Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 1

No 09-5080
Consolidating No. 09-5161

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, Case Below 08-2254 JR

Appellant,

v.

Barry 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 TERRITORIAL STATUTES,
THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57,
“VITAL STATISTICS, I” AND THEIR EFFECT

==================================================

John D. Hemenway D.C. Bar #379663

Counsel for Appellants
4816 Rodman Street, NW
Washington DC 20016
(202) 244-4819
(202) 538-0005
[email protected]
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents……………………..……………………………………… i

Table of Authorities………………………………………………………….. ii

MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF HAWAIIAN

TERRITORIAL STATUTES, THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII,
CHAPTER 57, “VITAL STATISTICS,” AND THEIR EFFECT ……. ……. 1

I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE EFFORT

TO THIS POINT ……………………………………….…………. 1

II. THE TERRITORIAL LAW 57 AND ITS SIMILARITY

TO THE 1982 LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII …...………… 5
III. A COGENT OPINION ON JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
MATTERS IN SISTER STATES ………………………...………. 7

IV. THE LEGISLATIVE ACT WHICH BROUGHT IN

THE SUCCESSOR STATUTE ……………………………………. 11

V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL

STATUTE TO GET A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” ALTHOUGH
NOT CERTIFIABLY BORN IN HAWAII ……………………….. 12

i
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Accord, Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233, 1239 (3d Cir.1973.................. 10

Gallop v. Caldwell, 120 F.2d 90 (3d Cir.1941 ............................................. 10
Lamar v. Micou, 114 U.S. 218, 223, 5 S.Ct. 857, 859, 29 L.Ed. 94 (1885). 11
Meyer v. Lavelle, 389 F.Supp.972 (E.D.Pa.1975) ........................................ 10
Schultz v. Tecumseh Products, 310 F.2d 426, 433 (6th Cir. 1962) .............. 10
United 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 .............................................. 5

TERRITORIAL LAW 57 ............................................................................ 1,5
18 U.S.C. App. § 1202 (c)(2).......................................................................... 8
1982 Law of the State of Hawaii .................................................................... 5
1982 Laws of Hawaii § 338-17.8 ............................................................ 1, 12
Act 179 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1953 ............................................... 5
Act 2 of the Session Laws of Hawaii 1956 .................................................... 6
Act 2 of the Session Laws of Hawaii 1957 .................................................... 6
Act 182 H.B.No. 3016-82 11
Act 253 of the Session Laws of Hawaii 1939 ……………………………. 6
*Chapter 57, “Vital Statistics" ….. 1, 5
Chapter 57, § 57-14 ...................................................................................... 16
Chapter 57, § 57-15 ...................................................................................... 16
Chapter 57, § 57-18 ...................................................................................... 13
Chapter 57, § 57-19 ...................................................................................... 15
Chapter 57, § 57-20 ...................................................................................... 13
Chapter 57, § 57-21 ...................................................................................... 14
Chapter 57, § 57-9(a) .................................................................................... 12
Rules

Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 44.......................................................................................... 9
Fed.R. Ev. 201 .................................................................................... 3,4,7,8,9
Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 26.1 .............................................................................. 9, 10
Treatises

Weinstein, Evidence ¶200[01] (1975) .................................................. 8, 9, 10

ii
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al. ) Case Below 08-2254 JR

Appellants, )
)
v. ) No 09-5080
) Consolidating No. 09-5161
Barry 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 TERRITORIAL

STATUTES, THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57, “VITAL
STATISTICS, I” AND THEIR EFFECT

I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE

EFFORT 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) Upon

application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the
director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of

1
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 5

health that the legal parents of such individual while living without
the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of
Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director

of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The
director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91
that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent
applications for birth certificates and to require any further
information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth
certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be

established 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

2
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 6

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

3
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 7

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

4
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 8

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 THE

1982 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.

5
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 9

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

6
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 10

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 NOTICE

OF 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

7
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 11

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 take
judicial notice of the relevant Maryland statutes for purposes of
determining whether the offense that defendant had previously been
convicted 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 is
necessary to understand the content and scope of the Court’s power
to take judicial notice in this context. First, judicial notice as used in
this setting is far broader than the concept of judicial notice
enunciated in Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This is
because the coverage of Rule 201 is restricted solely to judicial
notice of adjudicative facts.FN6 Fed.R.Evid. 201(a). As a result of
such restriction, numerous matters denominated as judicial notice are
outside the coverage of Rule 201. 1 Weinstein, Evidence ¶200[01]
(1975). Since the concept of judicial notice in the instant case is not
embraced within the category of adjudicative facts, but is rather part
of a judge’s inherent duty and power to find and apply the law to
various 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 of

adjudicative facts.

For an explanation of the meaning of `adjudicative facts’ the

Advisory Committee’s Note on Rule 201 is particularly instructive.

8
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 12

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 by

Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 26.1FN7 That rule provides a procedural framework
for submission of foreign law materials to a court, but only when `an
issue 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 frequent
need for expert assistance in utilizing those materials have no

9
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 13

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 foreign

country shall give reasonable written notice. The court, in
determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or
source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or
admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court’s
determination 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 of
sister states is a matter which federal courts are obligated to
judicially 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 exercise
of power to take judicial notice in the instant case is well within the
ambit of the federal judicial power.

Footnote 8 reads as follows:

FN8. `The states of the Union are not foreign to the United States or
to its courts. Such courts are required to take judicial notice of the
statute and case law of each of the states [citations omitted]. `The
law of any State of the Union, whether depending upon statutes or
upon judicial opinions, is a matter of which the courts of the United

10
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 14

States are bound to take judicial notice, without plea or proof.’’ 310
F.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 THE

SUCCESSOR 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, the

director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of
health that the legal parents of such individual while living without
the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of
Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding 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.”

11
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 15

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 of
an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a
birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to
the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without
the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as
their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or
adoption of such child.

V. THE GREATER LATITUDE UNDER THE TERRITORIAL STATUTE

TO 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

12
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 16

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

13
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 17

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”

14
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 18

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 time

prescribed for filing, and certificates which have been altered after
being filed with the registrar general, shall contain the date of the
delayed 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-

15
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 19

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

16
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1224526 Filed: 01/07/2010 Page: 20

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. HEMENWAY
Counsel for Appellants
4816 Rodman Street, NW
Washington DC 20016
(202) 244-4819
(202) 538-0005
[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

17
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