incur penalties to change existing reservations since I would have to redo my already-paid travel plans. We may have to make more than one trip to Hawai'i.

Again, I don't have a clue whether anyone wants to pursue the birth certificate issue after the election, but I am prepared to do so if there is financial support to continue the fight.

We cannot surrender to Barack Obama on November 4th. On November 5th the battle to protect this great nation must continue whoever wins the election.

There are two ways to contribute to support the birth certificate litigation battle:

First, if you want to make an immediate online contribution through the http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com, please note on your contribution that it is for Andy Martin Travel and Legal costs, and the contribution limit will be waived.

Second, you can mail checks or money orders to me at P. O. Box 1851 address in New York (see letterhead). We will close this solicitation on October 29th. If there is sufficient money on hand on the 29th, we will go forward and make the travel plans to be in Hawai'i on November 7th. If not, we will return the checks to the donors (or online contributors). (You may want to overnight any donation by Express Mail.)

Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Please note that the CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com will also be making a fund appeal to continue fighting the Obama campaign. This letter offering to accept funds to defray the costs of expenses for the birth certificate lawsuit is separate, because we need to keep the expenses of litigation separate from the expenses of election activity.

I apologize for the fact that we will be sending out two fund raising appeals in close order, but we are going to do our beat to defeat Barack Obama and continue to seek the facts and truth about whom he is.

I am not anxious to make the long trip back to Hawai'i, but if there is public demand to fight on, we will.

Ron Polarik's Final Report

Contrairimairi has forwarded this link to Ron Polarik's blog. Polarik offers an in-depth analysis of the question of the forgery of the Obama birth certificate. I'm trying to understand if the judge who supposedly checked out the copy in one of the cases was able to assess Polarik's claims.

Polarik writes of President-elect Obama's birth certificate that the Obama campaign had posted on a left-wing blog:

"from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama's bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim."

Polarik writes that he was subjected to harrassment from pro-Obama goons, which sounds like business as usual for the thuggish Obama pro-closed-society camp.

Polarik quotes from Authenticate 360, a document security expert:

Birth certificates are generally used as “breeder” documents to gain other identity documents and to perpetuate fraud. But unlike Social Security cards, birth certificates are issued by hundreds, if not thousands, of entities, with little regard to consistency or security. An accurately forged birth certificate is a dangerous document, allowing the bearer significant access to everything from driver’s licenses to passports...The increasing availability and affordability of high-quality digital scanners and copiers is a constant threat to the authenticity of government issued documents.

Polarik writes:

"There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President...

"...here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, and nearly three weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!"

Polarik goes on to write:

"To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my “clone.”

"From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama’s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.

"All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report"

After reviewing birth certificates that appeared on Fact Check and Daily Kos, Polarik concludes:

"I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering with both the alleged COLB objects photographed and with the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with the Seal superimposed onto it for the final pictures."

"With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate."

Of the certificate that appeared on the various pro-Obama sites, Polarik writes:

"Specifically, I saw that the text in this image bore the telltale signs of being graphically altered after the image was created. From June 13 onwards, the unfamiliar format of this document, and the questionable information that it contained, became tangential to my discovery that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy Obama's original COLB, was a forged document image. Now, with four months worth of research and supportive evidence behind me, I can now say, without any reservations, that my initial recognition of this image forgery was absolutely correct."

"...That is, the original text had been graphically altered from what was originally written there. The signs of this "overwriting" were patently obvious to me, yet, as I was soon to learn, not at all obvious to anyone else (anyone, that is, who had personally seen and analyzed this COLB image, who knew enough about how COLB's are made, and who wanted to prove to the public that it was a forged image)."

"What is particularly important for the reader to realize is that, after four months of controversy over a single image allegedly scanned from Obama's original birth certificate, that image is still the only one ever made. Any time anyone on the Left is asked the birth certificate question, what we get back is a rhetorical question, like "Do you really think that a US Senator running for President would fake his own birth certificate?" How come they never ask why, with over $600 million dollars collected in campaign contributions, the Obama campaign could only afford to produce one lousy-looking image copy?"

"...NO, it was never intended to be a high quality image, which is how "high resolution" should be defined...Why is this discussion relevant to spotting a potential image forgery? Because, a forger knows that the evidence of graphical manipulation is more likely to be detected in a larger image of higher quality than in a smaller image of lower quality...

"No matter how many challenges to my conclusions have come my way, I have never wavered from the inescapable truth, that an image of someone's real COLB had been markedly altered to look like it belonged to Obama. Or so the forgery conspirators thought.

"To summarize, there was one, original source image that was forged, and four copies of this source image were distributed to (1) the pro-Obama Daily Kos blog, (2) Obama's Fight The Smears campaign website, (3) Annenberg's Factcheck website, and lastly, the St. Petersburg times Politifact website...

"The forgery began its life as an actual scan of a real, 2007 Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth," (COLB) that belonged to someone other than Obama (No, not his sister). The image acquired by the scanner was then saved as a JPG file. This is the file that was sent to the person who would do the actual forging. Whoever that person was, he or she was sent the information that was to go on the image. I doubt that the forger was the same person who did the scan (or scans, plural. In my analyses, I discovered that there had to be more than one COLB image used to make the forgery). Whoever did the scan did not have Obama's real birth certificate on hand, nor did he or she pull the birth information out of thin air. Only Obama, himself, knows the full truth of his birth origin, and only Obama would know which parts of it needed to be "modified." Somehow, and by some mean, that information needed to be relayed to the forger.

"The most salient point about the person who created the forgery (a person I dubbed, "Dr. X") is that he or she was not very diligent in its construction, even though the process used was sound. The original image, that served as the basis for the forgery, was made from a scan of a real, 2007 COLB that belonged to someone other than Obama (No, not his sister). This image acquired by the scanner was then saved as a GIF file (an image format different from the JPG format of the four image copies posted online). This GIF image was then imported into a graphics program (NOT Photoshop) where the existing text was covered over with portions of the background pattern, and on top of that, in the spaces where the original text formerly information appeared, fraudulent information was typed in to make the image LOOK like it was Obama's COLB. I say, "fraudulent" information, because if it were true, then Obama would have had no reason to refuse showing a real, paper copy of his COLB from Day One."

"Three months later, no other "reporters" have ever received a copy of this "birth certificate" image, or any other birth certificate image, for that matter, from Tommy Vietor or any one else. To reiterate, there has been one, and only one, image alleged to have been scanned from Obama's "original birth certificate," and that the only people alleged to have received a copy of this document image from the Obama Campaign have been (1) Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos, a pro-Obama blog, (2) FactCheck, a pro-Obama political research group, and (3) Politifact."

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Polarik goes on to discuss additional analyses. He concludes:

"To put it bluntly, the Factcheck photos have been "Frankensteined," just as the Factcheck scan image was cobbled together with the parts of different COLBs. The use of the term, "document" is simply for expediency sake, as no, single "real" document was used for these photos or for the scan image."

All of this is going to take some time to digest. I suggest that you start reading what Polarik says as I am.

Hearing Date Set for Martin v. Lingle

I just received the following press release from Andy Martin:

Hawai'i judge sets hearing date in Barack Obama birth certificate case

>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Hawaii Circuit Judge Bert I Ayabe set a November 18 hearing in Andy Martin's case to release Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate and any supporting documents


(HONOLULU)(October 29, 2008) Judge Bert I Ayabe Wednesday set a hearing in the case of Andy Martin vs. Linda Lingle, First Circuit for Honolulu, No. 08-1-2147-10.

The hearing is set for November 18, 2008 at 10:30 A.M.

Anyone wishing to contribute to the expenses of this litigation is welcome to do so:
http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

---------------------------------------------
ANDY MARTIN
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai'i
tel. (917) 664-9329
Plaintiff pro se



CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII


ANDY MARTIN, ) CIVIL NUMBER: 08-1-2147-10
) (Declaratory Judgment)
Plaintiff, ) Judge Ayabe
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR
) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
LINDA LINGLE, in her ) EXHIBIT 1: SUMMONS
Official capacity as Governor )
Of the State of Hawai'i, )
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her )
official capacity as Director )
of the Department of Health, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________



COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN ("Plaintiff"), pro se, alleges in his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of a book on Senator Barack Obama ("Senator Obama"). He has also been writing columns and commentary about the senator for over four (4) years.
Defendants LINDA LINGLE and DR. CHIYOME FUKINO are Governor and Director of the Department of Health, respectively.
This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings are instituted pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai'i Revised Statutes.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. Plaintiff requested a certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama from the Department of Health and tendered the requisite fee.
2. Defendants refused to provide a copy of said certificate, invoking the confidentiality statutes of the State.
3. The issue of the Senator's birth certificate has become a controversial topic of intense national speculation.
4. As an author who strives for factual accuracy and attempts to conduct thorough research Plaintiff wants a copy of the Senator's birth certificate attested to by the State and not a "certificate" which is posted on a web site and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered.
5. One of the more literate and temperate analyses of the unlawfulness of the Defendants' refusal to issue certified copies of the birth certificate is contained in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
6. To the extent that the Defendants' files contain or retain original supporting data for the birth certificate, Plaintiff asks that he also be supplied with that information and/or material as well.
7. It is axiomatic that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance.
8. While Hawai'i statutes call for a balancing or weighing test where production is considered by a court, most respectfully Plaintiff submits that the balance falls entirely on the side of disclosure where the original birth certificate of a presidential candidate is concerned.

DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT

9. Based on the relevant statutes and constitutional law, including Article One, Section 4 ("freedom of the press") and § 92F-15 (e) and § 338-18 (a) (9), Plaintiff asks that the Court direct and order defendants to turn over forthwith a copy of Senator Obama's birth certificate and related files and records, and without any delay.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:
A. For a declaration by this Court that Plaintiff is an author and writer and is a person to whom the birth certificate of Senator Obama can and should properly be delivered forthwith;
B. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawai'i, ______________________

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN
Plaintiff Pro se

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American."
The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can't just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

The Plot Thickens: Obama's Birth Certificate and HRS § 338-18

I have previously requested a copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. Janice Okubo, Public Information Office of the Communications office of the State of Hawaii, responding on July 3, has chosen to refuse to provide a copy of the birth certificate. This blog consists of three parts. First, I quote Ms. Okubo's letter, dated July 3, 2008, verbatim. Her letter responds to my inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. Although Ms. Okubo points out that the Freedom of Information applies to the federal government and not the states, most states, including Hawaii, have similar statutes. With respect to birth certificates, though, there is a separate section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) that Ms. Okubo cites, HRS § 338-18. The link that Ms. Okubo provides in her hard copy snail mail letter respecting § 338-18 was dead when I tried to use it, but I obtained a copy of HRS § 338-18 from the Lexis-Nexis data base available from New York University's Bobst library. In addition, I obtained information on Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act from the State of Hawaii Website. In the second part of this blog, I respond to Ms. Okubo by drafting two letters, one a response to Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health, Ms. Okubo's superior, with a copy to Ms. Okubo and Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI), and also a letter to Barack Obama requesting that he send me a letter authorizing me to represent him in obtaining a copy of his birth certificate in the interest of avoiding accusations of political gamesmanship and manipulation. In the third section I copy the relevant sections from § 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes for your reference. I also quote from the State of Hawaii Website about its "Uniform Information Law" booklet.

It is evident that, Ms. Okubo's letter notwithstanding, § 338-18 DOES NOT PROHIBIT the State of Hawaii from making Mr. Obama's birth certificate public for three reasons. First, because he is a presidential candidate the public has a vital interest in Mr. Obama's birth certificate. The statute specifically permits divulging birth certificate information to anyone who has a vital interest in the information.

Second, the State of Hawaii Department of Health is granted the authority to fashion its own regulations about providing birth certificate information, and given the national importance of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, the question needs to be asked why the Hawaii Health Department has fashioned rules that contradict its own public law § 338-18 and its own Open Records Law.

Third, although the statute includes a list of persons who are entitled to obtain a copy of the birth certificate, it does not anywhere indicate that the list is exhaustive or exclusive. If the drafters of § 338-18 had meant the list to be exhaustive and exclusive they could have said so, but they did not. Therefore, Ms. Okubo misconstrues the law she claims to enforce.

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has had a forensic expert, Techdude or Adam, review posted birth certificates and he has found that the posted certificate is a forgery because "The security borders do not match. Literally." Previously several prominent conservative bloggers, have questioned the wisdom of pursuing the matter because the Obama campaign's obfuscations might amount to a strategic ploy to encourage media attention that ultimately embarrasses conservatives. When the certificate turns out to be OK the conservatives will have egg on their face. The forensic evidence intensifies the importance of the birth certificate. However, there is a different question involved that is almost as important as a falsified copy of a presidential candidate's birth certificate. The left claims that it is for openness in government. Mr. Obama claims to be for "change". But capriciously refusing to provide information in which the public has a vital interest and so keeping the information secret even though it is of national importance and has been falsified on supporters' Websites contradicts both of these postures.

I. Janice Okubo's Response to My Letter

"July 03, 2008

"Aloha Mitchell Langbert

"Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

"This is in response to your letter request dated June 29, 2008. The Freedom of Information Act (FOMA), Title 5 of the United States Code, § 552, generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information. The FOIA Applies only to federal agencies and does not creat a right to access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by the state or local government agencies.

"Hawaii state law (HRS § 338-18) prevents the State of Hawaii from disclosing information contained in vital statistics except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute. For information on requesting verification of birth records go to http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html.

"Sincerely,

"Janice Okubo
Public Information Officer
Communications Office

"Attachment

"c Communications Office Secretary


II. A. My Response to Ms. Okubo's Letter (to be mailed from New York City on July 14).

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494

Ms. Chiyome L. Fukino, MD
Director of Public Health
State of Hawaii Department of Health
Honolulu, Hawaii 98601-3378

Dear Ms. Fukino:

This is a second request for a copy of Mr. Barack Obama's birth certificate, this time under Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act and HRS § 338-18, the section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes that deals with revealing information in public health records. Ms. Janice Okubo timely responded to my earlier request for information but has misconstrued § 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes in three ways.

First, the statute states that the information can be divulged to someone who "has a direct and tangible interest in the record". It then goes on to list people who have such an interest. However, the statute DOES NOT LIMIT having "a direct and tangible interest in the record" to the individuals so listed. Rather, it simply states:

"The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:..."

If the authors of the statute had aimed to limit access to the list, they could have stated that the list is exhaustive and exclusive in the statute, but the statute DOES NOT so state. Hence, Ms. Okubo is incorrect in claiming that the people who have "direct and tangible interest" are defined in the statute. The statute merely states those who should be construed to have such an interest (a safe harbor list) but DOES NOT STATE that others may not also have "direct and tangible interest".

Since all Americans have a "direct and tangible interest" in knowing what Mr. Obama's birth certificate states, you and the Department of Health are violating § 338-18 by refusing to provide a certified copy of the birth certificate to any American.

Second, the statute clearly states (emphasis added):

"To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health."

The law permits your Department to adopt rules that conform to overriding public policy concerns. One of these concerns pertains to providing important information about a presidential candidate. To refuse to provide information about a presidential candidate on the pretext of inaccurately interpreted public law to a public with a direct and tangible interest in the information suggests disregard for the public interest as expressed in Hawaii's Open Records Law.

A booklet concerning Hawaii's Open Records Law or Uniform Information Practices Act (available at http://hawaii.gov/oip/UIPABooklet-Word.doc) states:

"Democracy exists only when government functions in the open and protects the rights of its citizens to participate in that government. In 1988, the Hawaii State Legislature enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (the “UIPA”) to preserve and ensure that open government and public participation...The Legislature recognized, however, that the “proper functioning of any public records law is very much dependent upon the attitude of those who implement the law[,]” requiring “strong and active agency implementation of the records laws.” The Legislature thus urged “all agencies to accept this new law as a challenge and a mandate to ensure public access to the public’s government.”

It does not appear that your department's "attitude" has been very focused on democracy or on the public interest in contrast to the Open Records Law's preamble. You have a law that says that birth certificate information should be divulged under rules adopted by your agency, but you then say that the rules are defined by statute. The statute says that anyone with a direct and tangible interest in the information should have access to the birth certificate information, and when a major-party presidential candidate's records are requested by a public with a direct and tangible interest, you erroneously claim that the statute includes an exhuastive list, which it does not.

I once again request, this time under Hawaii's Open Records Law and § 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes that you obey Hawaii's laws; stop your bureaucratic ballet; and provide me with a copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Cc: Governor Linda Lingle, Janice Okubo

B. Letter to Barack Obama

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washingtn, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

There have been accusations that you have refused to allow your birth certificate to be released to the public because you are interested in manipulating your opposition into thinking that there is a problem with it. I understand that you have campaigned on the premise of change and openness and therefore ought to have an interest in disproving this accusation of old-fashioned manipulation and deception.

Under the State of Hawaii's Disclosure of Records Rules (HRS 338-18(b)(7)the Department of Health may provide a birth certificate to:

7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant

I hereby request that in the interest of "change" and openness in government that you authorize me in writing to obtain your birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.


III. Legal Text

A. Hawaii Revised Statutes (bold added)

§ 338-18. Disclosure of records.

(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(1) The registrant;

(2) The spouse of the registrant;

(3) A parent of the registrant;

(4) A descendant of the registrant;

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;

(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;

(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

(c) The department may permit the use the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;

(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

B. Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act(Open Records Law)

The Legislature pronounced that it is the policy of this State to conduct government business as openly as possible while protecting the right of privacy embodied in our State Constitution. Thus, Part I of the UIPA requires that the UIPA be applied and construed to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are:

(1) To promote the public interest in disclosure;
(2) To provide for accurate, relevant, timely and complete records;
(3) To enhance government accountability;
(4) To make government accountable to individuals in the collection, use, and dissemination of information relating to them; and
(5) To balance the individual privacy interest and the public interest, allowing access unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Exception 1 – The Privacy Exception (§ 92F-13(1))

An agency may withhold access to a record if disclosure of the record would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]” To withhold a record under this exception, an agency must be able to show that:

(1) An individual has a significant privacy interest in the information contained in the record; and
(2) The significant privacy interest is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

OIP has further recognized that an individual has a significant privacy interest in his or her home contact information, date of birth, and ethnicity.

What is the public interest in disclosure?

The public interest to be considered is the public’s interest in the disclosure of official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory purpose and the conduct of government officials, or which otherwise promotes governmental accountability.

Draft Cal Template To Sue For BOCOLB

Dave Archbold just sent this draft template that after a few revisions anyone in California will be able to use to sue Barack H. Obama for his certificate of live birth. Dave points out that the birth certificate produced on the pro-Obama websites Factcheck and Fight the Smears is not the actual birth certificate.

Dave's draft complaint is still a work in process because Dave is checking on some of the statutes. He writes:

Mitchell,

>It boils down to what document was produced to prove natural born citizenship. The "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on the net is an alternative document to an actual birth certificate. What you have to know about these two is that an actual birth certificate is issued under normal terms as opposed to a COLB which can/is issued when the birth certificate cannot be found in HI birth records. Ask yourself: why can't the original be found?

Your comments concerning Dave's draft are welcome.

>The attached is a stock template for your review.

>This document is formatted for California in near-final format. It is not at this time ready to file with any court in any state. If you are in California, you need to change the plaintiff name at about three points.

>Federal statutes are presumed correct but may be in error. Final verification pending.
The paperwork can be changed for each state. The hard part is knowing exactly how each state works. The overall setup is that a state has an elections official that places a candidate on a ballot. What we need to know for each state is the following:
1. who is the state-wide elections official
2. how are the candidates placed on the ballot
3. what legal mechanism must the candidate do to provide the state-wide elections official with credentials (proof of US citizenship).
With that info in hand, this is easy. The actual rewrite takes about 2 hours to solidly proof for each state. Steve and I are still working on making sure the Federal statutes are nailed down as tight as we can get them.
Your localization effort is located in paragraph 2.4. All necessary modifications are colored blue. There is also a requirement that each document meet local courthouse rules for filing: you will need to know these and do ask your courthouse for help.
To be removed prior to any distribution: David Archbold, 858 610 1341, darchbo1@gmail.com

1. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER
1.1. Plaintiff John Q Public, [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] hereby offers this memorandum in support of his motion for injunctive relief, to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the Office of California State, Secretary of State by Debra Bowen, [hereinafter Defendant”].
1.2. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the presidential candidate Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the Office of President and demands that the Office of Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from another government entity so charged with overseeing the election process such as the Federal Elections Commission.
1.3. Plaintive argues that when a challenge is received by the Secretary of State for the State of California to the qualification for office of a candidate appearing on the California State Ballot that the entire burden of proof falls on the Candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the Secretary of State for the State of California as would be normal and customary to establish ones minimum qualifications for office.
1.4. Plaintiff argues that the Office of Secretary of State has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.
1.5. Plaintiff argues that is it only sufficient to show reasonable cause for complaint to the Secretary of State for her Office to require documentation of the respective candidate relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation that the Secretary of State has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.
1.6. Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process and maintain the people’s confidence in the government.


2. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2.1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
2.2. Mr. Barack H. Obama is a candidate for United States Office of the President. However, Mr. Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is, he must be a "natural born" citizen. Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship, in addition to legal challenges filed in other states. That challenge in an of itself further demonstrates plaintiff’s argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions exist at this late hour preceding the election.
2.3. The California State office of Secretary of State is responsible for the veracity of the California State election process from verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.
2.4. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot that the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in the constitutions and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, qualification for placement on ballot by the Office of Secretary of State required only that a person be generally recognized as a candidate for president or by circulation of petitions for nomination. Heretofore California Elections Code § 6041 generally states,
"The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals she has determined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President"
and further indicates that general recognition is accomplished through various means as described by way of the Secretary of State's Web site, including, but not limited to:
"a, Being generally recognized as seeking and advocated for the office; b, Qualifying for federal matching funds; c, Appearing in public opinion polls, candidates' forums, debates, etc.; d, Being on the ballot in other states' primaries; e, Actively campaigning in California; f, Having a campaign office in California; g, The Secretary of State may also rely on advice and input from the state party chair"
specifically, California Elections Code § 6041 relegates determination of eligibility for placing presidential candidates to the Secretary of State on ballot,
"when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended."
A search of California Elections Code fails to indicate any method by which the Secretary of State is to validate or receive any of the criteria as enumerated within United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1,
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of Secretary of State has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this complaint seeks a directive to the California State Office of Secretary of State to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by formal request to the Office of Secretary of State from a citizen of California State.
2.5. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government; we have a California State ballot where we elect electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the California Secretary of State has prevue over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.
2.6. This complaint of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of candidate qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the California State, Secretary of State’s duty to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.
2.7. To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through laborious legal challenges and impeachment process, this complaint seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the election. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.
2.8. This complaint seeks specifically to verify through the office of the California Secretary of State that Mr. Obama is a "natural born" citizen.
2.9. At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts which challenge will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the election. The California State, Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Debra Bowen has not carried out that fundamental duty.
2.10. The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. To date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding the candidates basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this complaint request the California State - Secretary of State Debra Bowen to formally request of Hawaii State Health Department officials to produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.
2.11. This complaint requests that California State - Secretary of State Debra Bowen formally requests primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is requested to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital if so identified on a live birth certificate.
2.12. Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part to not have a valid certified US birth certificate or to otherwise due to have been revealed by such examination of original records to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his nomination be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, Plaintiff as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:
2.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;
2.12.2. Irreparable harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.
2.12.3. If the candidate Mr. Obama were to secure the election and later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset.
2.13. It was well expected that after all the public concern that has been raised over the preceding months now that Mr. Obama would have released for public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court 9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist. The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics of the candidate Mr. Obama, and the lack of California Elections Code statutorily mandated verification of candidate credentialing materials.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.1. As we do not have federal ballot per se, California State, through the office of the California State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President. This case arises under the California Constitution, Article 2 and California Elections Code § 6041 and the laws of the United States and presents a state question within this Court's jurisdiction.

4. PARTIES
4.1. Plaintiff, John Q Public [hereinafter "Plaintiff'], is an adult individual with a home address of 12345 Any Street, Your City, CA. Citizen USA.
4.2. Defendant, Debra Bowen is an adult individual with an office address of 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacremento, CA 95814. California State, Secretary of State.


5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROOF THE CANDIDATE’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.
5.1. These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the California State, Secretary of State to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for precertification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.
5.2. By the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.
5.4. The "certificate" that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Web site is a "Certification of Live Birth," and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.
5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.
5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama Web site displayed certificate.
5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.
5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.
5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth.
5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.
5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother. There are only claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961
5.13. At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate Web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.
5.14. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born.” The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a "natural born" citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att'y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been Naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified nor eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section Clause 4.
5.15. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.
5.16. The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.
5.17. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has available copies of the school registration where it clearly states Obama's name as Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, Obama's father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama's date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4,1961 in Honolulu and Obama's Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.
5.18. In or about 1971, Obama's mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.
5.19. Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of divorce, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, Obama's mother would have had to take the oath of allegiance required. Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8U.S.c.§1435.
5.20. Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. No such copy has been to date produced for public examination.
5.21. After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign Website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Obama's campaign Website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged from a COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Obama's Website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
5.22. Even if Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potently divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.


6. Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:
6.1. Failing to officially and publically vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.
6.2. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue.
6.3. Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the California State, Secretary of State certify the minimum qualifications of challenged candidates not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.
6.4. As stated above, Plaintiff as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.
6.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC has failed Plaintiff and the American citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama's eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the California State, Secretary of State to certify or decertify as to the eligibility for office before the election based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office has been met by candidates.


7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that California State, Secretary of State Debra Bowen immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.
7.2. Plaintiff requests California State, Secretary of State Debra Bowen to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.
7.3. Direct California State, Secretary of State Debra Bowen to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.
7.4. Plaintiff requests the California State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.
7.5. If Secretary Debra Bowen is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, Secretary of State Debra Bowen must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;
7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

John Q. Public
12345 Any Street
Your City, CA 90210
800 555 1212

VERIFICATION
I, JOWN Q PUBLIC, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Janice Okubo on Obama Birth Certificate

Janice Okubo had stated that she believed the Obama birth certificate was accurate on June 13 and June 27 according to Politifact, a website of the St. Petersburg Times. On June 13, Janice Okubo stated that the Certificate of Live Birth that Politifact sent her was real:

"'It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,' spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy."

Then, on June 27 Politifact repeated this narrative.

It is not clear that Ms. Okubo's statements conflict with Pamela Geller's claim that the certificate is a forgery. There is a big question and three small questions. The big question is why is there no administrative body handling this instead of a St. Petersburg journalist?

One small question is whether the copy that the Obama campaign sent to Poltifact has the same problems that the copy on the Obama website has. Ms. Okubo does not state that she sent the birth certificate to Mr. Obama, which was the impression I had initially from her statement to the Hawaii newspaper.

Hence, the second small question is whether Dan Nakaso of the Hawaii newspaper exaggerated the extent of her verification.

The third small question is that I wonder if the St. Petersburg newspaper would be willing to permit a forensics expert to review their copy.

I have written the following to Amy Hollyfield of Politifact:

I appreciate your work on the Obama birth certificate. After your article's publication, questions about it's being a forgery were raised at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html. The key problem for me with respect to this issue is why the United States administrates an elections system without requiring identification and background information as part of the public record, to include not only birth certificates but also fingerprinting, criminal record, marriage certificate, etc. We live in an age of identity theft, yet there is no administration of verification of candidates' credentials. I have inquired with the Federal Elections Commission, my state's (and other states') board of elections, my state's secretary of state, the IRS (which administrates campaign funding) and my Congressman. We have a sorely mismanaged election system that could use professionalization of its administration, as in requiring birth certificates and the like from all candidates. Is anyone sure that of all the state legislatures, Congressmen, Senators and local elected officials that there is not one or even a few who have relied on stolen identities?

To this end, I have developed a petition to the FEC at

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/08/petition-to-request-federal-elections.html

Several of the 5,200 people who have signed it have wondered why candidates run without ID verification while someone like you is the one to attempt to verify Mr. Obama's birth certificate.

I would like to make an inquiry. Since you have a hard copy of the purported certificate, would you make it available to a forensics expert to verify? Ms. Okubo did not confirm that she actually sent you the certificate. Rather, she confirmed that it looked like a real certificate. Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs states that a forensics expert determined that the certificate posted on the website is a forgery. Would your newspaper be willing to allow or commission an independent forensics expert to further document your story?

Best wishes,

Mitchell Langbert

SMR Strauss on the Birth Certificate Question

Andy Martin comments on the following:

I, of course, have never questioned that he was born in Hawai'i. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will keep my mouth shut (unlike Mr. Berg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to an earlier blog below, SMRStrauss, indicates that a Virginia Court, basing its decision on the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, has held that Obama's Indonesian and Kenyan citizenship do not invalidate his status of natural born citizen. Presumably, President-elect Obama continues to fight revealing his birth certificate for another reason, possibly Andy Martin's explanation that there is an issue involving the identity of President-elect Obama's father. Martin has heard rumor or obtained evidence that Obama's true father is Franklin Marshall Davis. It would seem easier to reveal the birth certificate than to fight revealing in court, and some explanation along these lines seems probable to me. Also, there is the matter of Obama's sealed medical records. I'm not enough of an attorney to comment on the citizenship issue. I think a bigger problem is the unwillingness of the pissant media to probe these questions, but anyone who reads my blog knows this well.

>First, the certification of live birth is a valid document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It has now been accepted by at least one court.

Then, on the absurd claim that Obama was born in Kenya:

If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.

The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.

I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama's grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.

The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. Thus they are confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.

The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.

While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd. This is important. It is no longer possible to claim that the courts have refused to look at the evidence and merely dismissed the cases on technical grounds. They did look at the evidence, and found it wanting.

In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html

In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)

Quotes:

The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”