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

To: Seizethecarp
And there is a clear reason for this notation being added after 1982 as a footnote to the Honolulu "birth location" to clarify that the actual birth hospital was in Kenya, per the hospital field entry.

So, who will let them know they have been mistaken?

81 posted on 01/09/2010 12:02:11 AM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: Fred Nerks
“So, who will let them know they have been mistaken?”

I suspect this may be a bit of psy-ops by Apuzzo and Kerchner to create the impression that they don’t take it seriously. It seems too obvious to me that the footnote and reference to the 1982 statute could have been added later. Amendments and corrections are to be made to the face of the document in the file per the statute.

At this point, it is not Apuzzo and Kerchner or Hemenway and Hollister that matter, but D’Onofrio and the Chrysler dealers. p>

D’Onofrio was in the dual citizen-only camp claiming that non-US birth was CT, but he suddenly became extremely interested in the birth location a few months ago. Going back to last March Apuzzo and D’Onofrio were aligned briefly against trying to gain release of Obama’s HI BC:

D’Onofrio quoted from The Right Side of Life:

“I contacted Mario after both reading his pleadings in the Kerchner v. Obama case, and listening to his interviews. I was impressed by the level of detail his pleadings brought forth. The intelligence and passion for the Constitution shown by Mr. Apuzzo and his plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, were evident in the interviews they have given. They both recognize that the main issue is centered on Obama being a British Subject and that the birth certificate issue, while important, is ancillary to Obama’s admission that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii.”

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-donofrio-apuzzo-team-up-on-challenging-the-presidents-authority/

Hmmm...D’Onofrio’s interest in Obama’s BC may well have started at about the same time this Blaine BC appeared! Could the Blaine BC, provided to D’Onofrio by Charlton, have inspired D’Onofrio’s sudden interest in the HI vital record index?

In my expectation, Hemenway’s Law 57 request for judicial notice, while important to get on the record, won’t get him standing. Only D’Onofrio seems to have a chance to gain quo warranto standing (per Judge Carter...refuted by DOJ), so I am daring to get a bit hopeful that D’Onofrio has the Blaine BC and is prepared to use it or gain discovery of it.

88 posted on 01/09/2010 8:33:22 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

To: Fred Nerks; rxsid; LucyT; InspectorSmith; BP2; STARWISE; Kenny Bunk; Red Steel
US Congressman Nathan Deal might be a very good person to be made aware of the "Blaine BC" (posted in comment #57 in this thread and the thread "Signed Certificate of Live Birth for BO") and HI Territorial Law 57, as discussed in this thread that allows foreign births to be reported as HI births.

Deal has written to Obama last month requesting that he prove his eligibility and InspectorSmith says Deal already has a copy of Lucas Smith's Mombassa BC.

Per InspectorSmith 01-07-10

"I want to remind everyone on the forum (or report for the first time for those who are not aware) that on November 6th, 2009, the American Grand Jury sent US Congressman Nathan Deal (via registered mail) a copy of the 1961 Coast Province General Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II. "One their website you can view copies of the certified mail receipts to US Congressman Nathan Deal as well as the contents of the mail, i.e., Barack Obama's 1961 Kenyan birth certificate from Mombasa."

http://americangrandjury.org/category/kenyan-birth-certificate http://www.youtube.com/user/InspectorSmith

The Smith and Blaine documents are totally complimentary and can explain how HI officials can state that Obama's "vital records" say he was born in Honolulu.

If you look at field 6a on the Blaine BC, "Place of Birth", it says "Honolulu" with a footnote "1". So Fukino can say that the HI vital records state that Obama was born in Honolulu!

But the next line in the Blaine BC, Field 6c, contradicts a Honolulu birth when it says "Name of Hospital" "Unknown--Kenya, Africa" The contradiction is restated in field 23, "Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration", when it says (explaining the footnote "1" in field 6a): "1. Birthplace: Kenya;Registered Honolulu. HRS 338-17.8 per Grandmother"

The statute cited in field 23 wasn't passed until 1982 so the last part of field 23 beginning with HRS was typed after 1982. The typed line beginning at "HRS" is uneven indicting multiple insertions of the document into the typewriter, perhaps at different times, possibly first in 1961 and then later, sometime after 1982.

It is not clear whether the contents of field 23, as named, are evidence for delayed filing, evidence of alteration or both. The first part of field 23 up to "Honolulu." could be evidence in support of a delayed filing explaining lack of a hospital BC that was typed in 1961. Or the entire footnote could be to explain evidence of alteration i.e. identifying the source of the Kenya birth report, and was typed after 1982.

We don't know whether any further alterations (amendments) of the vital records for Obama were made after this image was obtained. An affidavit from the mother or grandmother could easily have declared that the hospital location and footnote were in error, for example and that would leave only field 6a "Place of Birth" "Honolulu" as valid.

Perhaps there is some obscure HI statute or policy that makes the contents of field 6a govern legally what the HI officials are allowed to publicly report in spite of the Kenya hospital mentioned in field 6c and in the footnote, and that is exactly what they have done! Honolulu!

Or Obama himself may have filed an entirely new delayed filing after 1982 on his own behalf submitting his own evidence and affidavits, and this amended BC from Obama may be the basis of the COLB.

The Blaine BC only shows as being accepted by the Local Registrar in field 20, which is the local filing. But field 22, "Accepted by General Reg." is blank meaning that the Blaine BC does not show as being "accepted" by HI vital records. The Factcheck COLB also only says filed, not accepted. This would explain all of the secrecy.

121 posted on 01/10/2010 8:25:44 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

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