Skip to comments.HI Territorial Law 57 (foreign born & HI B.C.'s) - Joint Motion Filled in HOLLISTER v SOETORO
Posted on 01/08/2010 7:30:02 AM PST by rxsid
"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 doesnt 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 Courts 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 Obamas birth before the major revision of the state of Hawaiis laws in 1982. Since that time the undersigneds 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.
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 frameone yearthat 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:
"HI Territorial Law 57 (foreign born & HI B.C.'s) - Joint Motion Filled in HOLLISTER v SOETORO"
B U M P
Interpret, please...good or bad for Truthers?
However, this is "good" information for those looking to expose the usurper.
The term, "Truther" or "truthers" refers to that group of people who seriously believe that 911 was an inside job -- perpetrated by our government for its own nefarious ends.
At some point, BHO henchmen, who don't care that BHO is not a natural born citizen of the USA and therefore NOT eligible to become president, started calling people who wanted to see his birth certifigate by the nickname, "birthers" --- obviously trying to denigrate them as conspiratorial kooks like the truthers.
Maybe wrong term to use, but anything that will bring the truth about O’s birth is welcome.
What’s happening here?
I think its good..but it probably wont do us any good.
Looks to me like it says what we already knew, if we kept up with this. Anyone could have given the information on a child, to get a certificate of live birth. This does NOT mean the child was born there. It only means the chid was born....somewhere.
Yes, thanks for the correction. My mistake in terminology.
I knew what you meant.
Truthers are people who are not convinced of one error or another, regarding Barry O.’s COLB, Passports used, college admissions and financing, etc.
We remain convinced that glaring errors on the COLB and that it was even offered as proof of anything are of dubious value, as we know there are at least 3 Long Form Birth Certificates in existence. Two of those are in Barry O.’s possession; the one he used to obtain his original passport/college admissions and the one he found among his mother’s belongings.
In addition, there are no records of Barry’s life available for examination. We have only his narrative, of his life, with no way of verifying it.
Birthers are the original challengers of John McCains citizenship and while we want to make clear they were the first and probably correct in their view, we seek to move to an examination of Barry’s life and get to the truth.
Hence, Truthers. We accept the terms Birthers or Truthers as we don’t care and want evidence of the claims of Barry, lack of claims by way of generalization and a sense that there are some real problems with Barry’s background.
Plenty easy to get confused when trying to follow all this, particularly when the nicknames are given by opponents who want to besmirch the group.
If someone other than Orly Taliz is bringing suit that is good. She seems very ineffective. It’a amazing all this hasn’t been cleared up by now. What court is this in? What law suit is it a part of?
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
The finding of this law is important because it proves that there existed, at the time of Barry's (alleged, 1961) birth, a way for foreign born baby's to obtain a HI birth certificate.
Previously, only the more recent version (from 1982, found here) was widely know...and a 1911 (?) version I believe. This HI Territorial Law 57 was in effect during 1961. Now the proof has been found and added as part of the court record for the HOLLISTER v. SOETORO case.
So the next time someone tries to lie to you and say that no such law existed (allowing foreign born baby's to be able to obtain a HI b.c.) at the time of his birth...you now have the proof to refute them.
Thanks, wintertime for asking for a synopsis and a *thank you* to rxsid for the *plain English* definition.
Legalese is not my strong point!
Many thanks, rxsid. I always look for your posts because I know you can cut through to the truth.
now that's interesting...
You’re a big fake, Hussy!
FWIW, I prefer the term “Constitutionalists” since that’s what we’re trying to follow. It encompasses all. But whatever gets everyone onboard.
page 19... .....Given the latitude allowed under these territorial statutes a health official years later could say that they had seen a document that verified that the defendant Soetoro aka Obama was born in Hawaii when in fact such was not the case....
UH OOOH....ping the anti-birthers TSHTF
Oh, those pesky obscure laws and over eager undergrads. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try or how many palms you grease, you just can't erase every bit of evidence.
I used to think it was nearly impossible that a candidate such as Barry (with his ideological/political background and associations) would ever get "selected".
However, with the state run media actively cheerleading an overt foreign born communist, coupled with a severely dumbed down (American Idol/MTV ultra liberal hollywood watching) voting population that for a generation (or two) was largely educated by the socialist's in the universities...I can see how someone like a mao could get selected. With a HI short form that is. Or, perhaps not even that will be required next time around.
Barry's precedent must not be simply voted out. The usurper must be exposed. Otherwise, there will be a "next time," and it could be much worse.
Tiger Woods ?
The case is Hollister v. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, in the US Court of Appeals for DC.
In this particular case, the help attorney Hemenway received may have come from other experienced lawyers.
Yes, this is why we need to see the long form.
Yes indeed. The fillings by Hemenway have been very, very good.