got a picture and caption for one who is so
drugged up they are now feeling imaginary pain?
YEP. The whole lot of them.
Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
I've updated my blog to include the e-mail from Janice Okubo confirming that they assign birth certificate numbers in the state registrar's office and the day they do that is the "Date filed by state registrar".
The pertinent portion from Okubo's e-mail:
In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of O’ahu or on the neighbor islands of Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka’i, or Lana’i), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of O’ahu) respectively.
MY SUMMARY: As you can see, Okubo said that the “Date filed by the State Registrar” is the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office).
There are no pre-numbered certificates. A certificate given a certificate number on Aug 8th (Obama’s Factcheck COLB) would not be given a later number than a certificate given a number on Aug 11th (the Nordyke certificates).
There is no way that both the date filed and the certificate number can be correct on the Factcheck COLB. The COLB is thus proven to be a forgery.
Oh no, its real pain. You see, Karma has come knocking at your door, and you are now engaged in essentially meaningless argument over a woman on a walker. At least Fred Nerks tries to present argument in a logically understandable format.
parsy, who is awaiting bp2’s monkey picture, or whatever...bzzz....bzzz...
| > Justice Gray turned to Blackstone to ascertain the meaning > of “Natural Born Subject,” did he not? >> More like the 14th Amendment. Okay, back to Wong Kim Ark v US:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167. In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. So now you’re saying the 14th Amendment was ratified when the Constitution was ratified in 1789? You’re making no sense now, Non-Seq. |
Exactly. But to say that the elderly that are dependent on walking aids are not able to travel is very naive. I have spent my entire life helping the elderly in the family & church and you'd be amazed at how much they can do if they are determined enough. I think it is wrong to put someone in the category of ‘invalid’ just because they need a bit of assistance from time to time and cruise workers are very diligent in helping the elderly when needed. They also have on board wheelchairs you know. And what's not to say she didn't take one of her own with?
I agree that Nordyke embellished the story, but let's not degrade our seniors in the process. That's all I'm saying.
1)The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2)Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3)Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. 4)And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5)Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. 6)Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: 7)Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. 1 Peter 5: 1-7
It might help if you read stuff like this. Google some.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/uflr3&div=43&id=&page=
parsy, who is suffering for you
However, the time line of the 2008 COLB and its role in the presidential campaign would logically figure in the plaintiff's side's presentation in Discovery conference as a means of plaintiffs justifying a wide discovery of Obama’s documentation to the presiding judge.
If a Que Warrento case advances, it goes to jury trial. Plaintiff's lawyer can then show the difference in the seals between a real certified Hawaii DOH COLB of the year the Obama says Hawaii produced his and the weird “composite” presented to the American people in 2008.
Or at least, the above is my take on it. My Interpretaion of the rules for Quo Warrento is based on Leo Donofrio’s explanations on his Blog.
Ok, so now your answer is in a 1950 Journal article
referencing a State law in Florida ...
Parsley, seriously ... the Crack Pipe ...
And stuff like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Or, you could always say something like, “I don’t understand how this works—can somebody help me-—”——and then ask your question. Or, you can continue to explain these cases to the rest of us.
parsy, who says you can learn a lot off the internet
No! Did he really ? .. ;)
Yeah they are. The sleepers have awakened.
LOL!!
Yes, I must be on “crack” thinking that you would actually read anything that might help your understanding of legal basics, particularly when I have tried to give you the hint several times THAT YOU DON’T HAVE A FRIGGIN’ CLUE WHAT YOU ARE BLATHERING ABOUT!
And, I must be on crack to give you another link, that you ought to use to google up some more basics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
parsy, who says “Read up some, or ask, before blathering or you might become the next-—Orly Taitz!
I’m more than familiar with HIPAA privacy rules on what can and cannot be collected and shared. I programmed pharmacy software for many years. PHI (protected health information) is considered phone book data - name, address, phone number.
While a hospital can maintain a directory of patients and their locations in the facility, they may not disclose PHI without the patient’s consent and a patient may opt out of being included in the hospital directory or may limit disclosure to specific individuals. If a patient opts out of the directory, the hospital will typically answer that they have no information on the specific patient.
“If a Que Warrento case advances, it goes to jury trial. Plaintiff’s lawyer can then show the difference in the seals between a real certified Hawaii DOH COLB of the year the Obama says Hawaii produced his and the weird “composite” presented to the American people in 2008.”
First, I haven’t looked up to see if QW is a “jury” thing or not. But on the photos-—what do you think would be the basis for introducing allegedly phony internet COLB photos, if an Hawaiian registrar introduced a certified COLB....
parsy, who is sure there must be some legal basis a Plaintiff could use to get those “phonies” into evidence for some reason, but can figure it out yet——(sigh!)
“And if you look closely at the index data quoted, you will see one is for OBAMA AND ONE IS FOR DUNHAN.”
That was a typo. The correct name in the HI index as bride of BHO Sr. was Stanley Ann Dunham. I view this as confirmation that these two had an HI marriage.
See:
MARRIAGE INDEX
SORTED BY BRIDE
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING
GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN
BRIDE
DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…
(Okubo used the “blue ink” to transmit the index data. And Stanley Ann’s last name is misspelled as “DUNHAN”. It should be “Dunham”. KingsKid is awaiting clarification.)
[UPDATE: 2:35 PM 10.02.09 KingsKid was informed by Okubo that the index file has the correct spelling “DUNHAM” and the typo was her mistake, it’s spelled correctly in the file.]
Curiosity and Parsifal, it’s explained at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
The short version: The DOH has confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is amended. Amended birth certificates lose their prima facie evidentiary value as per HRS 338-17, which can be seen here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017.htm .
Amendments are required to be shown on birth certificates, as per HRS 338-16, which can be seen here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm. The Administrative Rules provide for 2 kinds of certificates: the standard (long-form) and abbreviated (COLB). Both are described as birth certificates and both are thus required to have note of amendments. Factcheck’s COLB for Obama doesn’t have that note. Thus, the Factcheck COLB is known to be a forgery.
In addition, as this thread is supposed to be about, the DOH indicated that the certificate numbers were given at the state DOH office, and observation of BC’s posted online shows that they were given in ascending order. The Factcheck COLB shows a cert# supposedly given 3 days earlier receiving a later number than a cert# given 3 days later. This reveals that the Factcheck combination of “Date filed” (which Okubo says is the date the cert was given a number at the state registrar’s office) and the certificate number is impossible, given the date and number on the Nordyke certificates. This is additional confirmation that Factcheck is a forgery.
So we know that Factcheck is a forgery. Period.
And we know that even if Obama had the DOH print out an authentic COLB for him right now, it would have note of an amendment that would rule out the COLB being prima facie evidence.
IOW, the best Hawaii has is the legal equivalent of hearsay - which is what the Kenyan BC is. Only the Kenyan BC could still be authenticated by the Kenyan government if these cases were allowed to go forward. Hawaii has already revealed that they can’t necessarily consider Obama’s Hawaiian documents to be proof of anything.
The only way anybody can know which BC’s claims have more legal credibility is by investigating the actual certificates themselves, together with whatever supporting documentation there is. That is precisely what “birthers” have been asking for all along.
Now, curiosity, we don’t know if Obama’s birth was fraudulently registered or not. We can’t know that until we see what actually happened - which can only be done by seeing all the records - from Hawaii, from Kenya, and any other place he might have records.
BUT we know that Hawaii statutes don’t consider his birth record there to be up to legal snuff because it was amended 40+ years after the birth.
Poppycock. Incorrect information should be corrected not left to stand unchallenged. Jimrob knows my position on this subject because I’ve discussed it with him. He allows the debate. When something has been debunked and shown to be false, it’s not a matter of my personal interpretation. For example, that ridiculous claim that American travel to Pakistan in 1981 was banned has been debunked. Yet some birthers continue to perpetuate that stupid rumor as fact. Claims like that NEED to be challenged so we don’t look like idiots. And that’s just one example.
Do you know any senior federal judge who isn’t a lawyer?
Fred, are you in any danger from the tsunami?
You keep your Blackstone & I’ll keep the guy who actually WROTE the Constituion:
___________________________________________________
The latter party I have considered heretofore; and. have called it the people. The former party I am now to consider; and, in order to avoid confusion, I call it,
in this discussion, the citizen; and when I shall have occasion to refer to more subordinate agreements than one, I shall call the individuals, parties to them, by the name of citizens.
‘ I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people : and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters ; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequentlyemployed also in the sense in which I now use it. “ Generally speaking,” says the great political authority,k Aristotle, “ a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”
A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has1 other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.0 In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.d
When a man acts as one of the numerous party to the agreements, of which I have taken notice ; it is his right, according to the tenour of his agreements, to govern j he is one of the people. When he acts as the single party to that agreement, which he has made with all the other members of the society ; it is his duty, according to the tenour of his agreement, to obey; he is a single citizen.
As a citizen of a republican government owes obedience to the laws ; so he owes a decent, though a dignified respect to those who administer the laws. In monarchies, there is a political respect of person : in commonwealths, there should be a political respect to office. In monarchies, there are ranks, preeminences, and dignities, all personal and hereditary. In commonwealths, too, there are ranks, preeminences, and dignities; but all official and successive. In monarchies, respect is paid without a prospect of return. In commonwealths, ‘ one may, next year, succeed, as an officer, to the respect, which, this year, he pays as a citizen. The dignities of office are open to all.
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons...
What a very different spirit animates and pervades her American sons ! Indeed it is proper that it should do so. The insulated policy of the British nation would as ill befit the expansive genius of our institutions, as the hills, the ponds, and the rivulets, which are scattered over their island, would adequately represent the mountains, and rivers, and lakes of the United States. “ In the new world”—I speak now from one of the finest writers of Britainy—”in the new world nature seems to have carried on her operations with a bolder hand, and to have distinguished the features of the country by a peculiar magnificence. The mountains of America are much superiour in height to those in the other divisions of the globe. From those lofty mountains descend rivers proportionably large. Its lakes are no less conspicuous for grandeur, than its mountains and rivers.” We imitate, for we ought to imitate, the operations of nature ; and the features of our policy, like those of our country, are distinguished by a peculiar magnificence...
The subject, to one standing where I stand, is not without its delicacy: let me, however, treat it with the decent but firm freedom, which befits an independent citizen, and a professor in independent states.
Surely I am justified in saying, that the principles of the constitutions and governments and laws of the United States, and the republicks, of which they are formed, are materially different from the principles of the constitution and government and laws of England; for that is the only country, from the principles of whose constitution and government and laws, it will be contended, that the elements of a law education ought to be drawn. I presume to go further: the principles of our constitutions and governments and laws are materially better than the principles of the constitution and government and laws of England.
Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigour through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem it expedient.
VOL. I. D
By Sir \Villiam Blackstone, from whose Commentaries, a performance in many respects highly valuable, the elements of a foreign law education would probably be borrowed—by Sir William Blackstone,. this great and fundamental principle is treated as a political chimera, existing only in the minds of some theorists-; but, in practice, inconsistent with the dispensation of any government upon earth...
In the course of these lectures, my duty will oblige me to notice some other important principles, very particularly his definition and explanation of law itself, in which my sentiments differ from those of the respectable Author of the Commentaries. It already appears, that, with regard to the very first principles of government, we set out from different points of departure.
As I have mentioned Sir William Blackstone, let me speak of him explicitly as it becomes me. I cannot consider him as a zealous friend of republicanism. One of his survivers or successours in office has characterized him by the appellation of an antirepublican lawyer. On the subject of government, I think I can plainly discover his jealousies and his attachments.’
For his jealousies, an easy and natural account maybe given. In England, only one specimen of a commonwealth has been exhibited to publick examination ; and that specimen was, indeed, an unfavourable one. On trial, it was found to be unsound and unsatisfactory. It is not very surprising that an English lawyer, with an example so inauspicious before his eyes, should feel a degree of aversion, latent, yet strong* to a republican government.
An account, perhaps equally natural and easy, may be given for his attachments. With all reigning families, I believe, it is a settled maxim, that every revolution in government is unjustifiable, except the single one, which conducted them to the throne. The maxims of the court have always their diffusive influence. That influence, in favour of one species of government, might steal imperceptibly upon a mind, already jealous of another species, viewed as its rival, and as its enemy...
Wilson quote Locke: The sentiments of Mr. Locke on this subject go much further. “ ‘Tis plain,” says he,« “ by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to the age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under ; what body politick he will unite himself to.”
The English Saxon’s prior to the feudal conquest: Gothic, Germanic and English Freedom ! With boasted liberty superficially on the lip, there is often licentiousness, and consequent oppression,—but we feel Freedom to be more deeply seated, even in the heart :—here Freedom is not only enjoyed, but cordially permitted, and extended to all. This is true, heartfelt Freedom, and we derived it from our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. Every Englishman who glories in the vigour of his Father land,—who would clearly understand, and feel the full force of his Mother tongue, ought to study AngloSaxon,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.