Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Apologies to John Charlton of The Post and Email. (Certifigate information in comments section)
Natural Born Citizen ^ | Nov. 25, 2009 | James Roberson

Posted on 11/27/2009 7:33:39 PM PST by Smokeyblue

James H (Jim) Roberson Says: November 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Leo, Kudos for being a really BIG MAN !!! Don’t you just wish that the Stone Waller-in-Chief had this kind of integrity ??? Thanks for deleting an uncivil Post that I once made (about “inferences”). During these stormy days for the Republic, we need “All Hands on Deck”. Every Patriot must muster – UNITED TOGETHER.

On 31 Oct 2009, I sent the following email to HI Dept of Health”:

Aloha Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo – from sunny South Carolina and Old Dixie,

Conducting research, I have examined a significant number of Certifications of Live Births, issued by your Department, for children all born in Honolulu. The children differ, of course, by which year each child was born, and a large range in years is represented in the population of COLBs examined. All COLBs were printed using your laser printer, and thus all demonstrate the same basic layout format, and page spacings of “form-words” fields (i.e., CHILD’s NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, MOTHER’S RACE, etc. all occupy comparable locations on the page).

Aside from the different “distinguishing” information, specific to each child, that was inserted in the fields beneath the respective “form-words”, all COLBs appear identical except,

1.) Different years seemed to have a different style Border – which I assume was intended to inhibit “alterations” ( say a young teenager wants to make a computer template, and then add a couple of years – so they can buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. The young nippers are amazingly adroit with computers these days.), and

2.) On the lower left side of all COLBs, except for 1, the “form-words”: “DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR” were printed. However, on 1 COLB the “form-words”: “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” were printed, instead.

As I’m sure you’ll agree, “Accepted” and “Filed” carry different meanings, or nuances. For example, “Accepted” indicates that all required forms/information were present (and, nothing looked out-of-order) – as specified by Standard Procedures – and thus this connotes the Certificate of Birth was issued with few reservations as to its validity. On the other hand, “Filed” leaves the hint that perhaps the information supplied may be either insufficient, or questionable as to its accuracy. In this latter case, the Certificate of Birth might carry a less than “full confidence” as to its completeness, authenticity, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness.

Likewise, “Registrar” (which could be either a “local”, or Island, Registrar) might perhaps be different from the “State Registrar” ???

I would be most appreciative if you will help me with the following Questions:

1.) Am I reading too much into the different “Words Choices” ? (I don’t want to sound sinister, or cynical.)

2.) Can you tell me under what circumstances would the above different “Words Choices” be required ?

3.) I have reviewed – without success – Hawaii’s Chapter (Title/Section ?) 11 “Rules and Procedures” looking for a definition of when the above “Words Choices” should be imprinted on COLBs. Could you please provide me with a “path” that I could follow to learn about the wording prescribed to be used on these type certificates / documents ?, and finally,

4.) Would you hazard an educated guess (just a general “ball park” figure would do) as to approximately what proportion of COLBs issued carry the “Filed” vs. “Accepted” classifications ? Less than 1%, less than 10% ? Or, do I have a “bad” population of specimens ?

If you are required to be presented with an “official” UIPA request, in order to provide the above information, then please consider this e-mail as such. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give me.

Respectfully yours,


IN RESPONSE, I RECEIVED from Ms Janice Ukubo the following email:

“Aloha Mr. Roberson,

Under the UIPA, the state is not required to answer all questions posed to it. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you at this time.

Please see attached response to your UIPA request.”

(Note: THE ATTACHMENT THEY SENT WAS A 3 PAGE pdf Form. Only 2 ‘blocks’ were ‘checked’, as shown below):

OIP 4 (rev. 8/29/08) NOTICE TO REQUESTER (Use multiple forms if necessary) TO: James H. Roberson FROM: Janice Okubo, Department of Health (808) 586-4442 (Agency/name & telephone number of contact person at agency) DATE REQUEST RECEIVED: 10/31/09 DATE OF THIS NOTICE: 11/13/09

GOVERNMENT RECORDS YOU REQUESTED (attach copy of request or provide brief description below): 1. Request is attached 2. 3. 4.


(Blank Box) Will be granted in its entirety.

(Checked Box) Cannot be granted because

(Blank Box) Agency does not maintain the records. Agency believed to maintain records:

(Checked Box) Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested.

(Blank Box) Please contact the agency and provide the following information: government records you are requesting.

(All other Boxes on 3 pages were Blank) …………

LEO, Their refusal to simply provide me with either a Statute or Regulation Number that specifies how COLBs are to be “classified” (as “Filed or “Accepted”) is all the evidence that I need that their is something extremely embarassing in their files. What they are hiding is obviously worth more than $1.4 million !

What would you recommend that I do to compel HDoH to furnish me a Non-Confidential Statute / Reg. No. that defines How Public Documents are to be “classified” (Filed or Accepted) ???

Has HDoH given YOU any further information, relative to your inquiries ???

PS My personal suspicion / speculation: They issued a COLB based solely on the Grandmother’s Affidavit that she has a new Grandson. Beyond that, they’ve got squat as supporting evidence. He could have been born ANYWHERE to ANYBODY. Hence, “Filed” instead of “Accepted”.

Leo's reply:

[ed. the DOH appears to be worried about the definition of "filed by registrar". I have seen this same UIPA request answered in the same manner. You'd think you could get a straight answer as to their own procedures... but no. They are basically Obama guardians and he has a vested interest in keeping you confused. It may not happen as fast as everyone wants, but I am going to follow through with more in Hawaii.]

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate
This post is from the comment section of Leo's blog.

This guy asked Hawaii through a UPIA request for clarification of "Date Accepted" and "Date Filed" terms.

Hawaii apparently won't answer. Very telling.

1 posted on 11/27/2009 7:33:39 PM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

other states have the same thing...

One term for Certificate of Live Birth and another for Certification of Live birth...

Date filed and date received etc..

Its the Certificate of Live Birth that we havent seen...

verifying where he was actually born...

2 posted on 11/27/2009 7:42:38 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue


3 posted on 11/27/2009 9:51:16 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

Tsukiyama resigns from Hawaii Office of Information Practices

Tsukiyama got promoted, big time

4 posted on 11/28/2009 9:26:59 AM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

Leo shut down his blog. Very strange.

5 posted on 11/28/2009 9:11:46 PM PST by Hell to pay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hell to pay

Who can blame him...he is probably taking ALL of efforts to generate enough resources to ultimately protect his family and property because that day is coming and at some point you have to make a choice...continuing peeing in the wind or build an outhouse.

6 posted on 11/28/2009 9:54:14 PM PST by surfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: surfer

Or rather a turret.

7 posted on 11/29/2009 1:35:28 AM PST by Hell to pay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

Whatever happened to Miss Tickly’s blog, documenting the approval process?

Does anyone have an alternate link or cache copy?

8 posted on 11/29/2009 5:27:13 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

By the numbers.
1. have seen the original vital records.
This does not state what these RECORDS [note the plural] are. Most people ONLY have one birth record, not RECORDS, indicating more then one. They are ONLY born once, not multiple times. So how does one get multiplr birth records?

Are these records like the Nordyke twins, registered long forms with the Dr, witinesses, et. Or are they a late filing, a foreign birth.

2. Obama was born in Hawai‘i.

Again, regardless of where he [Obama was born] he fails to meet the US Constitutional requirement.

3. and is a natural-born American citizen.”

Fukino’s personal opinion, not legal evidence in a court of law. And conflicts directly with case law, SR511, and other documented opinions and evidence that requires a minimum two US parents and Jurisdiction.

Based on her admission of multiple records, Obama could have been born anywhere, including Kenya, brought into the marriage by Obama Sr, who had multiple wifes and the adoption created the record that she is refering to.

Obama has not provided any documentation supporting his birth anywhere.

The COLB’s that were presented are forgeries.

Per the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Vital Records.

Quote “The state seal is imbedded in the certificate by machine and the back of the certificate would have the printed signature of the State Registrar. The lettering is imbedded in the seal.”

What more does the State of Hawaii have to say.
Fact - Forgery prove

9 posted on 11/29/2009 6:36:04 AM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: syc1959
More documentation on my blog
10 posted on 11/29/2009 6:39:03 AM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; null and void

Maybe you posted a similar thing elsewhere...I find this one powerful

11 posted on 12/06/2009 9:10:07 PM PST by Fractal Trader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader; rocco55; thouworm; rxsid; GOPJ; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; ..

Maybe one of us did...I find it worthy of a ping

12 posted on 12/06/2009 9:28:03 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 319 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

It may be time for Leo to point out to the State of Hawaii that they are obstructing justice and there is the possibility they could be prosecuted in the near future when they file their Quo Warranto lawsuit.

13 posted on 12/06/2009 9:56:35 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
I've received the same answer from Okubo in an e-mail a month+ ago, that I've forwarded to Leo!!!

I tried to click on the link for Leo above, but now get the 404 Error message, is his site closed down???

14 posted on 12/07/2009 8:14:03 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danamco

I think Leo is busy with the case listed in the thread posted below and has closed his blog.

It’s amazing that Hawaii won’t answer questions that simply relate to terminology used on their legal forms. How are people suppose to decipher their meanings? This should all be standardized.

15 posted on 12/07/2009 8:42:00 AM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

They just answering with total Smoke Screens deflections!!!

16 posted on 12/07/2009 8:59:59 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
Why not suggest to Leo that he contact John Hemenway. Their respective positions seem to overlap quite a bit and as of now Hemenway's efforts in Hollister v. Soetoro are the only ones that have led to a finding of subject matter jurisdiciton, which necessarily implies standing. John and his team I am sure would be quite interested in working with others whom they believe have standing and thus subject matter jurisdiction such as Chrysler dealers. I believe that they have been looking into new filings.
17 posted on 12/07/2009 9:53:35 AM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson