Citizen Researcher: Rights Violated by Hawaii Officials: Seeking Attorney in Hawaii; Citizens Need to Flood Hawaii with this UIPA Request.

By Terri K AKA Miss Tickly (1/15/2011); This overview is the most important post I have written and it begins a series of posts meant to educate the interested public in the Hawaii’s open records laws (UIPA) and other state laws that authorize President Obama’s vital records to be disclosed to the public. What follows is a basic outline on what requires a ‘government record,’ otherwise closed by law, to be made public.

You may also be pleasantly surprised to find that I am presenting evidence in this overview from the state agency that oversees the administration of Hawaii’s open records law, the OIP, which indicates the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) is fully aware that President Obama’s vital records qualify for public disclosure under the UIPA while at the same time denying the public access. Furthermore, discovering this evidence has led me to notice that, in fact, no formal legal appeal decision granting or denying disclosure of Obama’s vital records has ever been issued by the OIP…despite the law that grants the right to appeal to those who have been denied access to government records requested under the UIPA.

In other words, the OIP has apparently been refusing to go ‘on the record‘ as formally denying the public access to Obama’s vital records without saying so outright. Why? Because to rule against disclosure would be an improper application of the law and would set a damaging legal precedent.

Incredibly, instead of giving the public their right to formal appeal decisions, the OIP has been issuing confusing and peculiar ‘letters’ and ‘memos’ to requesters in an apparent attempt to make them believe they were denied access formally, on appeal. These letters are not posted with the other appeals and opinions online–formal or informal…these letters appear to be very cruel distractions. I can only assume the staff attorneys issuing these letters are doing so to avoid a legal liability and permanent damage done to the UIPA and case law…and possibly fear for their own careers in law.

Despite these ghastly legal shenanigans, if We, the People, are going to make the most of the evidence we have, we need to use the UIPA to demand the records and information entitled to us by law OR demand a formal decision on appeal from the OIP denying access.

It is as simple as this. No one is going to help us or do this for us. Period.

These appeal denials from the OIP should be ‘on the record,’ detailing the full application of the law and the legal authority that restricts access. This is the very least that we are owed. To obtain what we are legally entitled to, Obama’s vital records or an appeal denial that is ‘on record,’ people have got to ask for these records themselves. This is not a difficult task and I intend to make it very easy for willing folks. Hawaii can maybe get away with trampling the rights of one or two people. But let them do it to a hundred, or a thousand….or just ten people, each with ten aliases, in my opinion…why make it so easy for them to get away with it?

If they are going to deny us the legal right to an appeal…I think we should let history show this. And let it show that the 44th President of the United States apparently ignored, allowed or perhaps even insisted that the rights of the American public be VIOLATED by the Hawaii State Government – again and again – while his nonexistent privacy rights were given preferential treatment. Obama has absolutely no legal rights to privacy in his vital records. None. They belong to the public.

Through three state laws, the public has a right to any information used by the Hawaiian government to determine that the President is a “natural-born American citizen;” we have the right to verify his ‘Date of Birth,’ ‘Place of Birth’ and any other information pertinent to his taking a legal oath to the Office of the POTUS under the U.S. Constitution; and we have a right to every other fact reflected in his vital records as individuals interested in researching the 44th President of the United States.


These are the laws.

A Short Lesson on Hawaii’s Open Records Law (UIPA)
The Provisions of the UIPA

What is a ‘provision‘ of the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)? A ‘provision of the UIPA’ is a state law that mandates a qualifying government record must be disclosed in the public’s interest. If a government record is closed by law, for example a vital record, that vital record MUST be disclosed to the public should an occasion arise or exist where it also falls under one of the ‘provisions’ of the UIPA.

In other words, IF President Obama’s vital records can be categorized under one of the many ‘provisions’ of the UIPA, THEN the law expressly states that the public has a right to those records and the information within.

The UIPA Exceptions

What are the UIPA ‘exceptions?‘ Although the UIPA ‘exceptions’ are not relevant to the three ‘provisions’ authorizing disclosure*, it should be noted that for any record that does not fall under one of the ‘provisions’ of the UIPA, the law says it is open to the public unless one of the five UIPA ‘exceptions’ apply to the record. For example, ‘Exception #4′ would apply to a vital record that does not qualify for disclosure under one of the ‘provisions of the UIPA’ because a state law, HRS338-18(b), expressly restricts disclosure only to those with a qualifying relationship to the registrant.

But again, IF President Obama’s vital records can be categorized under just ONE of the many ‘provisions’ of the UIPA, THEN the law expressly states that the public has a right to those records and the information within – regardless of any other state laws restricting disclosure. ‘Exception #4′ of the UIPA, the ‘state law exception,’ applies only to records that do not fall under one of the ‘provisions’ of the UIPA.

From the UIPA Guideline Manual: 

“The Exceptions to Disclosure (§92F-13) 
For any record that does not fall into a category that must always be disclosed, the UIPA provides that it is a public record unless one of the five exceptions to disclosure under Part II applies.”

The UIPA, the Public and Obama’s Vital Records

Personally, I believe that President Obama’s vital records can be categorized under THREE ‘provisions of the UIPA’ mandating they be disclosed – but that’s just my opinion given what I’ve learned in the last year and a half about this Act. However, I have also been given informal guidance from the OIP that indicates two of these laws could almost certainly be used to authorize disclosure and that the third would need to be presented to them on appeal for their determination in the absence of a precedent case.

Therefore, I personally requested the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) and the Office of Information Practices (OIP) give me their formal opinion and decision on the application of these THREE laws. I have drafted a UIPA request for copies of President Obama’s vital records under these three laws at the end of this overview for public use.

After a year and a half since first requesting an appeal decision from the OIP, it’s clear that they intend to deny me my legal right to a timely, fair decision using the application of these three laws. Other individuals requesting totally unrelated records under the UIPA were granted a right to formal decisions on appeal with the OIP, in 2009, but it appears that I was denied my rights. And it appears that anyone else who requested Obama’s vital records on appeal with the OIP in the last two years, may have also had their rights violated.

What’s more disturbing is finding that one individual was issued an ‘informal memo’ on appeal, but not given a decision, and the ‘memo’ was then published in a highly questionable way on the OIP website. It appears that the OIP may have published this memo in order to minimize this person’s request and/or distract from the fact that other legitimate state laws do authorize disclosure of President Obama’s vital records and also the fact that other requests have been made citing these other laws. This requester cited HRS338-18(b) using the idea that they were descendant from Adam and Eve, as was Obama. While this would not be a proper application of HRS338-18(b), it should be understood that the requester was not required to make their request citing ANY laws, at all.

The OIP should have provided legal guidance on the laws that would have better been applied to their request. They didn’t do that. Instead, the OIP opted against putting an illegal denial of access ‘on the record,’ and they shirked their duty to give this person proper guidance and a proper decision. Then they used this opportunity to post this memo while basically mocking the requester. The OIP staff attorney that handled this request could have told this person that there are three more appropriate laws that might apply to their request and they didn’t.

Instead, they led this person to believe the OIP was officially upholding the HDOH decision denying them access because the law that the requester cited did not require disclosure.

The OIP is responsible for knowing the laws of the UIPA, not the public. The OIP should be serving the public with their knowledge of the law – not perverting their duties and turning the law against the public, at whim, and for what looks to be political purposes! The OIP has capitalized on the public’s lack of legal knowledge in order to deny them their rights to an appeal with their agency and they have ‘protected’ Obama’s vital records from being legally disclosed.

*ahem* Now, let’s push on to the good news….because, in fact, there is amazing news.

To Linden Joesting, With Love

Before you let this story knock the wind completely out of your sails, let me tell you about the precious gift of honesty that We, the People, were given by former Staff Attorney from the OIP, Linden Joesting. All is not lost. Because of her gift, we may just have the last say–even if we have to compromise on the goal. While there is plenty of standing and cause to file a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii, who has the financial resources? Not me. Even if travel and litigation expenses were recompensed upon prevailing in a judicial appeal, who has the money upfront to fight this? I certainly don’t.

Believe me, the OIP and HDOH are counting on this kind of financial intimidation to protect them from any liability.

But, Ms. Joesting left us EVIDENCE to the violations of the public’s right to information that we can use in other ways. Not only did she provide us the evidence that we have been wrongly denied access to information that is in public’s interest, but the document containing this evidence makes it very clear that state government workers have been unable or unwilling to administer the UIPA faithfully and fairly, as is their duty. EVIDENTLY, THE OIP DOES NOT WANT TO GO ‘ON RECORD’ WITH A DECISION, SO WHY NOT ASK THEM TO, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN?

We have evidence that is indicative of undue pressure on state government workers and this pressure is not evident in the other non-eligibility related appeals that were issued by the OIP in the last two years. This pressure is uniquely evident in the appeals requested by people who asked for Obama’s vital records and related records. No one who has asked for copies of President Obama’s records has been granted the right to a proper decision on appeal from the OIP. We have been bamboozled into thinking that ambiguous letters and memos filled with legal jargon were actual appeal decisions upholding the HDOH denials of access.

I know this firsthand, I received two of these nothing-letters.

This said, with the evidence left by Ms. Joesting, I find we have an opportunity to be sure that history at least reflects the truth about our 44th President. And the truth is that our president’s refusal to release his own vital records has resulted in the blatant violation of the public’s constitutional rights. Regardless of the loss of our rights to due process and equal protection under the law – we have the opportunity to set the record straight.

Obama’s vital records only need to qualify under ONE provision of the UIPA for the public to have a legal right to them. And, tucked neatly…without citation…in a letter drafted by OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting and issued to me, is the proof that they do qualify under at least one ‘provision of the UIPA:’

According to the OIP, the HDOH applied a provision to my UIPA request. That means disclosure was required. Yet, they went on to deny me access.

It took me over a year to notice this evidence. And I have tried for nearly two months, now, to get the exact law – the exact provision – to which Ms. Joesting referred.

There is no denying this evidence and no one has tried to deny it. But, I have still been unable to obtain the exact citation of the law from the OIP. I have asked them repeatedly. Silence. And of course, I am still unable to get the OIP to issue an OFFICIAL decision on appeal to this request and others that I made.

In November, I asked Cathy Takase, Acting Director of the OIP to explain Ms. Joesting’s letter. Why would Ms. Joesting draft such a peculiar response to my request for an appeal decision? Once I finally spotted this evidence, it quickly became clear that this letter was not an appeal ruling, at all. And the OIP did not inform me of my right to judicial appeal which was their legal obligation. I sent the letter back to the OIP and wanted answers. I wanted the proper, legal appeal decision that the law allows me. Ms Joesting’s letter was closed by declining to help me further – despite the acknowledgment that my request qualified for disclosure under a provision of the UIPA.

Yet, no disclosure was ever authorized and the typical process of granting access and disclosing records never happened. It is the duty of the OIP director to help agencies comply with the provisions of the UIPA. The director, in September 2009, did not. Instead, he either demanded or simply allowed Ms. Joesting to draft a letter which was obviously meant to confuse me. And, up until November 2010, they were getting away with not issuing proper appeal decisions because the public was none-the-wiser that they were being shafted.

Given my experience with Ms. Joesting prior to her letter, it’s clear this behavior is completely out of character. To me, it’s clear that this attorney was pressured in some way to violate my rights. It is not clear to me that she did so willingly! I don’t think Ms. Joesting liked doing this and that’s why she left us evidence. That is how I read her intent. Ms. Joesting is completely ‘off the hook’ on this matter, in my mind. She DID something right, in my book. She was brave enough to give us something. Whether she cited the exact provision or not, there’s no disputing that a provision of the UIPA means ‘DISCLOSURE REQUIRED’ and Ms. Joesting knew that.

Neil Abercrombie & the Obama’s Christmas Vacation

Over the last two months, I have received sound legal advice from the OIP, and was told that I was allowed a formal appeal decision to my several rejected requests from the HDOH. In fact, I have FOUR pending requests for appeal decisions from the OIP. Since November, I have been granted disclosure of the official HDOH seal with the help of the OIP and I found OIP Director, Cathy Takase, to be very helpful and forthcoming – considering the circumstances and the pressure I am certain she is working under. I felt hopeful in the progress made in the public’s name.

But this help came to an abrupt stop, on December 29, 2010, in the midst of Abercrombie’s sudden interest in ‘disclosure’ and then disinterest; and in the middle of Obama’s Christmas vacation; and one day before the OIP’s appeal decision on my renewed request for disclosure of all of Obama’s vital records under THREE statutes was due back to me.

That day, I was effectively told that my rights would be violated and that I would not be getting a formal appeal ruling from the OIP, not now anyway. It could be months, it could be years, but my request would go to the back of the pile and everyone else’s would go first. In fact, mine just may have to wait for people in 2015 to draft their requests before they will even look at it. And by the way, I ask too many questions.

Oh, and by the way, the statute of limitations on my request for an appeal referenced in Joesting’s letter expires in six months. I have pleaded with the OIP that they be mindful of my rights and the statute of limitations and have only been given silence. I asked that Ms. Takase assure me that my Constitutional rights were not being violated and for two months she has been unwilling or unable to assure me.

And now…there’s no more ‘news’ from Neil Abercrombie on ‘releasing more proof’ of Obama’s birth facts and life for the privileged political elite marches on.

My rights have been trampled. YOUR rights have been trampled. We are the public.

But, we can make sure History reflects this truth.

I say, let Hawaii tell a thousand people their rights don’t matter. Let them put a thousand people in the position to sue the state of Hawaii for violating their constitutional rights. Let history reflect truthfully the character and integrity of the 44th President of the United States of America.

Making History by Sending UIPA Requests from a Dozen Email Addresses Under a Dozen Aliases…or More

The UIPA says anyone can write a records request under any name. And I believe now that this is really why the ‘Birther Law’ was enacted – to INTIMIDATE people into believing they have no rights to Obama’s vital records: “SO DON’T EVEN BOTHER TO ASK US.” But, the ‘birther law’ is just fluff. There is absolutely nothing illegal about writing multiple UIPA requests and state agencies cannot ignore any UIPA request that would grant disclosure. Now THAT would be illegal.

In terms of disclosing your personal identity, all the UIPA requires is that you provide enough contact information so that if disclosure is granted, an agency can send you the records you requested. The UIPA understands that people have a significant privacy interest in their names. Neither the HDOH nor the OIP have ever requested my real name, my address, nada. I usually request electronic versions of records to be sent to my email inbox. And there are a lot of free email addresses out there. Get some. Get many. It’s YOUR job to request Obama’s vital records.

And that’s why I am suggesting, today, that all willing people draft their own UIPA requests for Obama’s vital records and send them to the HDOH and then on to appeal with the OIP. Or just copy-n-paste my readymade sample request below word-for-word. Just please take action. This is our chance. This may be our only chance to protect our rights.

Personally, I believe it is the public’s duty to request the records the President and media refuse to deliver. It is the people’s responsibility to oversee the operations and actions of the government. If you don’t want to send a UIPA request, great. But, you leave yourself little room to object to Obama’s behavior. This effort to get to the truth and stand up for our rights requires the public to act on the laws given to them: the UIPA, the FOIA and all open records laws.

The HDOH has TEN days to respond to your request(s). If they don’t respond, or deny you access, or invoke the ‘birther law’ so they can ignore you, send your request on to appeal with the OIP. THAT IS YOUR LEGAL RIGHT. Tell the OIP to put their decision ‘on the record’ by issuing a proper formal DECISION in all it’s legal detail.

If the OIP wants to violate the public’s rights to information, to due process and equal protection under the law – if they want to deny a thousand people the right to an appeal decision – let them violate so many people’s rights that this becomes an unignorable liability for them. It’s their choice. If they believe they have negligible liability in violating the rights of only one person who is aware of their violation, let them do it to a thousand people or aliases who are also aware.

And while you are at it, you should demand that the OIP and HDOH tell you/us the exact ‘provision’ that applied to my request in September 2009. If these state agencies think they are busy now, let them dodge a thousand questions. The statute of limitations doesn’t care if they are busy. These are our rights and NO ONE has the right to deny them.

Obama supporters should be horrified by this, they are part of the public, too. They may not be interested in seeing Obama’s vital records but they should be interested in their rights to information as members of the public. I have two friends who are democrats that are going to send UIPA requests in the name of ‘the people.’ Because our rights matter. We should all stand up for them together using the law that was written for the public oversight of government.

Below is a UIPA request that I suggest anyone who cares about this issue send. I am providing you the HDOH email addresses to which it should be sent and also the OIP email address for forwarding on for an appeal ruling once it is denied or ignored by the HDOH. Both agencies have TEN business days to answer your requests. In that time, I will provide more information on the UIPA, answer any questions people have to the best of my ability and will fill you in on the rest of my story with Hawaii and OTHER possible violations of my/our Constitutional rights.

HDOH & OIP Email Addresses

• Email the following records request as many times as you wish, from as many aliases that you wish, to:

HDOH Director at [email protected]

HDOH Staff at [email protected]

• After TEN business days, if your request was denied or ignored, send it on for a ‘formal appeal decision and opinion’ from the OIP to:

Cathy Takase, OIP Acting Director at [email protected]

Dear HDOH Director,

Please be advised that this is a formal request for government records under the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA).

I am an individual researching President Obama, the 44th President of the United States, and also member of the public – based on these qualifications, I request the following records per the UIPA:

• An electronic copy [&/or physical copy] of President Obama’s vital records including copies of supplementary material

Disclosure is authorized under the following laws:

1. Disclosure is authorized under HRS§338-18(a) per the phrase/words, “or by rules adopted by the department of health,” which give the Department of Health’s agency administrative rules and regulations authorizing disclosure of vital records copies and vital record information the ‘force of law’ that is not in conflict with HRS338-18(b), hence the emphasized word, “or”:

“HRS§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.”

The administrative rule authorizing disclosure to me as an individual researching the President of the United States and having the force of statute/law is Administrative Rule 2.1(D)(1.) from ‘Access to Vital Records,’ under Chapter 8B, in the Public Health Regulations for the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii. This rule says, in part:

“Vital Statistics Registration and Records
Data from vital records, including copies of part or all of such records, may be released to government agencies, hospitals, foundations, schools, social agencies and other similar organizations or individuals for statistical or research purposes.”

I am an individual researching the President, therefore I qualify for disclosure and uniform practices require that you disclose to me the requested records without prejudice to my rights for political reasons or otherwise.

Furthermore, and for your information, I am aware that OIP Opinion Letter 04-05 and the general rule of the UIPA, state that administrative rules which restrict or limit access to government records do not apply to records requested under the UIPA :

“[HRS§92F-11] Affirmative agency disclosure responsibilities. (a) All government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.”

Because HRS§338-18(a) gives Chapter 8B, Administrative Rule 2.1(D)(1) the effect of statute, the records I request must be disclosed per HRS§92F-12(b)(2) from the UIPA:

“HRS§92F-12 Disclosure required.
(b) Any provision to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall also disclose:
(2) Government records which, pursuant to federal law or a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed to the person requesting access;”

Again, I ask that you please disclose the requested government records in accordance with the UIPA and HRS§338-18(a) along with Administrative Rule 2.1(D)(1) as outlined above.

2. Disclosure is authorized to me as a member of the public under HRS§92F(12)(15) which says disclosure is required for: 

“Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;”

I refer, in particular, to the press release and public statement issued by Dr. Fukino on 7/27/2009. I draw your attention to the UIPA Guideline Manual which indicates, on page 15, that the information collected for the purpose of making information available to the public is not required to be maintained for that reason, too, in order for disclosure to be authorized by this law. The public has an interest in understanding the U.S. Constitution and the HDOH told the general public that President Obama is a “natural-born American citizen.” There is absolutely no doubt that it is in the public’s legal interest to disclose the information that went into making that statement to the “general public.”

3. While there is no precedent case, I argue that disclosure is also authorized to me as a member of the public under HRS§92F-12(b)(3), which says disclosure is required for: 

“Government records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual;”

I support this argument with the fact that the President is the Commander of the U.S. Military and enlisted military are subject to being put in ‘harm’s way’ through an order to deploy under the President’s authority. Because a legal oath of office to the President of the United States requires through the U.S. Constitution that the President be at least thirty-five years old and a natural born citizen, President Obama’s vital records have a direct affect on the health and safety of enlisted military subject to deployment or under orders to deploy.

In fact, given the far-reaching powers granted to the Office of the President of the U.S. – from declaring martial law to declaring war – I would argue that every living person on this earth has a health and safety stake in ensuring that a Constitutionally legal oath to the Office of the President of the U.S. backs this authority. 

Again, in closing, please be sure to include, at a minimum, all three statutes under which this UIPA request was made in your deliberations and final decision: HRS§92F-12(b)(3), HRS§92F-12(15), HRS§338-18(a), along with the regulation I cited from Chapter 8B, 2.1(D)(1).

Lastly, in addition to this request, I also request that you provide me a citation for the “provision” that was referenced by OIP Staff Attorney, Linden Joesting, in her September 17, 2009 letter to an individual going by the alias ‘Terri K.’ Ms. Joesting stated that the HDOH denied her request for records by referring to a ‘provision of the Uniform Information Practices Act.’ To what statute did Ms. Joesting refer? Please provide me the specific legal citation. That letter is labeled (APPEAL 10-10) for reference and can be downloaded here. The relevant text is underlined.

Thank you in advance for your unbiased & objective, fair consideration.

Signed, 

[Your name *ahem* alias(es)]

[Note: If you wish to request a 'physical copy,' you must include a mailing address. If you don't want to do that, just delete that portion of the request in brackets above and request only electronic copies.]

PREVIEW 

The series to come will explain further the laws that require Obama’s vital records be disclosed, the legal guidance I have been provided and more on my experiences with Hawaii.

I will also explain why, I believe, the evidence that a provision applied to my UIPA request from September 2009 was missed for over a year, despite the fact that an attorney, Leo Donofrio, reviewed this letter carefully in context of the law and offered to represent me in a judicial appeal pertaining to this request. I will explain why I believe he never told me that I was very likely improperly denied access after I asked him directly and why I believe he failed to tell me that I would likely prevail in a judicial enforcement considering a ‘provision of the UIPA’ was referred to by the HDOH. After offering to help, Leo later told me he didn’t want to use my UIPA request for a judicial appeal, instead he wanted to write his own for use in court.

Shame. On. Him. I say. I was badly burned by the same attorney who filed the very first eligibility case concerning the 2008 election. That was MY experience. Therefore, I personally believe that Leo Donofrio, like so many other ‘trusted’ attorneys working on this issue, is not really working with us – these attorneys are apparently working against us…for whatever reason.

So let this be notice for those who just really, really believe in these lawyers who have produced zero results–you will not find any support at this blog for them. I have my own personal experiences and I won’t be convinced easily that it’s all very innocent.

On that note, where are the UIPA requests under the proper laws from any of these lawyers? Where are the rejected applications for vital record copies and verifications from the HDOH and where are the contested cases and public hearings with the Director of the HDOH that the administrative rules allow if they were denied access? Where is the attempt at alternative mediation with the HDOH or any district or state level judicial attempt to obtain copies of Obama’s vital records which could be disclosed, in part or in full, under multiple state laws and administrative rules? Where are their battles with the OIP to get appeal decsions?

Why are these lawyers asking FEDERAL judges for ‘discovery’ of Obama’s vital records when they can more easily ask Hawaii and have automatic standing to judicial appeal if denied?

There is absolutely no excuse for what’s gone on for the last two years. Obama’s Garden is vast. And the Plants and Moles need to be chucked and new seeds should be planted.

I am trying to find legal help LOCALLY, as someone at the OIP suggested to me over a year ago. I believe that person knew something that I didn’t know about the competence of the attorney handling my case and the ones handling the other eligibility cases. That person told me to find an attorney LOCALLY and they even looked up a phone number for me to begin that search.

There will be more on this search to come, too.

I apologize for delaying this post. I gave the OIP every opportunity to respect the law and do the right thing. And it took a while for me to pick myself up and see this opportunity in the darkness: let’s use what we have to let the record reflect the truth – because it is obvious that is the LAST thing that the State of Hawaii wants.

By Terri K AKA Miss Tickly at Obama’s Garden; http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com

Previous reports by Miss Tickly can be viewed here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama’s eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

Read more at Birther Report