joint motion - with hi territorial law 57
TRANSCRIPT
No 09-5080Consolidating No. 09-5161
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, Case Below 08-2254 JR
Appellant,
v.
Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a naturalperson; de facto President in posse; and asde jure President in posse , also known asBarack Obama, et al.
Appellees.
=================================================
MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICEOF HAWAIIAN TERRITORIAL STATUTES,
THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57,“VITAL STATISTICS, I” AND THEIR EFFECT
==================================================
John D. Hemenway D.C. Bar #379663Counsel for Appellants4816 Rodman Street, NWWashington DC 20016(202) 244-4819(202) [email protected]
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 1
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents……………………..……………………………………… i
Table of Authorities………………………………………………………….. ii
MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF HAWAIIANTERRITORIAL STATUTES, THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII,CHAPTER 57, “VITAL STATISTICS,” AND THEIR EFFECT ……. ……. 1
I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE EFFORTTO THIS POINT ……………………………………….…………. 1
II. THE TERRITORIAL LAW 57 AND ITS SIMILARITYTO THE 1982 LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII …...………… 5
III. A COGENT OPINION ON JUDICIAL NOTICE OFMATTERS IN SISTER STATES ………………………...………. 7
IV. THE LEGISLATIVE ACT WHICH BROUGHT INTHE SUCCESSOR STATUTE ……………………………………. 11
V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIALSTATUTE TO GET A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” ALTHOUGHNOT CERTIFIABLY BORN IN HAWAII ……………………….. 12
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 2
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Accord, Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233, 1239 (3d Cir.1973.................. 10Gallop v. Caldwell, 120 F.2d 90 (3d Cir.1941 ............................................. 10Lamar v. Micou, 114 U.S. 218, 223, 5 S.Ct. 857, 859, 29 L.Ed. 94 (1885). 11Meyer v. Lavelle, 389 F.Supp.972 (E.D.Pa.1975) ........................................ 10Schultz v. Tecumseh Products, 310 F.2d 426, 433 (6th Cir. 1962) .............. 10United States v. Atwell, 71 F.R.D. 357, 1 Fed.R.Evid.Serv. 556
(D.Del.1976) ............................................................................................. 7.9
S tatutes
Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii 1955 .............................................. 5TERRITORIAL LAW 57 ............................................................................ 1,518 U.S.C. App. § 1202 (c)(2).......................................................................... 81982 Law of the State of Hawaii .................................................................... 51982 Laws of Hawaii § 338-17.8 ............................................................ 1, 12Act 179 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1953 ............................................... 5Act 2 of the Session Laws of Hawaii 1956 .................................................... 6Act 2 of the Session Laws of Hawaii 1957 .................................................... 6Act 182 H.B.No. 3016-82 11Act 253 of the Session Laws of Hawaii 1939 ……………………………. 6*Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics" ….. 1, 5Chapter 57, § 57-14 ...................................................................................... 16Chapter 57, § 57-15 ...................................................................................... 16Chapter 57, § 57-18 ...................................................................................... 13Chapter 57, § 57-19 ...................................................................................... 15Chapter 57, § 57-20 ...................................................................................... 13Chapter 57, § 57-21 ...................................................................................... 14Chapter 57, § 57-9(a) .................................................................................... 12
Rules
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 44.......................................................................................... 9Fed.R. Ev. 201 .................................................................................... 3,4,7,8,9Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 26.1 .............................................................................. 9, 10
Treatises
Weinstein, Evidence ¶200[01] (1975) .................................................. 8, 9, 10
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 3
1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al. ) Case Below 08-2254 JRAppellants, )
)v. ) No 09-5080
) Consolidating No. 09-5161Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural )person; de facto President in posse; and as )de jure President in posse , also known as )Barack Obama, et al. )
Appellees. )
MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF HAWAIIAN TERRITORIALSTATUTES, THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57, “VITAL
STATISTICS, I” AND THEIR EFFECT
I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICEEFFORT TO THIS POINT
The appellant John D. Hemenway previously asked the Court to take judicial
notice of certain matters of public and official record, including a statute of the
state of Hawaii that was enacted in 1982, § 338-17.8 of the revised laws of Hawaii
of that year, and which was entitled” “Certificates for children born out of
state.” The text of that statute as submitted as the first attachment to the earlier
motion for judicial notice was as follows:
Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Uponapplication of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, thedirector of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult orminor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 4
2
health that the legal parents of such individual while living withoutthe Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State ofHawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediatelypreceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the directorof health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. Thedirector of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulentapplications for birth certificates and to require any furtherinformation or proof of events necessary for completion of a birthcertificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall beestablished by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182,§1]
We thus asked to the Court to take judicial notice of the fact the laws of
Hawaii, as late as 1982, and continuing into the present day, allowed then and do
allow to this day for a child born out of state to receive something called a “birth
certificate,” even though the child was not in fact born in Hawaii but was born
outside Hawaii. Thus a Hawaii official might assert that a person had a “birth
certificate” that was on file with the state or had been on file with the state but that
assertion doesn’t prove that a child was born in Hawaii. The appellees Soetoro
a/k/a Obama and Biden did not respond to our motion (It originally was filed by
the undersigned on behalf of both himself and appellant Hollister) within the time
allowed by the Rules of the Court for responding to a motion. On October 20,
2009, the Court, through the Clerk, issued a Show of Cause to the appellees
Soetoro a/k/a /Obama and Biden because of their failure to oppose our first Motion
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 5
3
for Judicial Notice with the time allotted by the Rules for a response, saying that
the appellees were required to file and show by October 30, 2009, “why the motion
for judicial notice should not be considered and decided without a response.”
The appellees Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not comply with the
October 20, 2009 Order of the Court by showing why they had ignored the Court’s
Rules and failed to respond to the initial motion for judicial notice in a timely
fashion. They offered no reason for why they had ignored the Rules. Instead they
filed a document which badly misrepresented both the law and facts of the
historically verifiable meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and attacked the
submissions that we put forward as not being eligible for judicial notice, with the
single exception of the statute quoted above. As to that one request, our asking
that the Court take judicial notice of the 1982 statute, they did not attack that
statute and thereby admitted that it was deserving of judicial notice or at the least
waived any right to object to it.
John D. Hemenway, the undersigned, then treated that misrepresentation of
the law and the facts as a belated response and, rather than let it go unreplied to,
filed on November 9, 2009 a Reply brief on his own behalf only setting out the
extensive misrepresentation of Rule 201 engaged in by Soetoro a/k/a Obama and
Biden in their filing based on the very clear history of the Rule of Evidence in
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 6
4
question. Document 1215011. Because of the ignoring of the Rules by Soetoro
a/k/a Obama and Biden and their misrepresentative Show of Cause which did not
truly respond to the Court’s Order, the undersigned asked in his reply that any
objection to the first motion for judicial notice be treated as waived.
The undersigned noted in his Reply that thought the appellees Soetoro a/k/a
Obama and Biden opposed, with their factually and legally incorrect assertion
concerning Fed. R. Ev. 201 which was accompanied by generalized assertions
concerning commentary and the like, the last 4 of the 5 items with regard to which
the undersigned and Colonel Hollister as the other appellant (at the time of the
filing of the motion for judicial notice) had requested judicial notice, the appellees
did not oppose in any way the Court’s taking judicial notice of the above-quoted
statute.
In that first motion for judicial notice when we pointed to the above-quoted
law of Hawaii of 1982, which is now unopposed and thus acknowledged as
appropriate for judicial notice by the appellees, we stated that it was the same as
the laws of Hawaii in effect at the time of the birth of the appellee Soetoro/ a/k/a
Obama. At that time we were unable to locate, either on the website of the state of
Hawaii or in the law libraries of the local law schools a copy of the territorial laws
as they were in effect at the time of Soetoro a/ k/a Obama’s birth before the major
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 7
5
revision of the state of Hawaii’s laws in 1982. Since that time the undersigned’s
support staff has been able to locate a set of those territorial laws of Hawaii as they
were published with the authority of the Territory of Hawaii in the years before the
birth of the defendant Soetoro a/,k/a Obama and as they continued in effect up
through the year that he was born.
II. THE TERRITORIAL LAW 57 AND ITS SIMILARITY TO THE1982 LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
We attach to this new motion for judicial notice a copy of Chapter 57, “Vital
Statistics,” the law concerning these matters as it was in the Territorial laws in
question. The statute of the Territory thus attached is from the Revised Laws of
the Territory of Hawaii 1955 in Three Volumes as published by the authority of the
Territory of Hawaii by the Filmer Brothers Press, 330 Jackson Street, San
Francisco, California. These three volumes comprise the statutes of the territory
including the acts passed at the regular session of 1955 and the special session of
1956 as consolidated, revised and annotated. As can be seen, because we attach it
also and request judicial notice thereof, these three volumes of the statutes of the
Territory are certified by the chairman of the compilation commission of the
Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955 as appointed by the Governor of the Territory of
Hawaii under Act 179 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1953.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 8
6
In the certification it is stated, as can be seen from the attached, that the
Commission in question examined the Revised Laws of Hawaii of 1955 as printed
in volumes I and II of the three volume official set and found that they comprised
chapters 1 to 361, inclusive, and also examined the revision of sections 1 to 5 of
Act 253 of the Session Laws of Hawaii 1939 set forth in the note to section 152-23,
of the mimeographed two-volume manuscript submitted to the Twenty-ninth
Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii and enacted as law by Act 2 of the Session
Laws of Hawaii 1956, and that they were correctly reproduced in the official three
volume set with corrections made by the commission as authorized by Act 2 of the
Session Laws of Hawaii 1957. The undersigned asks the Court to take judicial
notice of all these legislative facts.
In our earlier motion we were wrong on one point, although the error is in
the favor of appellants. The error that we made was due to our not at that time of
the filing of the first motion being able to locate a copy of the territorial statutes as
in effect before 1982. Upon locating and being able to review the applicable
territorial statute we found that it was not exactly the same as the act set out in the
major revision and codification of 1982, although similar. What in fact the
territorial statute in effect before the 1982 statute sets out is an even greater latitude
enabling and entitling persons to register a child for up to a year after its birth and
to do so, if not attended by a locally licensed physician or midwife, for the parents
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 9
7
or one of them to fill out the birth certificate or for a “local registrar” to fill out a
birth certificate “from anyone having knowledge of the birth.” Thus a child born
outside of Hawaii and attended by a non-Hawaii licensed health care provider or
born unattended could get a Hawaii birth certificate nonetheless. After an initial
discussion of that authority we will then request additionally that the Court take
judicial notice as a legislative fact of the Act which put into place the 1982 statute
which is still in place and which replaced the territorial acts.
III. A COGENT OPINION ON JUDICIAL NOTICEOF MATTERS IN SISTER STATES
An excellent opinion on judicial notice and on the kinds of judicial notice in
particular, the undersigned believes, is that of Judge Murray M. Schwartz of the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware in United States v. Atwell,
71 F.R.D. 357, 1 Fed.R.Evid.Serv. 556 (D.Del.1976) In that opinion Judge
Schwartz, just as the undersigned had to do in the recent reply that he filed for
himself in response to what was supposed to be a Show of Cause filed by the
appellees after they failed to timely oppose the first motion for judicial notice
which he filed for himself and the appellant Col. Hollister (before Col. Hollister’s
then co-counsel moved to withdraw it (and before the recent withdrawal of that
counsel from representing Col. Hollister) points out that Rule 201 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence applies only to the judicial notice of “adjudicative facts” and
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 10
8
that the full judicial notice doctrine is much broader than the area encompassed by
Rule 201.
Here is what Judge Schwartz said that is pertinent here in light of the effort
by the appellees to “cabin” all judicial notice that the Court may exercise within
the confines of Rule 201, 71 F.R.D. at 361:
During trial the Court notified both sides that it intended to takejudicial notice of the relevant Maryland statutes for purposes ofdetermining whether the offense that defendant had previously beenconvicted of was a felony within the ambit of 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(c)(2). Before addressing the merits of defendant’s contentions it isnecessary to understand the content and scope of the Court’s powerto take judicial notice in this context. First, judicial notice as used inthis setting is far broader than the concept of judicial noticeenunciated in Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This isbecause the coverage of Rule 201 is restricted solely to judicialnotice of adjudicative facts.FN6 Fed.R.Evid. 201(a). As a result ofsuch restriction, numerous matters denominated as judicial notice areoutside the coverage of Rule 201. 1 Weinstein, Evidence ¶200[01](1975). Since the concept of judicial notice in the instant case is notembraced within the category of adjudicative facts, but is rather partof a judge’s inherent duty and power to find and apply the law tovarious procedural guidelines of 201 are inapplicable.
The footnote, FN6, in the above-quoted passage reads as follows:
FN6. Fed.R.Evid. 201(a) provides:
(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice ofadjudicative facts.
For an explanation of the meaning of `adjudicative facts’ theAdvisory Committee’s Note on Rule 201 is particularly instructive.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 11
9
The Court will recall that in Document 1215011 the undersigned used a
great deal of the “particularly instructive” Note in his brief. The undersigned did
this because the appellees Soetoro a/k/a and Obama, when they chose to file an
opposition as a Show of Cause, without any explanation as to why they had not
done so in the first place, incorrectly asserted that Rule 201 Fed.R.Evid. was the
only authority under which judicial notice might be considered and thus sought to
cause the Court to ignore the “far broader concept” of which Judge Schwartz
speaks in the above passage from his opinion in Atwell. This seems to have been
overreaching and could be considered a misrepresentation of the law.
Judge Schwartz, in the Atwell opinion then went on to say something that is
also quite relevant to the present case. It was a discussion of Fed.R.Crim.Proc.
26.1, which is the Rule of Federal Criminal Procedure that is the equivalent of
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 44.1, which we cited in document 1215011. He made clear that
the two rules just cited refer to foreign matters in the sense of a foreign country not
in the sense of a sister state:
Similarly, sister examination of sister-state law is not affected byFed.R.Crim.Proc. 26.1FN7 That rule provides a procedural frameworkfor submission of foreign law materials to a court, but only when `anissue concerning the law of a foreign country’ has been raised.Moreover, the twin rationales supportive of the Rule 26.1 approach,the general unavailability of foreign legal materials and the frequentneed for expert assistance in utilizing those materials have no
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 12
10
applicability to a judge’s search for sister-state law. 1 Weinstein,Evidence, ¶200[02] at 200-7.
Footnote 7 gives the text of Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 26.1, which we quote here so that it
can be readily seen that it is the same as Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 44.1:
FN7: Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 26.1 provides:
A party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreigncountry shall give reasonable written notice. The court, indetermining foreign law, may consider any relevant material orsource, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party oradmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court’sdetermination shall be treated as a ruling on the questions of law. Id.Loc. Cit.
Judge Schwartz then made it clear about judicial notice of matters in sister
states with abundant authority as follows:
Traditionally federal courts have held that the statute and case law ofsister states is a matter which federal courts are obligated tojudicially notice. E.g. Schultz v. Tecumseh Products, 310 F.2d 426,433 (6th Cir. 1962)FN8 Meyer v. Lavelle, 389 F.Supp.972(E.D.Pa.1975). See, Gallop v. Caldwell, 120 F.2d 90 (3d Cir.1941.Accord, Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233, 1239 (3d Cir.1973).See, generally, 1 Weinstein, Evidence ¶200[02]. Thus the exerciseof power to take judicial notice in the instant case is well within theambit of the federal judicial power.
Footnote 8 reads as follows:
FN8. `The states of the Union are not foreign to the United States orto its courts. Such courts are required to take judicial notice of thestatute and case law of each of the states [citations omitted]. `Thelaw of any State of the Union, whether depending upon statutes orupon judicial opinions, is a matter of which the courts of the United
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 13
11
States are bound to take judicial notice, without plea or proof.’’ 310F.3d at 433 (emphasis supplied) quoting Lamar v. Micou, 114 U.S.218, 223, 5 S.Ct. 857, 859, 29 L.Ed. 94 (1885)
Thus, quite clearly, the Court is obligated to take judicial notice of the
attached territorial statute of Hawaii which became a statute of the state for a good
part of its early existence.
IV. THE LEGISLATIVE ACT WHICH BROUGHT IN THESUCCESSOR STATUTE
What occurred in 1982 was the incorporation of the Hawaii statutes into the
present comprehensive Code of Hawaii. The specific Act of the state legislature
which brought the attached territorial statute up to date and incorporated it into that
Code was Act 182 H.B. No. 3016-82. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of
that Act as thus passed in 1982 at this time. The actual Act 182 says, inter alia:
Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, thedirector of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult orminor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director ofhealth that the legal parents of such individual while living withoutthe Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State ofHawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediatelypreceding the birth or adoption of such child.
In this way, to quote further from the Act, “state policies and procedures” of
Hawaii accommodate even “children born out of State.”
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 14
12
The longer passage above, quoted from the Act, is, of course, the language
that we put before the Court as part of Attachment 1 to our first motion for judicial
notice as it was codified:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application ofan adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue abirth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted tothe director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living withoutthe Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii astheir legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth oradoption of such child.
V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL STATUTETO GET A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” ALTHOUGH NOT CERTIFIABLY
BORN IN HAWAII
We believe that the Court is obligated to take judicial notice of the attached
territorial statute and, in doing so take judicial notice that there are ways that a
“birth certificate” can have been obtained for a child under that statute that are
allowed greater latitude for such a “birth certificate” to have been obtained that
would be restricted under the present statute, so that the present statute allows for a
child to have been born outside the state and still have been issued a Hawaiian
“birth certificate,” but does so without the same breadth of possibilities for that
having happened as was possible under the attached territorial statute.
For example, under § 57-9(a) allows for a situation where the official then
knows as the “local registrar” can obtain information from “any person having
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 15
13
knowledge of the birth” and prepare and file the birth certificate. We ask the Court
to take notice of the latitude for inaccurate information that is thus created.
Further, § 57-9(b) allows there to be a filing of a certificate of birth on which
required information is simply missing and can thus be filed by a “supplementary
report” and yet the filing of initially unsupplied information by a “supplementary
report is not considered as causing that report with information that was not
supplied at the outset to be treated as “delayed” or “altered.” It must be noticed
that this creates great latitude for mistakes or even abuse of requirements. Thus,
although § 57-18 gives the same time frame—one year—that was incorporated in
the 1982 state statute, for a “delayed” or “altered” certificate, the procedures give
greater latitude for there to be mistakes and abuse of the procedures and for
incomplete information.
This great latitude that allows for mistakes, misinformation, incomplete
information and even abuse in turn extends into the requirements for what is put on
the birth certificates, or required to be put on them, how they are to be kept and
disclosed and all the other aspects of the system.
For example, § 57-20 of the territorial statute attached is entitled “Delayed
or altered certificate as evidence.” So clearly there was a “birth certificate”
allowed under the statute that was “delayed or altered.” The text of § 57-20 makes
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 16
14
clear that a “delayed” birth certificate or an “altered” birth certificate can only have
such probative value as “shall be determined by an administrative body or judicial
official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” The first thing that is
to be noticed about this provision is that it requires that if a “delayed” or “altered”
“birth certificate” must itself, not some computer generated “Certification” of it,
must be “offered” to an “administrative body or official” even to be considered as
having “probative value.” Under the allegations of the complaint in this case there
is no indication that that ever happened. Secondly, that “administrative body or
official” is mandatorily (“shall”) required to made a “determin[ation].” There is no
evidence under the allegations of the complaint in this case that any administrative
body or official ever made such a determination. This section, § 57-21 would still
be in effect as far as regards any administrative body or person being presented
with a “delayed” or “altered” certificate today. Now the infamous COLB or
Certification Of Live Birth that has been offered on the Internet through Soetoro
a/k/a Obama sponsored or connected Web sites during his presidential campaign
and attested to over the air waves since he has been occupying the White House by
his Press Secretary, Mr. Gibbs, is clearly “altered” from whatever the original
certificate he received was, wherever he was born. It is, as can plainly be seen, a
computer generated document. So it cannot have been the subject of a
“determ[ination]” of its “probative value.” by any “administrative body or official”
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 17
15
during the public record electoral process. Nor, although there have been over
twenty cases or more about the question of the constitutional eligibility of
Soetoro/Obama to serve that have been dismissed, has that “altered” document or
any other, including the one which was attached to the first motion for judicial
notice in this case, been “determined” as to as to its “probative value.
The preceding section to § 57-20, § 57-19 also concerns “delayed or altered”
certificates. It prescribes a procedure for them. It sets out that:
(a) Certificates accepted subsequent to thirty days after the timeprescribed for filing, and certificates which have been altered afterbeing filed with the registrar general, shall contain the date of thedelayed filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly“delayed” or “altered.”
Now a computer generated COLB of the last few years in manifestly not the
original document that was given as a birth certificate in 1961 or thereabouts. And
certainly the now notorious COLB is not marked as “altered.” So it must not be,
and cannot be the actual birth certificate issued, but rather an extract from it.
Further evidence of what we have just said is subsection (b) of § 57-19. The now
notorious COLB has no “summary statement of the evidence submitted for
…alteration …endorsed on it.” So it cannot be the original certificate that was
issued to Soetoro a/k/a Obama. According to subsection (c) of this section, § 57-
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 18
16
19, if there is such evidence, however, it is required to be kept in a special file.
There is no indication that that requirement has ever been removed.
We ask the Court to take notice that, pursuant to § 57-14 a certificate of birth
from Hawaii of 1961 or thereabouts would have to include as a minimum the items
required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the United
States Public Health Service at the time, National Office of Vital Statistics subject
to approval and modification by the Board, referring to the Hawaii Board of Public
Health. This means that since these last references are to public records of which
this Court is obliged to take notice, upon production of such information the
difference between the certificate required under these statutes and the COLB as to
what they contain can be taken notice of and will establish that the information
does or not vary from one to the other.
§ 57-15 establishes that for any certificate to be considered prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated it must be shown to have been that it was filed
within 30 days of the time prescribed under the law.
Given the latitude allowed under these territorial statutes a health official
years later could say that they had seen a document that verified that the defendant
Soetoro a/k/a Obama was born in Hawaii when in fact such was not the case and
since the document could only have probative value if examined by the court
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 19
17
before whom it was offered as proof such a pronouncement would have no
probative value whatsoever without the actual document and the opportunity for
such a determination. It is requested that the entire statute and law attached with
its cover and certification by the territorial official be taken judicial notice of along
with the latitude that we have described.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
JOHN D. HEMENWAYCounsel for Appellants4816 Rodman Street, NWWashington DC 20016(202) 244-4819(202) [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have caused the foregoing to be served
electronically upon counsel of record this 7th day of January 2010.
/s/
John D. Hemenway
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 20
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 1
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 2
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 3
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 4
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 5
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 1
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 2
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 3
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 4