Amendment While Deciding to Run

Obama’s Birth Certificate Was Amended in the Six Months Before He Announced Run for Presidency



In August of 2009 “Terri K” requested documents related to the processing of an amendment to Obama’s birth certificate. In September the Department of Health denied access to those records, thus confirming that they existed.


In December I sent a portion of that request:



—– Original Message —–

From: Nellie


Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:28 PM

Subject: UIPA Request



Dear Dr. Fukino:

Persuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.



On January 5, 2010, I reminded the DOH that they still hadn’t responded to my request, and the same day I received this in response:





—– Original Message —–

From: Okubo, Janice S.

To: Nellie

Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:50 PM

Subject: RE: UIPA Request



Aloha Ms. (redacted),


There are no records responsive to your request.



So the receipts for the fees Obama paid to have his birth certificate amended existed in September of 2009 but were destroyed by January of 2010.


The General Records Schedule for the State of Hawaii says that cash receipts (3.A.3) and sales journal (3.A.4) are to be kept for 3 years. The departments which hold records have standing orders for routine items to be automatically destroyed when the retention period is past.


So the 3-year retention period for the receipts ended sometime between September 2009 and January 2010 – which means their date of creation was sometime between September 2006 and January of 2007. Obama paid to amend his birth certificate during that time.


What was going on during that time period?


Here it gives a timeline of Barack Obama’s political career. It shows:


2006, Oct 22 – Obama announces he is considering a run for the Presidency.

2007, Jan – Obama begins running for US President


So it was during the time that Obama was deciding whether to run for the presidency that he decided to amend his birth certificate. Whatever amendment he made was on an item he had been fine with for 45 years and while he was deciding whether to run for the presidency he decided to change that item.




  1. ksdb
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 4:52 am | Permalink | Reply

    I’m glad to see you’re providing some updates and new information. The deduction looks good. Obama files for an amendment in late 2006 and then by June 2007, gets a shiny new COLB, which, by the time he posts it, has been redacted, not just for the certificate number, but also for the notation that the certificate had been amended. Second, the COLB has evidence that the “date filed” has been manually changed, not to hide the original date, but from a sloppy job of rebuilding the COLB to show only the information that Obama wants seen by the public.

    At one point, this COLB has been referred to as the ‘original’ birth certificate. I think that might be true, that this was the information on the original birth form. My guess is that the certificate was amended once when Obama was age 4 and had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Barry Soetoro never legally changed his name back on the certificate until late 2006, at which time he has amended back to show his original name. IIUC, the only legally allowed amendments are for name changes, sex changes and adoptions. Makes perfect sense. The only thing that doesn’t make sense is the certificate number being out of sequence with the Nordyke twins.

    The one thing I’m forgetting … did you or Terri K. request an abbreviated, non-certified copy of the certificate as allowed by adminstrative rule 2.5?? I contacted a reporter to do this. Not sure if I’ll hear back from her, but she was pretty gung ho when she saw the PDF of the rules.

    • Posted February 10, 2010 at 5:46 am | Permalink | Reply

      I wondered about the adoption thing. But when adoption occurs they don’t actually amend the birth certificate. They make a new (supplementary) one and then seal the original. Hawaii allows un-adoption. If the adoptive dad divorces the mom, for instance, the mom and child can choose to have the adoption undone. They just restore the original birth certificate and seal the supplementary one. As I understand it, there wouldn’t be any note of amendments because the birth certificate itself was never actually amended.

      And the lt governor’s office has said they don’t have any records for a legal name change for Obama/Soetoro/Sutoro.

      So whatever the amendment was, it doesn’t seem like it was his name or adoption. I think anything can be amended if it’s not a delayed BC. If it’s delayed the only changes are the ones you mentioned. But with affidavits and documentary evidence I think just about anything can be amended – with the stipulation that once the BC is amended it loses its prima facie evidentiary value.

      It’s late. I think I need to come back at this when my mind is fresher.

      It was good to see some progress happening with your work regarding Texas. How’s that going?

      One of the really neat parts about working with this is seeing how the pieces work together. There are so many different angles involved, and we need people working on every angle. Sort of like a body that works together.

  2. ksdb
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 6:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t think we can assume the name change or adoption is a dead angle. It’s the only type of amendment that makes sense or would be allowable. There’d be no reason to change the date of birth. It’s published since 1961. There’s no reason to change the date filed. It’s consistent with when the announcement was published. The child’s gender is the same. The father’s name is the same (unless there’s an adoption). The place of birth can’t be legally changed unless the original birth certificate was incomplete. There just are many variables left that would require Obama to make an amendment prior to running for president or that would make sense to amend.

    Also, the Lt. Governor’s denial doesn’t mean much. The DOH outright lied at one point and said they don’t keep divorce records, even though their own Web site says they do. Honesty is a big problem with these folks and they may have little loopholes for making some denials that are still technically truthful.

  3. Posted February 12, 2010 at 5:55 am | Permalink | Reply

    ksdb wrote:
    Makes perfect sense. The only thing that doesn’t make sense is the certificate number being out of sequence with the Nordyke twins.

    Not a problem. The birthdate was Aug. 4, 1961, at 7:24 pm on a Friday evening, on the weekend. On Monday, the clerk at the DOH received the collected birth certificates from area hospitals, doctors, and midwives. The DOH clerk then posted the batch of certificates, without ordering them by hand, to the mainframe computer. The first certificate which the clerk entered received the first available number, the second certificate the second available number, etc., with no regard for date and time of birth.

    You are entitled to disagree, but that is how it worked in those big iron days.

    • Posted February 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Only one problem with that. I don’t have permission yet to post the exact e-mail, but Okubo has confirmed that the certificate number is given on the “date filed by registrar”. The Factcheck one was filed 3 days earlier than the Nordykes but has a later number. Factcheck’s combination of certificate number and filing date are an impossibility if Okubo has told the truth.

    • Posted February 12, 2010 at 1:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Also, did they have mainframe computers back then? Someone who has worked at DOH offices has said the numbers are given by the state registrar (looking at the certificates it looks like they are stamped onto the certificates) and then the state notifies the hospital and county clerk’s office of what the state file number (certificate number) is. So the hospital and county clerk have their own index book of where the birth record is kept in their office, with the state certificate number written on the actual document.

    • ksdb
      Posted February 12, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      About the only way Obama can have a higher number is if pre-numbered certificate blanks were at the hospital and filled out out-of-sequence. There’s nothing tangible to indicate this happened. Also, we have the Nordyke twins being born less than a full day later than Obama, but not being signed by the weekend physician utnil nearly a week later. We have to believe for unknown reasons that Obama’s was signed at least three days earlier by a physician than the Nordykes, and then filed immediately with the local registrar. Maybe it’s possible, but it’s only a guess until we see the actual, original certificate.

      • Posted February 12, 2010 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

        The procedure at Kapiolani seems to be that they collected their BC’s for a week and then on Thursday or Friday they had the doctors sign them and sent them to the DOH. The Administrative Rules passed in 1962 say that local registrars were supposed to collect certificates for a week and then transfer them to the state DOH. We don’t have the Administrative Rules which were in effect in 1961. We have the statutes that were in effect but they deferred the particulars to the Board of Health. If the 1962 Administrative Rules continued what the Bd of Health had put into effect during the years as a Territory, the local registrars would have given their certificates to the DOH once a week. That matches what I’ve seen so far from the Kapiolani BC’s.

        If I remember correctly, I’ve seen Kapiolani BC’s where someone added the word “Deputy” next to “Local Registrar” on the BC. I believe that the state registrar deputized people at the hospitals to be the “local registrar”. Army Tripler Hospital, for instance, had a military person who signed the space for the local registrar.

        If so, then Kapiolani’s procedure makes sense with the Rules: collect BC’s for a week and on Friday afternoon have the doctors sign them, sign them yourself as the local registrar, and then deliver them to the DOH.

        That would be another reason the filing date on the Factcheck COLB doesn’t work.

  4. Posted February 13, 2010 at 2:26 am | Permalink | Reply

    If the Hawaii DOH did not yet have a mainframe computer in 1961, assigning certificate numbers out of sequence is even less a problem. In the absence of an automated central numbering system, each clerk in the Registrar’s office probably received for the next period a group of preassigned certificate numbers, in order, but not in a consecutive sequence.

    For confidentiality reasons, hospitals typically assign patient numbers roughly in sequential order, but with a small amount of scattering and disorder.

    Likewise, if one of the DOH Registrar’s clerks was not working for a day (or two or three), he or she would register his next numbered certificate a day (or two or three) later than the other clerks registered neighboring numbered certificates assigned to them.

    Whether or not this scenario is precisely accurate, in whatever year, the numbering of Hawaii Birth Certificates was more likely to have had a limited amount of scattering and disorder than to have been in exact chronological order.

    • ksdb
      Posted February 13, 2010 at 5:19 am | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t disagree that the numbers could be out of sequence, just that it doesn’t seem very likely when Obama’s birth mother would have been in the hospital sooner, delivered the baby sooner, was published sooner and would have had to have signed the certificate much sooner than Mrs. Nordykde. It makes more sense if they aren’t born in the same hospital and likely same maternity wing of the hospital.

      If the Kapiolani procedure is as butter describes, then there’s no way Obama’s certificate could have been published Aug. 13 in the newspaper. His should have been in the Aug. 16 batch. Newspapers have copy deadlines and Friday afternoon (the earliest that the Nordyke twins could have been turned in) is generally too late to turn in copy for a Sunday paper.

      If, instead, Obama is born out of the hospital, unattended, on Friday and Granny or Gramps goes straight to the registrar’s office on Tuesday, the 8th, it explains a) the earlier publication and b) the later number. Mrs. Nordyke signed her twins’ certificates on Monday (which may have prompted the number) and Granny Dunham, who turns in Obama’s birth the next day gets a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.

      Regardless, we shouldn’t have to guess or make excuses for this when the certificate can be legally shown.

      • Posted February 13, 2010 at 6:09 am | Permalink

        The numbers weren’t given at the hospital. According to Okubo, the numbers were given when they were accepted by the state registrar. Mrs. Nordyke signed the certificate on Monday but the doctor didn’t sign it until Friday, which was the day the doctors signed every Kapiolani BC I’ve seen thus far (except ones in the 1930-40 range) AND Friday was also the day that the local registrar (which appears to be someone at Kapiolani who was deputized) signed the BC AND the state registrar accepted the BC.

        So the Nordykes’ certificates were not even signed by the doctor until Friday and that same day they were given the certificate number from the state registrar. That’s the kind of processing time involved when the state registrar got the certificates. That’s the same process and timeline I’ve seen on all the Kapiolani BC’s. (With the exception of one, where Friday was Christmas Eve and the DOH office was closed. The certs weren’t signed and delivered to the DOH until the Thursday after Christmas Eve, presumably when it was realized that the DOH would be closed that Friday for New Year’s Eve also.)

        Obama’s was supposedly accepted at the state registrar’s office 3 days earlier (before Kapiolani even had the doctors sign the certs) and still ended up with a certificate number later than the Nordykes’.

        It doesn’t add up.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: