Late BC and Foreign Birth



  1. MissTickly
    Posted October 17, 2010 at 7:21 am | Permalink | Reply

    Here you go BDZ, look at the late certificate of birth.

    Line 18 says: “This record is valid only if it has been accepted by and filed with the State Registrar at Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    Proof that the two terms are not interchangeable. This is what Obama posted online–an invalid COLB that had only been filed and not accepted.

    I don’t know how I missed all this good stuff you got from Hawaii.

  2. MissTickly
    Posted October 17, 2010 at 10:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

    In fact, the late birth certificate says the “Registrar” fills out every field above the line that the “State Registrar” signs and dates.

    • Posted October 17, 2010 at 11:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Good eyes. I’ll have to think that through. If what Obama has was never even accepted by the state registrar it wouldn’t have been given a number, and I’m not even sure if it could be called a “vital record” as Fukino called it. I need to think through all this.

      I think the end conclusion that I come up with after dealing with the HDOH is that there’s no way for us to know which of what they’re saying, if anything, has any merit at all. There are so many obfuscations, mutually exclusive claims, and contradictions that the only way to know anything for sure is for an investigator to clean out their house, see what they’ve got, and take depositions complete with lie detector tests. If ever there was cause for an investigation of government corruption, this is it.

      Maybe Obama’s DOJ will report Hawaii to the UN for investigation. lol. (Not holding my breath)

      One thing that gives me a little bit of hope is what appears to be a tight race between Abercrombie and Aiona for the governorship. I looked at my records for the timeline, and I think Aiona was probably the person who finally got Fukino to post the Administrative Rules online as required by law:

      Oct 21 – e-mail to Espero and other members of HI legislature, copied to Gov & Lt Gov

      Oct 27 – e-mailed Aiona saying Rep Coffman had told me to contact Aiona since the lt gov is in charge of administrative rules.

      Nov 6 – Administrative Rules posted online

      Nov 10 – e-mail response from Aiona’s office, not addressing my content but stating that his office is in charge of proposed rule changes only and doesn’t have authority to initiate an investigation.

      I’m thinking that Lt Gov Aiona may be the strong silent type who just gets things done. Can’t say for sure, but he may have some integrity. And I’m wondering whether Paul Tsukiyama had some integrity too, which is why Fukino gave him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

      • MissTickly
        Posted October 18, 2010 at 1:36 am | Permalink

        “I’ll have to think that through. If what Obama has was never even accepted by the state registrar it wouldn’t have been given a number, and I’m not even sure if it could be called a “vital record” as Fukino called it. I need to think through all this.”

        Here’s a scenario…

        His original certificate was indeed accepted and ‘on record’ because of the October 2008 statement. But based on the 2009 statement, it’s clear [TO ME] whatever was on record with the State Registrar did not verify he was born in Hawaii, because Fukino said the HDOH had ‘on file’ the records that verified he was born in Hawaii.

        Surely he couldn’t have had a Certificate of Foreign Birth. I cannot imagine a scenario where he could amend a COFB to verify he was born in Hawaii.

        So he had a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. His ‘filed’ by date indicates he was less than a year old when his original birth certificate was filed. A COHB is for children one year and older with no prior registered certificates.

        Assuming the dates on his online COLB are true, when the application for the original birth certificate was filed, it must have never been accepted and never registered. That would have been due to some deficiency in content/evidence. After a year, he could have been issued a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth from the Lt. Governor.

        Since the COHB program ended, people amending their COHBs have to provide evidence of their birth facts and establish a late BC so we know a COHB and the testimony alone are not enough for the HDOH and Fukino to say they verify he was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen.

        It just makes sense to me that he filed for a late BC prompted by an amendment to a COHB. And now the HDOH has the evidence supporting his late BC on file. The State Registrar has the late BC you posted above with an itemization of the evidence that’s on file with the HDOH.

        One thing is for sure, the number on the online COLB is not the number for the BC that is ON RECORD with the Hawaii State Registrar. That number will start with an ‘L.’

      • Posted October 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        The responses the HDOH has given actually cause more problems than they solve. I need to check all my requests and responses again. I’m pretty sure the only thing they definitely stated was that they don’t have a delayed BC for him; on everything else they said they couldn’t reveal anything from the vital records. The terminology is tricky because at different points in time the same document could have been called a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, delayed BC, or late BC. Of those, the only one that would ever have been prima facie evidence is the COHB back when COHB’s could be applied for. So the question now is what terminology and rules/laws apply to records created during those time periods. There’s actually a specific form for a “delayed BC” so I think when they said he doesn’t have a DBC they meant that they don’t have that particular form for him. I should look again at the terminology in the 1972 rule changes; IIRC a BC that was within the first year was called “late”; anything after the first year was called “delayed”. So according to that definition, if Obama had a COHB the terminology for it from 1972 and on would have been “delayed”, even though it was not on a “delayed BC” form. But the HDOH website refers to a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth so they must distinguish in some way between a COHB and a DBC.

        I requested clarification from Onaka’s office that the only way to amend a COHB to a late BC is through a court order or legal name change, because the website was unclear about that. That was back when we had the questions of whether the date of birth could have been off. Onaka never acknowledged my request in any way.

        Do you know whether a COHB is still considered prima facie evidence? Hmm, IIRC, HRS 338-17 doesn’t use any of the terminology (late, delayed, COHB) but says that a birth certificate completed a year or more after the birth is not probative. Am I remembering that correctly? If so, then Obama having a COHB would explain the “on record” and “on file” parts of Fukino’s announcements (if there is a distinction as you suspect), if he converted a COHB to a late BC between those announcements.

        Onaka’s refusal to address my question would then become critical because the website seemed to imply that the only amendment that could be made to a COHB was a name change, and both the HDOH and Lt Gov’s office confirmed that they have no legal name change for Obama.

        I don’t know if you saw ladysforest’s site at but she’s got a video clip of somebody ordering a long-form BC and being told that she would receive it. It’s just one more piece of evidence that the HDOH has been lying through their teeth. They told the whole country that they won’t print copies of long-forms for anybody, not even the POTUS. And here they’re in their office every day doing what they told the rest of the country they won’t do.

        It just confirms that there’s nothing they say that we can really trust. I’ve built my analysis of the birth certificate stuff based on what the HDOH itself has said, but I know that they could be lying about all of it. I’ve sort of given up on making any conclusions regarding what they actually have because even if I parse what they’ve said, I have no reason to believe that what they said is an any way accurate.

        So what I’m shooting for is an investigation, because that is the only way to find out what is accurate and what is a bunch of hooey. After the inconsistencies and the violations of rules and laws, an investigation is definitely in order. The trouble is that nobody in Hawaii will do it. And that, by itself, should also alarm the whole country.

  3. MissTickly
    Posted October 18, 2010 at 1:46 am | Permalink | Reply

    I am trying to find out if this rule is still in effect for Fukino as far as Declaratory Orders are concerned:

    “Sec. 11-185-77
    Declaratory order on agency’s motion. Nothing in this chapter shall operate to prevent the agency, on its own motion, from issuing a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or to remove uncertainty. [Eff FEB 09 1981] (Auth: JIRS Sec. 91-8) (Imp: JIRS Sec. 91-8)”

    I see this was part of the rules in 1985, but I don’t see where it was repealed. I tend to think it’s been rolled into Fukino’s authority as the Administrator of HRS 338. IOW, that at any time, she could end this controversy if she saw fit to. I don’t like to face this fact, but it may very well be as bad as you have been saying…

    • Posted October 18, 2010 at 5:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think you gave it to me before, but is there a link for those rules, so others can help us try to find out whether it is still in effect?

      The way I see it, Fukino has backed herself into a legal corner. All along she’s been claiming that she can’t say anything about what is on the BC because HRS 338-18a forbids disclosures other than what is authorized by HRS 338 and the Administrative Rules. If that’s the case, then she should not have been able to disclose that there is a claim of a Hawaii birth.

      If this rule on Declaratory Orders is in effect it would mean that Fukino has been lying about not being able to disclose anything on the BC, the legal status of the BC, etc.

      Right after Fukino made her July 27, 2009 statement I e-mailed AG Bennett’s office to ask whether Fukino had violated HRS 338-18a which she has been citing all along. I also sent an e-mail after a while to all the Hawaii state legislators requesting an investigation of that and other things. The only person who responded in any way, shape, or form was Rep Denny Coffman, who told me to talk to Lt Gov Aiona about the Administrative Rules, but nothing about why Fukino was suddenly able to make the disclosure that she had been saying all along was illegal for her to make.

      They’ve been changing their stories as they go, and nobody is willing to call them on it. They have contradicted themselves at every turn. This really deserves an investigation.

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: