Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HI Territorial Law 57 (foreign born & HI B.C.'s) - Joint Motion Filled in HOLLISTER v SOETORO
Scribd ^ | 1/7/2010 | rxsid

Posted on 01/08/2010 7:30:02 AM PST by rxsid

In part...

"MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF HAWAIIAN TERRITORIAL STATUTES, THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57, “VITAL STATISTICS,” AND THEIR EFFECT

I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE EFFORT TO THIS POINT

The appellant John D. Hemenway previously asked the Court to take judicial notice of certain matters of public and official record, including a statute of the state of Hawaii that was enacted in 1982, § 338-17.8 of the revised laws of Hawaii of that year, and which was entitled” “Certificates for children born out of state.”
...
We thus asked to the Court to take judicial notice of the fact the laws of Hawaii, as late as 1982, and continuing into the present day, allowed then and do allow to this day for a child born out of state to receive something called a “birth certificate,” even though the child was not in fact born in Hawaii but was born outside Hawaii. Thus a Hawaii official might assert that a person had a “birth certificate” that was on file with the state or had been on file with the state but that assertion doesn’t prove that a child was born in Hawaii.
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not respond to our motion (It originally was filed by the undersigned on behalf of both himself and appellant Hollister) within the time allowed by the Rules of the Court for responding to a motion. On October 20, 2009, the Court, through the Clerk, issued a Show of Cause to the appellees Soetoro a/k/a /Obama and Biden because of their failure to oppose our first Motion for Judicial Notice with the time allotted by the Rules for a response, saying that the appellees were required to file and show by October 30, 2009
...
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not comply with the October 20, 2009 Order of the Court by showing why they had ignored the Court’s Rules and failed to respond to the initial motion for judicial notice in a timely fashion. They offered no reason for why they had ignored the Rules. Instead they filed a document which badly misrepresented both the law and facts of the historically verifiable meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and attacked the submissions that we put forward as not being eligible for judicial notice, with the single exception of the statute quoted above. As to that one request, our asking that the Court take judicial notice of the 1982 statute, they did not attack that statute and thereby admitted that it was deserving of judicial notice or at the least waived any right to object to it.
...
In that first motion for judicial notice when we pointed to the above-quoted law of Hawaii of 1982, which is now unopposed and thus acknowledged as appropriate for judicial notice by the appellees, we stated that it was the same as the laws of Hawaii in effect at the time of the birth of the appellee Soetoro/ a/k/a Obama. At that time we were unable to locate, either on the website of the state of Hawaii or in the law libraries of the local law schools a copy of the territorial laws as they were in effect at the time of Soetoro a/ k/a Obama’s birth before the major revision of the state of Hawaii’s laws in 1982. Since that time the undersigned’s support staff has been able to locate a set of those territorial laws of Hawaii as they were published with the authority of the Territory of Hawaii in the years before the birth of the defendant Soetoro a/,k/a Obama and as they continued in effect up through the year that he was born.

II. THE TERRITORIAL LAW 57 AND ITS SIMILARITY TO THE 1982 LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

We attach to this new motion for judicial notice a copy of Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics,” the law concerning these matters as it was in the Territorial laws in question. The statute of the Territory thus attached is from the Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii 1955 in Three Volumes as published by the authority of the Territory of Hawaii by the Filmer Brothers Press, 330 Jackson Street, San Francisco, California. These three volumes comprise the statutes of the territory including the acts passed at the regular session of 1955 and the special session of 1956 as consolidated, revised and annotated. As can be seen, because we attach it also and request judicial notice thereof, these three volumes of the statutes of the Territory are certified by the chairman of the compilation commission of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955 as appointed by the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii under Act 179 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1953.
...

In our earlier motion we were wrong on one point, although the error is in the favor of appellants. The error that we made was due to our not at that time of the filing of the first motion being able to locate a copy of the territorial statutes as in effect before 1982. Upon locating and being able to review the applicable territorial statute we found that it was not exactly the same as the act set out in the major revision and codification of 1982, although similar. What in fact the territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless. After an initial discussion of that authority we will then request additionally that the Court take judicial notice as a legislative fact of the Act which put into place the 1982 statute which is still in place and which replaced the territorial acts.
...

The specific Act of the state legislature which brought the attached territorial statute up to date and incorporated it into that Code was Act 182 H.B. No. 3016-82. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of that Act as thus passed in 1982 at this time. The actual Act 182 says, inter alia:

Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
In this way, to quote further from the Act, “state policies and procedures” of Hawaii accommodate even “children born out of State.”
...
V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL STATUTE TO GET A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” ALTHOUGH NOT CERTIFIABLY BORN IN HAWAII

We believe that the Court is obligated to take judicial notice of the attached territorial statute and, in doing so take judicial notice that there are ways that a “birth certificate” can have been obtained for a child under that statute that are allowed greater latitude for such a “birth certificate” to have been obtained that would be restricted under the present statute, so that the present statute allows for a child to have been born outside the state and still have been issued a Hawaiian “birth certificate,” but does so without the same breadth of possibilities for that having happened as was possible under the attached territorial statute.

For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate. We ask the Court to take notice of the latitude for inaccurate information that is thus created. Further, § 57-9(b) allows there to be a filing of a certificate of birth on which required information is simply missing and can thus be filed by a “supplementary report” and yet the filing of initially unsupplied information by a “supplementary report is not considered as causing that report with information that was not supplied at the outset to be treated as “delayed” or “altered.” It must be noticed that this creates great latitude for mistakes or even abuse of requirements. Thus, although § 57-18 gives the same time frame—one year—that was incorporated in the 1982 state statute, for a “delayed” or “altered” certificate, the procedures give greater latitude for there to be mistakes and abuse of the procedures and for incomplete information.

This great latitude that allows for mistakes, misinformation, incomplete information and even abuse in turn extends into the requirements for what is put on the birth certificates, or required to be put on them, how they are to be kept and disclosed and all the other aspects of the system."

Complete motion, with HI Territorial Law 57 attachment, here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biden; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; fraud; hawaii; hi; hollister; ineligible; january; law57; lawsuit; obama; soetoro; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 last
To: Seizethecarp

Lack of a claim is lack of a claim. By the cases I pointed out it is not an element of standing. As the Supreme Court has clearly said lack of a claim is not standing or part of standing. If there is laughter it wouild be at yourself. Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject. Judges look at whether they have jurisdiction, which necessarily involves considering standing, then they look to see if there is a claim. They do not analyze the claim and then extrapolate from that to standing. For one thing, jurisdiction and standing analyses are under 12(b)(1) not 12(b)(6). The former goes outside the pleading the latter analysis does not except for taking judicial notice. If you were an experienced federral litigator you would have to know that.


151 posted on 01/12/2010 4:32:33 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Lack of a claim is lack of a claim. By the cases I pointed out it is not an element of standing. As the Supreme Court has clearly said lack of a claim is not standing or part of standing. If there is laughter it wouild be at yourself. Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject. Judges look at whether they have jurisdiction, which necessarily involves considering standing, then they look to see if there is a claim. They do not analyze the claim and then extrapolate from that to standing. For one thing, jurisdiction and standing analyses are under 12(b)(1) not 12(b)(6). The former goes outside the pleading the latter analysis does not except for taking judicial notice. If you were an experienced federral litigator you would have to know that.


152 posted on 01/12/2010 4:32:42 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: OafOfOffice

That’s the big question raised by the case.


153 posted on 01/12/2010 4:39:12 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
"Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject."

You misstate what I said again. I never said "lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed."

I seem to recall you saying you were not a lawyer.

154 posted on 01/12/2010 5:09:42 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Your memory is no better than your knowledge of the law. Althouogh not practicing at this time I was a lawyer for a very long time.


155 posted on 01/12/2010 6:01:49 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

Thanks for your pings and information!


156 posted on 01/12/2010 6:08:01 PM PST by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

If I was a lawyer, I would not push to have the courts remove him from office, I would have the courts open up the case for discovery to see whether he is eligible or not, and have Congress decided on what to do.....


157 posted on 01/13/2010 1:57:11 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
So far as I know, that courts can not remove him anyway. It's not within their Constitutional powers. I mean, how would the do that anyway?

However, they could make a decision regarding original intent of the framers and weather or not he meet's the requirement of NBC.

If he didn't, then it would be up to "some other group with jurisdiction to remove a (criminal) usurper. FBI? Fed Marshals? That, of course, assumes he didn't "step down" like Nixon.

158 posted on 01/13/2010 5:34:35 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; InspectorSmith; Seizethecarp
”Perhaps, it was by this very law (HI Territorial Law 57), that someone was able to fill out this application (?) for a HI birth certificate that was only ever FILED and never ACCEPTED. Then, when HRS 338-17.8 was passed (in 1982), the record was ammended to coincide with the new updated statue...perhaps triggered by someone needing a copy of the original record for some reason.”

For the record, I have linked below a copy of the September 19, 1940 ‘Application for Social Security Account Number’ for Madelyn Payne Dunham, Barack Obama’s maternal grandmother. Importantly, the SS form contains her signature, which can thus be compared to what is intended to be her signature in the 18a box on the Blaine BC Application. One must remember that approximately 19 years has elapsed between the first and second signatures so evolutionary changes in style are to be expected.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/MadelynDunham-SSAppl.pdf

The referenced SS Application was obtained from the Orly Taitz, “Defend Our Freedoms Foundation” website. Orly entered a 3/1/10 post titled, “I Need Forensic Document Experts, Signature Experts, Investigators to Work on this and get Any and All Info” The post contains a copy of a letter to Orly from Paula Hoehn with the SS Application attached as a link. The following is an excerpt from the cover letter from Ms. Hoehn to Dr. Taitz.

“Attached are Soc Sec Applications for Obama’s grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, and a woman named Shirley Jean (Applebee) Dunham born in Washington. Also, attached is the accompanying letter to me from Dawn Wiggins, Freedom of Info Officer, Soc Sec”

I am not a handwriting analysis expert. My conclusion, after examining the two signatures, is they have numerous differences, yet some similarities as well, so I can draw no clear impression either way. Thus, I could draw no definite conclusion, based on the signatures, concerning the authenticity of the Blaine BC document.

159 posted on 03/05/2010 12:51:47 PM PST by WhizCodger (Katie - Bar the door, then text my reply of "F U" to the NWO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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