Monthly Archives: August 2010

Hutch News E-mail

From: Nellie (redacted)
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 10:39 PM
Subject: Editorial Re: Rescinding Endorsement for Mann


Dear Editor:


I am requesting a correction to the editorial in which the Hutch News rescinded its endorsement for Mann for Congress because he is a “birther”.


The editorial almost entirely relies on an alleged fact that is totally inaccurate. Hawaii’s Secretary of State has never come forward with Obama’s birth certificate. That is just plain factually incorrect, and in accordance with journalistic ethics it should be corrected.


The fact of the matter is that nobody in Hawaii has released any of Obama’s documents (even though at this point Hawaii law REQUIRES them to release the documentation upon request) because they say they can’t release it without Obama’s consent.


And they have never confirmed the authenticity of the Factcheck COLB. In fact, Janice Okubo said in an e-mail to me that Hawaii law forbids her from even telling LAW ENFORCEMENT whether the Factcheck COLB is authentic, or a forgery. She says she cannot directly state anything that would reveal what is on a genuine BC.


What the Hawaii DOH HAS INDIRECTLYconfirmed via their official, legal responses to UIPA requests is that Obama’s birth certificate was amended sometime in 2006 when Obama was considering a 2008 run for the presidency (an amendment which must be noted on any genuine COLB but isn’t noted on Factcheck), AND that the certificate number and “date filed” on the Factcheck COLB are incompatible so that one or the other (or both) had to have been altered on the Factcheck COLB. IOW, The HDOH has indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.


Furthermore, Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) says that an amended birth certificate is not prima facie evidence. The probative value of an amended BC is determined when it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. Until that happens the amended BC has no more legal weight than Monopoly money. Even if Nancy Pelosi or anybody within the DNC or Hawaii Democratic Party had ASKED to see Obama’s documents (which the HDOH confirms none of them ever has), they could not legally determine his birth facts because they are not administrative or judicial. Likewise, Chiyome Fukino could not make an announcement declaring what Obama’s birth facts are because there is no procedure whereby his birth certificate would be presented to her AS EVIDENCE.


The only way Obama’s birth facts could have been legally determined is if his BC had been presented to a SOS somewhere in the country in the process of placing his name on the ballot (as is allowable without his permission, according to the DOH Administrative Rules which Fukino illegally hid until a year after the election), or if Obama had presented his BC in any of the court cases he fought and the judge had ruled on its probative value.


Obama (aided by the illegal behavior of the Hawaii DOH) prevented either of those things from happening before Jan 20th – the deadline which the 20th Amendment gives for the president-elect to “qualify”. There is no way he could have qualified by then because the facts of his birth have never EVEN TO THIS DAY been legally determined – including his age, place of birth, and parentage (each of which could disqualify him from the presidency). Legally he HAS NO BIRTH FACTS. The process necessary to legally establish the facts of his birth has never happened – regardless of any certifications signed by the DNC or Congress, who are legislative rather than judicial or administrative and thus cannot fulfill the requirements of Hawaii law (which must be honored by the federal government, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution).


Obama can not have qualified by January 20, 2009 because even his age was not legally determined by then (nor has it been legally determined YET). THAT is a fact.


The 20th Amendment says that if a president-elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th the vice-president-elect is to act as president until a president qualifies. Obama is Constitutionally disqualified from acting as president and having the presidential powers – regardless of whether he is the president, has been certified as the electoral winner by Congress, or has taken the oath of office. None of those things overrides the actual requirement of the 20th Amendment. 


That also is a fact.


I’ve got full documentation for these things on my blog at .


I am requesting a correction of your statement that the Hawaii SOS has come forward with Obama’s birth certificate, which is factually incorrect. Even if she had, it would have no more legal value than Monopoly money – which is a point that the public also has a right to know. Unless you would like to print a follow-up article including the information above, I also ask you to print this letter.


I respectfully ask you to withhold my name, location, and phone number because I have received threats of rape on my blog from someone claiming to be in northern Kansas after I began posting on your online site. Please contact me to notify me of what you intend to print before printing. I would appreciate a response either way, telling me what actions you plan to take as a result of this new information brought to your attention.


Thank you.



Nellie (redacted)

(contact info redacted)

Notice Served

Notice Served:

An Example of (Probably) Criminal Journalistic Malpractice

The Journalistic Malpractice

 On July 21st printed a retraction (at–1 ) of their endorsement of a Kansas primary candidate for the US House, because :

“it turns out Mann is what is known as a birther. He questions the citizenship of President Barack Obama despite evidence that is irrefutable to most objective, rational people – including a birth certificate released by the Hawaii secretary of state and birth announcements printed in Honolulu’s two major newspapers.”

That simple statement contains a big inaccuracy. The Hawaii Secretary of State has never released Obama’s birth certificate, nor has the Hawaii Department of Health (who has the BC) nor anybody in Hawaii. Obama’s campaign published an online image of a COLB which went through 2 or 3 alterations on various websites before it finally surfaced at as scanned photographs of what was claimed to be Obama’s genuine COLB. Politifact published an article (at ) in which Janice Okubo, communications director for the Hawaii Department of Health, concluded that .

“I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents”

The substance of dozens of court cases is that various people are asking that the genuine birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health be released. Obama’s lawyers have fought every case on the ground of standing – that it is nobody’s place to force Obama and/or the HDOH to reveal Obama’s genuine birth certificate.

 So when Hutch News said – out of the blue – that the Hawaii Secretary of State had already released Obama’s birth certificate, they displayed a total ignorance of what the “birther” issue even IS. Yet they castigated the objective rationality of anybody who wants the genuine legal document to be released.

 The Hutch News retraction was mentioned on national TV by Rachel Maddow, and people on the Hutch News website praised The Hutch News for their courage in confronting those terrible, ignorant, irrational “birthers”. Apparently they had no clue what a huge inaccuracy the Hutch News had just posted – an inaccuracy that revealed a lack of even the most basic comprehension regarding the eligibility issue.

 So I contacted the editor of The Hutch News, asking for a correction(either by their own statement or by posting my letter to the editor) to the blatantly false statement that the HI SOS had released Obama’s birth certificate and alerting them to some of the facts documented on my blog (which I linked), that

  1. Okubo has said outright that the law forbids her from telling even law enforcement whether the Factcheck COLB is a forgery,
  2. That the Hawaii DOH has actually indirectly confirmed, in 2 different ways, that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery, and
  3. That because the HDOH has made a statutory admission that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended, even the genuine birth certificate in Hawaii is legally worthless; it has no more legal evidentiary value than Monopoly money.

This is the response that I received: 


You’re right, technically that is incorrect. To be precise we should have stated that the Obama campaign released the birth certificate but that Hawaii officials from the Department of Health have verified its legitimacy. But that is not materially important, and I am not going to engage in any of your continued speculation, which includes publishing your letter. If that is how you care to spend your time, have at it and continue the debate on your blog or wherever. But we are comfortable this has been well researched and determined and isn’t something to which we will devote more time and space.

 John Montgomery
Hutchinson News

Zooooooom!! That’s the sound of the facts going right over the head of a “rational” person who considers himself responsible to inform the public on vital issues.

Thinking that he had perhaps not bothered to read my entire e-mail, I responded to him with this:

John, to be precise – as I have stated and documented on my blog – the HDOH has NOT verified the Factcheck COLB’s legitimacy, nor can they legally do so (according to their own claims).

  You still are not grasping the basic facts of this issue, and are thus misreporting it.

  As journalists, you have a responsibility to correct errors that you have made in your reporting. Are you telling me that you will not correct this error?

In 2 days it will be a month that I’ve waited for a response. And no correction has been made.


Why it’s Probably Criminal


What The Hutch News may not have considered is that issues under the jurisdiction of the federal government are impacted by the facts of whether a genuine birth certificate has ever been released and whether the HDOH has ever actually confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is genuine. There are court cases pending, an FBI investigation has been requested, a court-martial is in progress regarding this very issue, Congress is having to decide whether to accept SCOTUS justices nominated by a potentially fraudulent president, and the issue has been referred by Lt Col Lakin’s Congressman to a House committee on military affairs.

 Most people realize that it is immoral for a news company to refuse to issue corrections when they become aware of an inaccuracy in what they have published. What most people – including possibly The Hutch News – may not know is that if they play fast and loose with the facts in a matter under the jurisdiction of any of the 3 branches of federal government, they could be found guilty of violating the Federal General False Statement Act – 18 U.S.C. 1001:

 I.     Except as otherwise provided in this section,
II.     whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial

branch of the Government of the United States,
III.     knowingly and willfully –
IV.         a. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

b. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

c. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any

    materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, imprisoned not more than 8 years if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331) or if the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A (sexual abuse), 109B (sex offender registration), 110 (sexual exploitation), or 117(transportation for illicit sexual purposes), or Section 1591 (sex trafficking)……..

The law is described, beginning on p 15 at , including the following:

“Although the offense can only be committed “knowingly and willfully,” the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew that his conduct involved a “matter within the jurisdiction”of a federal entity nor that he intended to defraud a federal entity. Instead, the phrase “knowingly and willfully” refers to the circumstances under which the defendant made his statement, omitted a fact he was obliged to disclose, or included with his false documentation, i.e., “that the defendant knew that his statement was false when he made it or – which amounts in law to the same thing – consciously disregarded or averted his eyes from the likely falsity.”

Notice Served

I intend to do a more complete post later, concerning The Federal General False Statement Act – which I believe has been violated by a multitude of people within both the federal government and the Hawaii government. Obama concealed from both Congress and the courts that the COLB published by his own campaign website was a forgery. I intend to post letters from members of Congress saying that they would not contest the certification because they believed the (forged) Factcheck COLB, the (misunderstood and not corrected) statements by Hawaii officials, and the (false) media reports concerning the issue.

For right now, I give this small example of The Hutch News because it reflects what has gone on in every news room in the nation in the past 2 years, despite the diligent and tireless efforts of people like myself who have contacted the media to correct factual errors in their reportin on this issue.

With this post I am serving notice to the media – which has misreported this issue all along – that we see what you have been doing, we know that it is illegal, what you’ve already done is on the record that will eventually come before Darrell Issa’s House Ethics Committee (Lord willing), and we will be watching you very closely from here on out to see whether you “consciously disregard or avert (your) eyes from the likely falsity” of your own claims in light of the information we provide you – which is documented by actual communications from the Hawaii Department of Health. You ignore us at your own peril.



PRISM Privacy Impact Assessment

Some information on PRISM:


PIERS Privacy Impact Assessment

Some information on PIERS:


Phil’s Passport Photo

This is the photo stapled to the 1953 passport application for Phil Jacobsen’s mother. Phil and his sister were included on their mother’s passport, as Obama would be expected to be on his mother’s 1965 passport application which the Passport Office claims has probably been destroyed.

Strunk Response #1

This will hopefully be a little faster than Scribd.Strunk Response 1

Jacobsen Affidavit and Exhibits

Jacobsen Affidavit

The Whopper That Got Away


The Whopper That Got Away

 Last week an article entitled, “Look Here, Birthers!” drew attention to a video which showed what was claimed to be Obama’s passport. That article and video came shortly after 2 FOIA requests for the passport records of Obama’s mother had been answered with the release of some documents. While the FOIA responses and passport video were being analyzed in the blogosphere – a necessary venture – a much bigger story was being ignored: what I’ll call “The Whopper That Got Away”.

 The Whopper
Among the documents the State Department released to Chris Strunk was a 1967 amendment to a passport issued to Stanley Ann Dunham in 1965. In the official FOIA response it was explained:

 “We did not locate a I965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many, passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.”

 Later, an affidavit was filed by Alex Galovich, the supervisor in charge of FOIA responses for the State Department. The affidavit described how Strunk’s request was processed and included a memo cryptically dated Feb 6, 1985 which claimed that

1. Sometime between the late 60’s and 1982, passport file retention requirements were changed from 100 years to 15-20 years, and 

2. A project begun in June of 1984 had resulted in the destruction of records from 125 million passport files dating through November of 1961. The 40 workers, if full-time, would each have processed about 2,170 files/hour (taking about 2 seconds apiece), sorting out records in Class A from Class B (below). I think you can see why I call this “The Whopper”:

Class A: A listing of the primary documents being retained is as follows:


Class B:  A listing of the primary documents being eliminated follows:


That Got Away
And this alleged passport retention change and destruction of records “got away” without leaving any evidence in the official records. Agencies such as the State Department are “required to schedule all their records”  – that is, to determine whether each record is to be kept, for how long, and in what form. The instructions for specific records is their “disposition”. Changing the disposition requires a formal process which is documented in the Federal Register, numbered, and posted (See 3303a here ).

A search of the Federal Register failed to locate a change from a 100-year retention to a 15-20-year retention for passport records. Further inquiries are being made.

The State Department’s listing of dispositions  includes disposition changes for passport records that took place:

 1. In 1978 when microfilming was required and paper records were allowed to be destroyed 15 years after microfilming ,

2. In 1979 when vital records were required to be kept separate from passport applications,

3. In 1982 when disposable statistics records were created (see #27 and #28 at  ) ,

4. And in 1997, when the dispositions of all the records, by years, was clarified and reiterated – with passport applications and associated records from 1925-1970 required to be retained for 100 years.

 That latest request, in 1997, lists the previous dispositions which were to be superseded – including #1-3 above and the agency’s records transfer orders for implementing those dispositions. Nothing on this even applies to passport files from 1925-1970, which is probably why the section on 1925-1970 is crossed out – since the instructions there are just a reiteration of the disposition still in effect and not a change at all. If there had been a change from a 100-year retention to a 15-20-year retention in the 1980’s which has since been changed back (explaining the current disposition on the Passport Office’s site – see Jacobsen Exhibit E), that is where it should be listed. It’s not.

The only trace of this alleged change is this memo submitted for Strunk’s FOIA case, to explain why the Passport Office didn’t disclose Stanley Ann Dunham’s 1965 passport application. This begs the question of why neither Galovich nor the memo he cited included either a copy, reference number , or date for the actual disposition change being claimed.

In the entire set of records dispositions for passport documents, the only retention periods less than 100 years are for:

 1. Paper records from 1983-1999 which have already been microfilmed (which are to be retained in paper form for 15 years)

2. Abandoned and expired registrations and applications

3. Surrendered passport books.

4. Passport authorization lists which have already been microfilmed (retain paper copies 50 years)

5. Disposable statistics and accounting records

6. Routine correspondence and UIPA Requests

 The only reference to a 15- or 20-year retention period is for paper copies of passport records that have already been microfilmed. Microfilming was made mandatory in 1977 for passport files.

The Evidence to Refute the Whopper
Unfortunately for the Passport Office, Phil Jacobsen requested and received his mother’s passport application from 1953 – a routine application which would have been destroyed along with Dunham’s if the records from those dates had actually been destroyed as claimed in the memo.

Alex Galovich said in his affidavit that the Passport Office searched PIERS (Passport Information Electronic Records Service), an electronic database of passports issued in 1978 and later, using Dunham’s various name combinations for the search. Although Galovich said, “The Department of State also maintains paper records of some passport applications”, he never said they searched the paper records.

In his affidavit and supporting Exhibits, Jacobsen shows that paper index records were required to be retained permanently. A search of those index cards would have revealed the status and location of the “missing” 1965 passport application as well as any other passport applications within the timeframe Strunk’s request covered (1960-1985).

1. The claim that Dunham’s pre-1967 passport records were destroyed is contradicted by the existence of Jacobsen’s mother’s passport documents from 1953.

2. Currently no record of change of retention periods has been found, and efforts to locate any such changes are continuing. Passport Services was contacted by phone  and asked if passport records before 1970 had been destroyed; they refused to state whether they had or had not been destroyed, suggesting that would have to be answered by writing to the State Department.

 3. The Passport Office’s website lists a 100-year retention requirement for passport files from 1925-1970 and has no warning or disclaimer that records before 1969 may have been destroyed as Galovich alleges. There is a charge of $50/person (or $150 for a third party) to search for passport records. If they are charging people to search for records from 1925-1970 that they falsely told people exist, and in fact have been destroyed, that appears to be a continuing fraud.

4. The claims on the memo in Galovich’s Declaration are not only unsupported by the documentation, they are physically impossible. The great probability is that this memo was totally fabricated as an excuse to keep from having to disclose Stanley Ann Dunham’s pre-1967 passport records. The State Department should either produce the required disposition change records to substantiate their claim, or refer this case to the DOJ Inspector General for an investigation of potential wrong-doing.

 5. The permanent paper index cards would show ALL passports that were issued to Dunham, allowing those passport applications to be located. Those should be released immediately.


Urgent Need

In order for the Post and Email and its researchers to continue its research, donations are urgently needed to finish an ongoing investigation that will likely yield tangible results which could be used in current and future legal battles. We are at a critical juncture so time is of the essence. Please donate whatever you can at ; every dollar counts!.

The Summary CNN Doesn’t Want You to See

The HDOH has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s Factcheck COLB is a forgery because

1) they have made a statutory admission that his BC is amended, which is required to be shown on a legitimate COLB but is not shown on the Factcheck COLB, and

2) They have said that Oahu BC’s have always been given the BC number by the HDOH on the “date filed”. The Factcheck COLB has a “date filed” 3 days earlier than the Nordyke twins’ but was given a number later than theirs. This statement by Okubo rules out past explanations (hospitals numbering the BC’s or being given blocks of numbers, or BC’s sitting in piles at the HDOH for days before being numbered). This means that either the “date filed”, certificate number, or both have been altered on the Factcheck COLB.

Because Obama’s genuine BC is amended, Hawaii law (HRS 338-17) says that it has no legal value unless it is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and they rule the BC to be probative. Obama has fought lawsuits to make sure that his BC could never be presented as evidence, even though it is the only way he can have any birth facts legally determined.

The 20th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th, the Vice President elect is to “act as President” until a President qualifies.

Because the required procedure to legally determine Obama’s birth facts has never happened we know that Obama could not have “qualified” by January 20th, and anybody who certified his eligibility documentably perjured him/herself since even his age has never been legally determined and could disqualify him from eligibility for the Office of President.

The President elect becomes President automatically at noon on Jan 20th, but there are 2 Constitutional requirements that must be met before a sitting President can “act as President” or exercise the Presidential powers: he must take the oath of office and he must “qualify”. Doing one of the 2 is not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.

Obama has “failed to qualify” and the only person the 20th Amendment allows to “act as President” is Joe Biden, until a President qualifies. All this is known simply because his birth certificate has been amended and he has never presented it as evidence so it could possibly gain legal evidentiary value.

These claims are documented here. For the wider angle view on why this matters, and my motivation in addressing these issues, see