Archive for the Uncategorized Category

Leo Donofrio – Quo Warranto expanded

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 6, 2009 by citizenquo

Leo Donofrio – Quo Warranto expanded

Leo has deleted his expanded information about quo warranto from his blog. It is also on I am building a database of Leo’s good work for study and reference.


Leo Is Back In A BIG Way Along With Steven Pidgeon. The Game Changer Is Still Working For America.

Leo Donofrio And Stephen Pidgeo Will File A Quo Warranto In DC Court Representing Chrysler. WOW!

Leo Donofrio – Quo Warranto expanded

View this document on Scribd


Moving Forward… (And Moved Off the Map It seems) Correction Leo Is Still In The Game!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

I guess Leo moved so forward he moved himself off the map. This is from google cache. Leo’s blog has been deleted except for 1 page but I have preserved some of his excellent work for future reference. Some links don’t work.


Leo is back in a BIG way along with Steven Pidgeon WOW!! The game changer is still in the game! See Link Below!

Leo Donofrio And Steve Pidgeon Have Joined Forces In New Lawsuits Including Quo Warranto

Moving Forward…

I am speaking with various parties who I may provide legal counsel to in the near future. This will require a period of silence from me. The time for legal talk is now over. The time for legal action has begun. Talk is cheap. I’m tired of it. Either litigation will commence or you won’t hear from me again via this blog.

This blog contains all the tools necessary for people to gain access to information from Hawaii. The UIPA is a very good law providing standing and expedited calendar service to “any person”. Study that law and use it. Request the media and legislature use it as well. They won’t. You know that. But put it in their face anyway.

I will report back here when I have something of significance to say regarding litigation.

For now, I will leave you with one salient point made by the DOJ in the hearing before Judge Carter:

“It’s the way the founding fathers intended.”

Page 15 of the transcript.

Since the DOJ is stipulating that the intention of the founding fathers is the proper guideline for this issue, then we ought to hold them to that position all the way down the line. The definition of “natural born citizen” as understood by the founding fathers is certainly the only definition which is legal under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5. Barney Frank can’t change that and neither can law professors like Tribe and Dershowitz, etc.

As the DOJ has correctly indicated, the only definition of natural born citizen that matters is the one held by the founding fathers.

And that’s why everyone needs to read pages 43-44 of the transcript where Judge Carter indicates that even if Obama were born in Kenya, the Judge would not be comfortable in holding that Obama was not eligible to be POTUS.

Somebody needs to tell this Judge that the law in the US at the time of Obama’s birth stated quite clearly that Obama would not have qualified for US citizenship in 1961 if born in Kenya to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama Sr. That’s very clear according federal law in 1961. If he wasn’t a citizen, how could he be a “natural born citizen”?

So, if you think Judge Carter is going to decide the British birth issue in favor of holding Obama ineligible if born in Hawaii, then you are really kidding yourselves. This case has no chance at all.

I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya. I believe he was born in Hawaii. But I also believe that the state of Hawaii has been playing fast and loose with their own public disclosure laws and that they should not be trusted, especially since they haven’t been put under oath.

I also don’t believe it would have mattered to the founding fathers if Obama was born in Hawaii since he was a British citizen at birth, and the founding fathers had just fought a bloody war to rid themselves of British influence. To assume they would have allowed a British citizen at birth to become Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is to disgrace the blood of the patriots who earned this nation’s freedoms and liberties by their very lives.

For all intents and purposes, the “natural born citizen” safeguard given to this nation by the founding fathers is dead. And the entire Constitution is also dying by a cancer attacking all organs. It will only survive a certain death by miracle. Pray for such a miracle. It is truly your only hope.

Leo C. Donofrio

The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

Saved for future reference from google cache. Links don’t work. Leo has deleted this information from his blog but it was still in the google cache as of Dec 3, 2009.

The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN. They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now. A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that team. This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries. It will be guest blogged by them right here when it’s ready for public consumption.

But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds. It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884. The American Law Review was a premier legal journal – the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.


This was not a law school publication. It was considered to be the state of legal art which utilized the most esteemed attorneys of the period.

The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.

The article I am excited to bring you is titled:


The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike. I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.


MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.

It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers. But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.

The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen. It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.

If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.

But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit – to cover that issue up. He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people. This law review article is proof of that conclusion.

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often. Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States. He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.

MYTH #4: Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

Attorney Collins discusses Vattel in great detail. And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens. Collins quotes Vattell.

But more important is the fact that Collins makes it clear Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not actually Vattel’s definition.

This is very important.

The definition of “natural born citizen” was not created by Vattel in his treatise, “Law of Nations.” That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”. The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattel’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.

Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below. Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

The capital letters are not in reference to Vattel’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattel wrote about – the actual “law of nations”. And that body of law – according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents. In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.


This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief. Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil. In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship. This discriminates against no race at all.

To be an American has nothing to do with race. It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.

The natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship. It does establish a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the US Armed Forces.

It makes all the sense in the world that the person who holds the keys to the massive nuclear arsenal in our possession should be born on US soil to parents who were citizens.

If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.

That is what you are saying if you think Obama is eligible to be President.

You can’t discriminate based on race or nationality in this country. If a person whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth can become President, then it doesn’t matter what nation that person is a dual citizen of.

This is the main issue and main reason why I have dedicated so much of my time to this situation. I am no more worried about Obama than I was about Bush or Clinton. I see all of them as having struck horrific blows against US sovereignty. But I am seriously worried about who comes next. Who is being groomed as a Manchurian candidate as we speak?

If Obama is eligible to be President, then the sons of every despicable despot are also eligible.

It’s not like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran are going to let the sons of US citizens lead their countries anytime soon. Are we really going to allow their sons to lead our nation? The framers would never have allowed such a horrific situation to exist. With the natural born citizen clause they protected us against this very scenario. We must protect the protection.

A legal fraud is being perpetrated upon this nation through ridicule and straight up major media propaganda.

The great weight of authority indicates Obama is not eligible to be President, but we are losing the PR war.

I recognize arguments which take issue with some of the conclusions below. But the point is urgently made that this issue is not settled and has never been directly adjudicated by a federal court. Such adjudication is the necessary outcome of this debate.

I hope the following piece of history serves as a wake up call to the snarky sarcasm being leveled at this very serious legal question. There is nothing funny about this issue. The repercussions for generations to come are potentially disastrous.

And with that I leave you with the Holy Grail of all natural born citizen law review articles:

Are Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof – George D. Collins


Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

Saved from google cache for all who believed in what Leo was doing. Links don’t work. This is for future reference and study. It is well worth preserving although Leo didn’t think so.



This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation – your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots – three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they – because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution – that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man – it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.


Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens. In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.

They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation. The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection. McCain and Obama know that.

And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite. Had any of these morose media maniacs actually read the papers I filed with the United States Supreme Court (before election day), this is what they would have found as to Barack Obama:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama’s birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect.

Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put this issue behind him forever.

That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of President since he is not a “natural born citizen” by the Constitution.

As to John McCain they would have found this:

Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will. He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.

I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President – despite the loyalty they have for this country – the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.


The truly patriotic thing for both to do was pass the baton to another worthy candidate not burdened with eligibility issues. I understand the lure of being President and all the power, glory, responsibility and possibility for enlightening change that entails. But the precedent to be set is fraught with danger. And the candidates knew that.

I suppose they’ve taken a view that the good they might bring to our Country far outweighs any risk from who may come next. But knowing the slippery slope of history, only hubris could make such a call.


Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya. There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that. Obama has it posted on his own web site. It’s this very definition which I included in Cort’s Wrotnowski’s brief. Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:

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. (Emphasis added.)

There it is. Obama is telling you his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction. This is no theory. This is a fact.

I have always believed Obama was born in Hawaii. I told numerous reporters that there was no way in hell Obama would post a fraudulent birth certificate at his web site. I said that over and over, but they’re still lying about my position. Why not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is the truth now part of a conspiracy?

Instead of recognizing that a legitimate legal nexus exists for Obama’s eligibility to be questioned, the great bulk of main stream media outlets have pulled out all the stops to mock, attack, accuse, hate and discredit anybody willing to consider the law.

What have we come to?

The opposing media argument concerns the will of the people in the election and that the Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn the intent of 65 million voters. It’s an argument that fails – if the candidates were not Constitutionally eligible then the election was a fraud no matter how many voted for Obama.

My law suit was meant to return the election to the Constitution. It’s the Republican and Democratic parties that overturned the election stuffing two ineligible candidates down our throats with no regard whatsoever to the future precedent it would set.

The people are subservient to the Document and if we don’t keep it that way, we have plenty of historical examples throughout history detailing exactly what will happen to us if the Document is defeated.

Regardless, should the people demand that Constitutional restrictions in Article 2, Section 1, be removed from the Document, they can lobby their political representatives to introduce an amendment, and if such amendment were to be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, then they can have any President they like.

But as long as Article 2, Section 1, is controlling law, it’s those who are trying to attack all review of it who are the conspiracy theorists. All I did was ask the Supreme Court to rule on an issue which has caused multiple law review articles to be written and countless news reports and blogs to be published. It has generally confused legal scholars for over two centuries.

“Ooh, look at that crazy conspiracy nut Donofrio,” they squawk. Me so crazy. Well, maybe I am a bit strange (Who the hell isn’t?) but not for my understanding of the natural born Citizen issue. And that’s the only issue before the Honorable Court.

That being said, let’s now take a look at two established and respected legal sources which define the term “natural born Citizen” as a person who is born in the United States to parents both of whom are “citizens”.


I could understand rabid attacks if the legal theory I was relying upon had been thoroughly discredited by a Supreme Court decision or by statute, or even by historical texts, but it’s quite the opposite. Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

I understand the countering argument and I’ve welcomed debate of both sides of the issue in comments to this blog. But most of the published arguments on the natural born Citizen issue are recently published law review articles which haven’t done a very good job of presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that – to them – the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at (use his link for footnotes):

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank reader “John Boy” for pointing to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:

The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10

Now look at “footnote 10″:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

(Leo this good work has been preserved for future study of those who believed in you past efforts.)

US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

From google cache. Links don’t work sometimes. This information is from Leo’s extensive work on his blog that was deleted but was still in the google cache. Use it for reference and study in the future.

US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.

A thorough review of national security clearance guidelines and federal statutes indicates that various heads of government agencies in charge of disseminating classified information should deny access to classified information to President Obama unless and until he undergoes a statutory background check and achieves a proper security clearance.

This article stipulates that it is common practice for the FBI to grant full security clearance to elected officials such as Congressman and Senators. The same courtesy has been extended to the office of President and Vice President. This is done in recognition that these elected officials represent the will of the American people.

However, federal law mandates that if such courtesy conflicts with national security then agency heads are expected to deny access to classified information. In President Obama we have a Commander In Chief who admits to having been a British citizen as well as a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, President Obama may still be a a British citizen and/or subject. He may have also been a citizen of Indonesia.

We just don’t know the answers to these questions because he just won’t answer them.

US Defense Security Service guidelines are very clear in that persons with past allegiance to foreign nations are to undergo security checks to determine whether such allegiance is dangerous to the US:

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. The exercise of dual citizenship;

b. Possession and/or use of a foreign passport;

c. Military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country;

d. Accepting educational, medical, or other benefits, such as retirement and social welfare, from a foreign country;

f. Residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;

g. Using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;

h. Seeking or holding political office in the foreign country;

h. Voting in foreign elections; and

i. Performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:

a. Dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;

b. Indicators of possible foreign preference (e.g., foreign military service) occurred before obtaining United States citizenship;

c. Activity is sanctioned by the United States;

d. Individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship.

Above Information Courtesy of Defense Security Service (DSS) (Emphasis added.)


The government security guidelines examine whether the person has renounced his foreign citizenship. The issue of whether Obama is still a British citizen or subject must be addressed by a proper US government background clearance examination since it appears President Obama has never renounced his UK citizenship or subject status.

A forthcoming report at this blog will detail the intricacies of British nationality law with regard to whether President Obama is currently under the domain of the UK. But this should be done by our government officials as well. If he is under their domain, he’s also under the domain of the European Union.

Federal Statute 50 USC 435. Executive Order 12968.

50 USC 435 is the federal statute concerned with the classification of sensitive information. It empowered Executive Order 12968 which was enacted by President Clinton in 1995. These laws provide the Executive Branch rules for granting security clearance to classified information.

EO 12968 exempts the President and the Vice President from having to pass a security clearance examination. However, both 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 contain the same exact safety provision empowering agency heads to deny access to classified information upon their own discretion.

50 USC 435 states:

Subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed to limit or affect the responsibility and power of an agency head pursuant to other law or Executive order to deny or terminate access to classified information if the national security so requires. Such responsibility and power may be exercised only when the agency head determines that the procedures prescribed by subsection (a) of this section cannot be invoked in a manner that is consistent with the national security.

Executive order 12968 Section 5.2 (e) states:

(e) This section shall not be deemed to limit or affect the responsibility and power of an agency head pursuant to any law or other Executive order to deny or terminate access to classified information in the interests of national security. The power and responsibility to deny or terminate access to classified information pursuant to any law or other Executive order may be exercised only where the agency head determines that the procedures prescribed in subsection (a) of this section cannot be invoked in a manner that is consistent with national security. This determination shall be conclusive.

Since the President and Vice President are exempted from these regulations, the regulations can’t be invoked in a manner consistent with national security. As such, any agency head who determines that providing the President with classified information is inconsistent with national security may withhold such information.

According to law, such a determination is conclusive. No review is even possible.

President Obama should submit to a full security clearance examination before a national crisis takes place. Agency heads who continue to provide classified information to President Obama do so at the risk of national security. President Obama was a citizen of at least two foreign nations and his passport history is unknown. It appears that he may still be legally subject to the monarchy of Great Britain. This would trigger issues concerning the Master Nationality Rule whenever Obama stands on British soil.

These issues are not trivial. But for Obama being President, he would have to provide everything discussed in the Defense Security guidelines. He is also charged with enforcing those very same guidelines. How can he enforce them with a straight face if he’s never submitted to them himself?

President Obama has never officially renounced or denied his British citizenship. And he has admitted that he was a British citizen at birth. His past is so intertwined with various other nations that it is impossible, without a proper security clearance examination, for agency heads to forward classified information to him without concern. Government agency heads in charge of releasing classified information have the undeniable legal right to deny the President classified information.

Until President Obama’s passport and citizenship status in other nations is thoroughly determined, agency heads who forward him classified information do so with unknown risks to national security.

There are too many unknowns with regard to past allegiance to foreign powers for such information to be passed on safely. Agency heads cannot afford to be shy or afraid of backlash. Their decision is legally conclusive.

There is no transparency here and I do not see why the President himself is not calling for a proper background check on himself.

Why put the agency heads in this position?

It would be a proper start to necessary transparency if Obama would discuss whether he’s ever held a foreign passport and whether he’s ever traveled under a foreign passport. He should also take the official steps necessary to renounce his prior foreign citizenship.

That’s what a statesman would do.

This entry was posted on August 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
82 Responses to “US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.”

MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Oh, this is a beautiful post.

You say “…various heads of government agencies in charge of disseminating classified information should deny access to classified information to President Obama…” Do the agency heads get to use their own discretion in determining if BHO gets clearance or are they mandated to fully check everyone receiving classified info?

In other words, how is this enforced if at all? We obviously can’t ask or expect BHO to REALLY be a statesman. It’s kinda like the women at the DoH–he’ll let them field a million calls and inquiries about his BC instead of just coughing up his records–he’s happy to let other agency heads take the heat on this, you know?

[Ed. Under the guidelines, the Pres and VP are exempt from the regulations – except that the agency heads can deny anyone access to classified info if national security cannot be maintained by invoking the regulations. A determination by an agency head in this regard is – by the very letter of Executive Order 12968 – CONCLUSIVE. So the President can’t do anything about it. Even if the agency heads decide to stare at the emperor’s new clothes by feeding him classfied info, at least they will have culpability if anything treasonous should occur.]
MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Correction: When you manipulate others and how they do their jobs, and you force them to have to do your dirty work rather than cough up your vital records and passport(s)–you aren’t a statesman, you aren’t even a MAN.
MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Nice graphic BTW–how did you get an official clearance badge?
MissTickly Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM

It takes a couple reiterations before i get it–thanks=)

[Ed. Under the guidelines, the Pres and VP are exempt from the regulations – except that the agency heads can deny anyone access to classified info if national security cannot be maintained by invoking the regulations. A determination by an agency head in this regard is – by the very letter of Executive Order 12968 – CONCLUSIVE. So the President can’t do anything about it. Even if the agency heads decide to stare at the emperor’s new clothes by feeding him classfied info, at least they will have culpability if anything treasonous should occur.]
Kal Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
– Lord John Acton

“There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.”
– Niels Bohr

“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”
– Jean de la Bruyere

“The great seal of truth is simplicity.” – Herman Boerhaave

“Think like a man of action and act like a man of thought” – Sallust

“The object of the superior man is truth.” – Confucius

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” – Lao Tzu

“Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole Electoral System.” – Cicero

“Nothing is so strongly fortified that it cannot be taken by money.”
– Cicero
Kathy Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM

This isn’t exactly on topic, but speaks to what Leo and so many bloggers here have said over and over again about the duty and privilege of every American to fight for our freedom and liberty (because, except for God, we are all we got and cannot depend on the pervasive corrupt Federal government!) here below is a powerful video to watch. Even though this video was initially produced for the April 09 Tea Party, we got another one coming up on Sep 10-12 in Washington, DC. and I’m going, banners, flags, and signs and will march, protest, sing, shout, whatever’ll be going on. I refuse to sit on the sidelines and let someone else do my job!

If the video doesn’t stir something up deep inside, you may have lost what it means to be an American. Enjoy!
Clark Hamblin Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:30 PM

I see you just can’t get up from this virtual table of chess that we play with these , so called legislators. Laws must be lawful to exist within the context of the Constitution, or maybe there really is no constitution and therefore no law of the people of the United States, just some other governing body?
The clock has been struck, your move!
I , and God love you Leo.

[Ed. There is no Constitution, Clark. That’s the reality of the situation. Nobody is going to step up. I feel it. This country will not exist as a sovereign nation in ten years time. ]
Kal Says:
August 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM

@ Kathy – Great video – Thanks!

@ Leo – Have you seen these articles – any comments?


Your name is mentioned in the 1st article.
JP-research Says:
August 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Kathy: could not see any picture, just heard rousing music – please make the link work (I used two different browsers) thanks!
(please don’t post this comment if it’s already been fixed)
Chris Says:
August 20, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Why is the President exempted from this Executive Order and statute? Because the President is the superior to whom the agency head report. As is shown by the fact that (1) these agency heads serve at the pleasure of the President, who can fire them for any reason or no reason at all; and (2) the President issues the Executive Orders constraining agency heads, and can change those orders for any reason or no reason at all.

Why does the President have so much more power than the agency heads? Because the agency heads are unelected officials, with no popular mandate. By contrast, the President is an elected official, with a popular mandate, chosen by virtue of a largely democratic process. Because we live in a democracy or democratic republic, our Constitution generally gives greater power to elected as compared to unelected officials.

To assume against that background that the agency heads may lawfully deny national security information to the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, makes no sense at all. Any interpretation of statute or executive order that reaches that conclusion is plainly wrong and plainly unconstitutional.

Pragmatically, this issue will never arise. Any agency head who purported to obstruct the President from receiving national security information and performing his duties as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces would soon find him/herself without a job. Any agency head with half a brain would be aware of that and would not obstruct the President in his/her duties.

[Ed. The statute is clear, nothing in the EO or the statute is allowed to limit the “power” of the agency head and the agency head’s decision is conclusive. If an agency head denies the President access and is then fired, let the chips fall where they may. Some Government workers actually put their country ahead of their own personal career. It’s not a concept you would understand. But we’ll forgive you for that.]

(I added some of the interesting comments that were on Leo’s site that is now deleted but was still in google cache.)

TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

This was saved from google cache. Some of the links don’t work. I believe it is important to preserve some of Leo’s great work for future reference and study.

TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

[UPDATED: As of 9:59 PM Oct 09. 2009 Leo C. Donofrio does not endorse anything written by Mr. Charlton or his blog. Full explantion here.]

John Charlton of The Post and Email blog has an important follow up report pertaining to the TerriK Investigation out today:
Is Fukino’s office in open rout?

September 30, 2009 by John Charlton

by John Charlton

(Sept. 30, 2009) — Recent public revelations by Attorney Leo Donofrio, that the office of Dr. Chiyome L. Fukino, the Director of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii, has a policy of obstructing and misdirecting citizens’ requests for information, in violation of Hawaiian Statutes, seems to have led to confusion and rout in the office of the director.

Attorney Donofrio has detailed the requests of TerryK in July, and her subsequent requests in September (part 1 & 2). The Post & Email has also reported the request made last week by another citizen for index data & redacted records, which was also analysed by Attorney Donofrio.

An analysis of the responses received from Janice S. Okubo, Communications Director at the Department of Health, indicates there is panic in the director’s office.

First, there are notable inconsistencies of response, ranging from misdirecting citizens who make requests, to outright denials that the laws allow what they allow; to interpretations of departmental policies as being more binding tha[n] Hawaii Statutes.

Second, when the second citizen fired back a letter of complaint, in response to the denial by Janice Okubo, it appears that two of the officials in the Director’s Office who received it — Katherine P. Kealoha and Noemi Pendleton — conveniently fled the office, setting their email programs to “auto reply”, with messages that they would be out of the office for some days. Unwittingly, however, these auto-responders have confirmed that the correspondence was received by Janice Okubo; who as of this report, has continued to refuse to reply to the citizen’s legitimate request…

(click here to continue reading full report….)

I left the following comment:

naturalborncitizen Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Great Job on this. You should also know that the UIPA and case law is very clear that the response given to your reader on that form is improper…

§2-71-14 (c)(3)

(3) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compilation of information from records that is not readily retrievable.

But read the UIPA at….


(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.”

You see that, if the information is readily retrievable then they can’t rely on that provision. This was also discussed in the Hawaii Supreme Court case


83 Haw. 378; 927 P.2d 386; 1996 Haw. LEXIS 156; 154 L.R.R.M. 2373

“In a related argument, the City, relying on HRS § 92F-11(c), asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error by ordering the City to create a roster of disciplined employees. The City’s argument is patently meritless. HRS § 92F-11(c) provides that “unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.” The circuit court’s order granting summary judgment, as modified by its June 16, 1994 order, [***51] states that “the HPD may either produce a summary of the information requested or produce all documents pertaining to the subject matter, using whichever method of disclosure the HPD deems more expedient.” (Emphases added.) Clearly, the City was not ordered to create a “roster.” Accordingly, we discern no error. ”

They used this same tactic against TerriK, but on that form they were so very devious by checking two boxes. They checked the denial box for her entire list of requests…and that would mean they had the documents but are not allowing access. And they also checked the box for the list/summary thing. That response is not a denial of access, it’s a denial that they have the means to retrieve the records requested.

Nice report. This isn’t right. I have UIPA requests pending as well. Will publish those soon.

(Leo what happened to your UIPA requests. Did you let anyone know the outcome. You have informed us and encouraged us to be pro active and work to reveal the fraud obama. Yet you have deleted your good work and left us all out to dry. Why?)

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on December 2, 2009 by citizenquo

Saved from google cache. Leo has deleted this good work from his blog but I have preserved it for study. It is very interesting and should be kept in the public eye. Some links don’t work. Any link to leo’s site don’t.

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.


The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Okubo are sadly misplaced. They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

These accusations are not a matter of conjecture. They are a matter of fact and shall be proved. This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.

Following reports in the days ahead will detail various information requests made by TerriK and their eventual resolution. The resolution involves official responses which – according to statutory application – admit the existence of amendments and/or corrections to President Obama’s vital records despite the continuing pattern of misdirection.


The state of Hawaii enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) as a means by which the public may have free and open access to all information maintained by the Government. While some information is obviously restricted to protect the privacy of individuals, the intent of the statute is clear; to help the public access government held information.

Page 9 of the UIPA Manual states:

Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved in favor of access.

Unfortunately, officials at the Hawaii Department of Health (DoH) have been using the statute for the opposite purpose it was intended. This investigation will bear witness to blatant offensive abuses of the law which have clearly frustrated the purpose and scope of the statute, a statute intended to do just the opposite.

The UIPA Manual states in its introduction:

Democracy exists only when government functions in the open and protects the rights of its citizens to participate in that government. In 1988, the Hawaii State Legislature enacted the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (the “UIPA”) to preserve and ensure that open government and public participation.

At the same time, it created the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) to implement the UIPA and to serve as a resource for both the public and government agencies in interpreting and applying its provisions. The Legislature recognized, however, that the “proper functioning of any public records law is very much dependent upon the attitude of those who implement the law[,]” requiring “strong and active agency implementation of the records laws.” The Legislature thus urged “all agencies to accept this new law as a challenge and a mandate to ensure public access to the public’s government.”

Tactics used by Department of Health Director Fukino and Communications Director Okubo have frustrated the true intent of the UIPA. TerriK and myself will request that the Director of the Office of Information Practices – an office created to enforce the UIPA – institute disciplinary proceedings against Fukino and Okubo based upon their wrongful conduct concerning multiple UIPA requests made by TerriK.

Whether intentional fraud was involved is an issue that must be looked into by law enforcement.


DoH Director Fukino issued the following statement in a press release dated October 31, 2008:

…I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

Eight months later, in a press release dated July 27, 2009, Director Fukino further stated:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

TerriK took immediate notice that the second statement mentioned “original vital records” (plural), whereas the first statement only referred to a single record; an “original birth certificate”. TerriK deduced that any definition of natural born citizen must refer to parentage and/or place of birth, both of which should have been contained in the original birth certificate.

Since Director Fukino viewed “vital records” in making her second public statement, TerriK then assumed that President Obama’s original birth certificate had been amended and/or corrected – in that had it not been so changed, only the original birth certificate (singular) would have required access by Fukino rather than “vital records” (plural).

TerriK’s research into the UIPA also revealed that if Obama’s records had been amended, Obama was required by the UIPA statute to make preliminary UIPA requests himself – to see his own records and also to amend or correct them.

UIPA requests are themselves government records maintained according to statute just as birth and other vital records are maintained.

TerriK, after assuming those UIPA requests had been made, then made a UIPA request herself requesting all information pertaining to – not just the actual amendments, if any – but also to the UIPA requests required to see records and amend them.

TerriK originally believed that the actual vital birth records were completely protected under Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. But it wasn’t clear to her that UIPA requests for records, requests to amend and/or correct vital records, and fees paid thereto were also protected under the statutes.

Regardless, she simply requested those UIPA records as if they did exist and hoped for the best.


While TerriK did receive some accurate guidance from staff attorneys in the OIP (which will be discussed in following reports), the responses from Directors Fukino and Akubo in the DoH were misleading and deceptive. They failed to provide clear statutory guidance where such guidance was obviously proper.

The following statement was made by Director Fukino in an email to TerriK on August 6, 2009:

From: “Fukino, Chiyome L.”

Date: August 6, 2009 3:54:02 PM EDT

To: [MissTickly, real name and email redacted]

Subject: RE: Appeal for urgency

Dear [TerriK (real name redacted)],

State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. For information on the law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii, please refer to HRS §338 at…

Chiyome L. Fukino, MD
Hawaii State Department of Health

The statute cited – HRS 338 – operates – according to Fukino’s statement above – to prevent the disclosure of “any information about a Hawaii vital record” to the public at large. Unfortunately, that is a blatantly false statement. In fact, it appears to be intentionally fraudulent having coming from an official who certainly knows it’s false.

The very same statute – at 338-18(d) – provides:

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

Had TerriK been made aware of this subsection, she could have specifically applied it to Fukino’s July 27, 2009 press release and requested the “index data” pertaining to all “vital records” kept by the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

As I write this, despite the fact that HRS 338-18(d) makes such index data available with no exceptions, the state of Hawaii Department of Health has never released to TerriK or, to my knowledge, anyone else, index data concerning vital records of President Obama other than the existence of an original birth certificate.

The public is entitled, with no exception provided by law, to examine all index data referred to in HRS 338-18(d) pertaining to each and every vital record on file in the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

Due to her lingering intuition, TerriK kept the investigation going, but it wasn’t until this week that she learned about and understood the importance of HRS 338-18(d). She was completely baffled when I brought it to her attention. Throughout her voluminous correspondence with the DoH and OIP, subsection (d) had never been mentioned to her.

The general public are not skilled in complex statutory interpretation. Nor are they generally skilled in legal and document research. The UIPA was created to assist the public in these difficult areas. Moreover, according to the UIPA Manual, a bias exists for public disclosure of information. Yet, Director Fukino not only failed to inform TerriK about the mandated availability of index data listed in 338-18(d), Fukino insisted that “State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record” to the public at large.

But “index data” is “information about a Hawaii vital record”.

Because of the ongoing misdirection, you might believe an exception to 338-18(d) exists. You would be wrong.

The DoH Communications Director, Janice Okubo, repeated the misdirection in an email sent to TerriK on September 09, 2009:

RE: Please add to my UIPA request
From: Okubo, Janice S. (
Sent: Thu 9/03/09 3:48 PM
To: Terri K (
Aloha Terri K,

I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health.

Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.

Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.

We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obama’s birth certificate or any related information.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 586-4442
Fax: (808) 586-4444

This example of misdirection is even more egregious in that it specifically cites 338-18 while failing to acknowledge subsection (d) of the very same statute. The misdirection is found where Akubo states, “Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it”.

Again, “index data” most certainly is “information about a Hawaii vital record”.

The Department of Health has – through a continuing pattern of misdirection – kept the public in the dark regarding the identification of vital statistics records other than Obama’s original birth certificate by failing to acknowledge the open availability of “index data” to the public at large via 338-18(d).

I will detail another example of misdirection below, but first I must draw your attention to Office of Information Practices Opinion Letter No. 90-07. (Official citation is OIP Op. Ltr.No. 90-7.) (The prior link goes to the full text of 90-07 while the general page for all OIP opinion letters is here.) This letter will astound anyone familiar with the public statements of DoH Directors Fukino and Okubo.

The direct question presented to the OIP – and answered by Opinion Letter 90-07 was:

“Whether, under the UIPA, the DOE may disclose an individual’s birthdate and social security number contained in a government record to NASDTEC.”

While they denied NASDTEC access to the information requested on other grounds, the OIP included these conclusions concerning HRS 338-18(d) in OIP Opinion Letter 90-07:

We, however, recognize that an individual’s birthdate, social security number, or both are typically found in some government records required by law to be public, including index data on vital statistics, section 338-18(d), Hawaii Revised Statutes; voter registration affidavits, section 11-15, Hawaii Revised Statutes; and a general county register of registered voters, section 11-14, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Where a state or federal law expressly authorizes a government record to be disclosed, disclosure will be required by the UIPA notwithstanding an applicable exception. Haw. Rev. Stat.  92F-12 (b)(2) (Supp. 1989). If an individual’s social security number or birthdate is contained in a government record required to be public, this information is accordingly made public as part of that public government record.

Furthermore, an individual’s social security number or birthdate may be contained in the government records listed in section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which are expressly made public under the UIPA. For these particular records, the Legislature has essentially performed a “balancing” of competing privacy and public interests and has deemed that the public interest in disclosure is greater. The records listed in subsection 92F-12(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, are records “which the Legislature declares, as a matter of public policy, shall be disclosed. As to these records, the exceptions such as for personal privacy . . . are inapplicable.” S. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J. 689, 690 (1988).

I do not believe that index data available to the public at large via 338-18(d) still contains date of birth and social security number. But the available index data still contains information relevant to TerriK’s UIPA requests. Please read the last paragraph above again now. Specifically, the last line demands repeating, “the exceptions such as for personal privacy . . . are inapplicable.”

This will be a very important Opinion Letter as it demands that all records required by statute to be made available in 92F-12 under the UIPA are not subject to privacy exceptions. In my introductory report concerning the TerriK investigation, I asked you to take note of the UIPA at 92F-12(15), which lists the following as information which must be made public:

(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

We will return to this provision when we discuss TerriK’s UIPA requests concerning the dual public statements made by Director Fukino on July 27, 2009; that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. All information collected and maintained for purposes of making both of those statements must be released according to 92F-12(15). And by applying Opinion Letter 90-07 to that information, we can be sure that no exceptions exist which can deny public disclosure of the same.


The following letter shall come as a big surprise to TerriK and the entire eligibility movement as it appears to compel the release of President Obama’s original birth certificate (or whatever vital records Director Fukino examined for the purpose of making the public statement that he was born in Hawaii) in redacted form.

In OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 (written on April 18, 2007 by current OIP staff attorney Cathy Takase, one of the officials who responded to TerriK in writing) (official citation is OIP Op. Ltr. No. 07-07), it was stated – in relation to index data made available to the public by DoH via 338-18(d) – that an individual has no privacy interest in information that the Department of Health has already made available to the public. Here is the relevant text:

“OIP further notes that, pursuant to statute, DOH itself discloses certain information in the vital records it maintains, and, therefore, individuals would not have a significant privacy interest in that information. Specifically, the statute provides that ‘[i]ndex data consisting of name and sex of registrant, type of vital event and other such information as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.’ Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18 (Supp. 2006). According to its director, DOH creates a daily list of the vital statistics records it receives and the public may inspect. The daily list consists of the name and sex of the registrant and the type of vital event.

Accordingly, OIP believes that DLNR should, upon request, disclose a copy of an individual’s vital record maintained by DLNR, but may redact out all information except…information of the type discussed by DOH.”

If we analyze OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 – in light of the index data available to the public and maintained by the DoH – as well as Director Fukino’s July 27, 2009 public announcement – offered in an official DoH press release, on DoH letterhead – that she had seen the vital records of President Obama and they prove he was born in Hawaii, then the public should be entitled to see – in redacted form – whatever vital records were used to expose his birth in Hawaii, as well as (if not the same document) original vital records – again in redacted form – which contain the viewable index data.

It’s quite amazing, but OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 clearly indicates that once information contained in a vital record is exposed, the person no longer has a privacy interest in the exposed information. And therefore, the relevant original vital records should be made public in redacted form when disclosure of the relevant information is mandatory according to statute – in this case more than one, specifically the UIPA at 92F-12(15) and Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d).

Needless to say, TerriK was never directed to OIP Opinion Letter 07-07, OIP Opinion Letter 90-07, the UIPA at 92F-12(15) or Haw. Rev. Sta. 338-18(d). So much for the opening statement in the UIPA manual regarding the proper implementation of the statute depending on the “attitude” of state officials to embody the spirit in which the law was written; to “deliver on its ‘inherent promise’ to ensure implementation: educating the public of its rights and … assisting the public in gaining access to records…”


The actions of Director Fukino and Communications Director Okubo couldn’t be more blatantly opposed to the Hawaii legislature’s intention of “open government and public participation”. Certainly, since these officials are familiar with these statutes, it appears some of their false statements were intentional. Whether a pattern of fraud existed for the purpose of confounding genuine public investigations into government should be the subject of both disciplinary and criminal investigations.

“Part 1″ of this report now concludes with another example of misdirection given to TerriK by DoH Director Fukino.

In her email to TerriK dated August 6, 2009 (see above), Fukino makes reference to the specific practice of record “verification” (enacted by the Hawaii legislature in 2001). Verification is a mechanism which allows a person to have their vital records “verified” by Hawaii officials in lieu of obtaining a certified copy of those records. General access to the content of an official “verification” is not available to the general public. The same rules that govern access to vital records are applied.

So, if an ordinary member of the public were to be directed by an official to that part of the statute which defines a “verification” as a protected vital record, and that ordinary citizen was also not aware of HRS 338-18(d), then they might mistakenly assume that the restrictions enacted to access an official statutory “verification” might also apply to a UIPA request to simply confirm the existence of basic information pertaining to vital records, ie name of registrant and type of vital event.

Therefore, such a person might be led to believe such basic data is not made available to the public…when in fact it must be disclosed under 338-18(d). If so guided by a government official, that person might be persuaded to give up their research.

Knowing that TerriK had made numerous UIPA requests simply to inquire whether certain records even existed, please review Director Fukino’s August 6, 2009 e mail to TerriK once again:

State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. For information on the law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii, please refer to HRS §338…

First, as we’ve already discussed, the statement wrongly informed TerriK that “any information about a Hawaii vital record” must be denied to her. Second, rather than directing TerriK to that portion of the statute which would have helped her obtain some of the information she had properly and fairly requested – 338-18(d), Fukino’s statement misdirects TerriK to that part of the statute concerned with “verification” – which was no help to her as “verifications” are not available to the general public.

All of the above is evidence of an egregious pattern of misdirection. I will provide more examples of this pattern in follow up reports.

Report prepared by Leo C. Donofrio, Attorney. Published on September 24, 2009.