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.”
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
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.
Veddy interesting!
Yes, this is why we need to see the long form.
Yes indeed. The fillings by Hemenway have been very, very good.
Coupled with all that other crap that came together for this “perfect” storm to have happened, I forgot to mention the massive foreign financial influence on this last (so called) election.
If people go running around calling themselves “truthers”;
most other people are going to get the wrong idea and think
that they believe the twin towers were imploded by the CIA.
THAT is the commonly used term for those believers.
Looks to me like it says what we already knew"
We suspected that a similar law(s) (to the current 1982 statue) was on the books in 1961...but now we have the actual proof in the form of the actual law. Furthermore, the HI Territorial Law of 57 was even more "generous" than the one from 1982!
The naysayers, OBOTS, kool-aid drinkers (etc) could always refute the claim that HI had laws that allowed foreigners to apply for HI birth certificates...because we didn't have the proof such a law really did exist during 1961. Now we can refute them!
It's really a big discovery.
Thanks for the ping LucyT
Yes.
I would add...
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
“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.Obama's own campaign web site stated such
How is Territorial law 57 different from this that is online at Hawaii records? Trolls always ranted the baby had to be a year old or more. But it would make sense if Obama was born in Kenya that SAD came back later?
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
Any person to whom a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth has been issued may submit a request to amend an entry, including a legal change of name, on an existing Certificate. A request to amend a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth will, however, be considered to be and treated as an application with the Department of Health for registration of a late certificate of birth in current use, unless a standard birth certificate for that person already exists in the vital records of the Department of Health. Should there be a situation of dual registration, the requested amendment will be made to the standard birth certificate on file if the required documentary evidence in support of the amendment has been submitted and evaluated to be adequate. If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health.
How to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
Upon receiving a request to amend an entry on an existing Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, the Registration Unit of the Office of Health Status Monitoring will send:
notification to the requestor that the amendment request is treated as an application for registration of a late certificate of birth, and
instructions on procedures for and submission of required documentary evidence in support of registration of a late certificate of birth.
If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy. If the application is approved, a late birth certificate will be issued and the original Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to the applicant must be surrendered to, for cancellation by, the Department of Health. No filing fee is charged for the late birth certificate.
Hawaii BC types.
now that's interesting..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.
But as the evidence suggests, she was unable to obtain an actual CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE because she had no supporting documentation.
So the APPLICATION remained FILED.
And what we have been shown is probably an ABSTRACT of the original APPLICATION...and that is also why the initial CoLB shown had no certificate number.
The black rectangle didn't cover a number IMO, the black rectangle was placed there to hide the fact there never was a number at all...
see 42
re: the birth cert and “caveman..easy”...is there a photoshop here?
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.