DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[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.

[curiosity]

I’ve given source after source after source saying that a denial of access to a record is confirmation that the record exists.

Sorry, but that's also not true.

[parsifal]

No, Grasshopper. I was sending you little tidbits that you might use to start reading up on legal issues so you don’t meander off on so many dead ends. For the common law, you might use that first one to understand how common law has been used, even as late as, well today. And the second, to understand what all that stuff was in Wong that you keeping bits and pieces of.

You still have a little Blackstone problem, among several others...

parsy, who is waiting for the monkey picture response

[BP2]

> You still have a little Blackstone problem, among several others...

All you've shown the inane ability to bullsh!t, but not your
understanding on Wong Kim Ark or anything “natural born
citizen” related.

Once again, share what you know (or think you know).

Time to put up or shut up, monkey-boy.

[patlin]

So you refute the words of the guy that penned the constitution and was a leader in the debates and who also sat on more committees than any other including Madison.

You also refute England’s history and the fact that at time of their founding, the English too were under a Republican form of government and the laws of nature guided their common law.

Thank goodness we have Locke’s actual words, not the twisted and edited ones the drones like to spew:

” ‘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.”

And the winner is: “JUS SANGUINIS” - CHILDREN FOLLOW THE CONDITION OF THE FATHER!

goodnight DRONE

[El Gato]

Do you know any senior federal judge who isn’t a lawyer?

No, but you made an absolute statement. I refuted it. Easily too.

Be careful with "all", "must", "have to be".

I did state that they generally are lawyers, but it's not a requirement, even at the Supreme Court.

IMHO, it ought to be a disqualification above the level of trial judge. Let them have lawyer advisers. Lawyers are trained to manipulate the laws to their advantage, or that of their clients, rather than to enforce them, which is the job of judges and justices.

[patlin]

You still have a little Blackstone problem, among several others...

I believe you have us confused with Dr Conspiracy, your washed up traffic law clerk where you get most of your cut & paste from. Well, that is beside your wikipedia juris doctorate.

Now go the the little cubby in the door of your padded room, the nurse is waiting on the other side to hand you your next round of meds.

[parsifal]

OK, you asked, so here it is:

For Non-Legal Type People: Wong Kim Ark and the Natural Born Citizen Argument Made Simple and Easy

First, if you wish to read Wong in full, here is the link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Now, to understand Wong, “Keep it simple.” What the Wong court is basically trying to do is define the meanings of citizens, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. Since these terms are not defined by the Constitution, they engage in an analysis of the original intent of the Framers. That is, “What did the Framers mean when they used these words.”

So, page after page, they analyze. They even explore the “laws of nations” stuff that the Birthers are trying to pretend isn’t in there. When they get to the end, the Wong Court figures out there are only two kinds of citizens. Those that are born here, and those that are naturalized. There are a few exceptions to the “those that are born here” type, but none apply to Obama.

If you are born here, you are a citizen, and a natural born citizen. If you ain’t born here, you may be a naturalized citizen. That’s pretty much it. You can go into more detail, but a lot of it isn’t relevant to the issue of Obama.

Now, because the Wong Court went to such lengths to figure out what the Framers meant, there is a lot of citations to cases and treatises. Some people start off thru the case and get lost as to where they are and pull some tidbit of language from here or there and go off on a tangent. (Example: “Permanent domicile —You have to have that.!) No. That’s pulled out of context.

Forget all that crap. If you are not a lawyer, you will work yourself into a new tizzy every 30 seconds with a tidbit of language. You will zing around caroming off a phrase or clause like a silver ball in a pinball machine. The Wong court said that a little Chinese kid was born here. His parents were citizens of China. The Wong court said he was citizen, not a naturalized citizen, but a citizen of the United States, BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HERE. That ain’t hard.

And from the language, you can tell that he is also a natural born citizen, even if the Court doesn’t say so in one discrete place in the case. That’s it. The Wong court gets to that conclusion by relying on English common law, which the framers knew well, because many of them were lawyers. When they said natural born citizen, they pretty well knew what they were talking about. There might have been a few little exceptions here or there to be ironed out, but basically if you were born in a country and you don’t fit into the exceptions, you are “natural born subject” which is the same thing as a “natural born citizen.”

Do you have to LIKE Obama to believe this? No. Of course not. Conservatives and others do not like Obama. But, the legal issues are separate and distinct from those feelings. As good Americans, we should accept the results of an election whether we like the results or not. But since Bush-Gore 2000, there now seems to be a “crybaby” element in America. Now there are some knowledgeable crybabies who don’t know how to lose an election like a good American. And there are some people who listen to the crybabies and follow them without knowing any better. They get fooled and confused by the knowledgeable type Birthers and the “natural born citizen” subset of the Birthers. Most Birthers aren’t crybabies, and they sincerely believe what is being fed to them. Those Birthers are being purposely mislead by the more knowledgeable crybabies. Here’s how the mis-leaders operate.

The knowledgeable crybabies read Wong and they don’t like Wong because it’s not what they want to hear. Obama is a natural born citizen relying on English common law.... and the American Courts’ use of those cases. (DAMN THOSE ENGLISH, they say!) So they set about to find a way around the English common law. They have to, because English common law is real clear about the situation and Wong approves, adopts, and uses the English common law to determine the Framers’ Original Intent. . .If any Court uses Wong, their little crybaby behinds are toast! BUT THE COURTS CAN NOT JUST IGNORE A RELEVANT SUPREME COURT CASE! To do so would be un-American and ultimately unconstitutional.

So the crybabies figure out if they can get to some non-English common law, and use it, and get a court to avoid Wong, they may have a way to overturn the election. It ain’t got a darn thing to do with any love of the Constitution. If they loved the Constitution, they would follow both the facts and the law.

So, the crybabies go to “international” law, kinda like Orly Taitz’s is running off to the United Nations. They find this guy named Vattel from 1800 something or another who adds some additional qualifications to being a citizen. They pounce on poor Vattel like he’s the only prostitute in town and they just got off the ship after 6 months. Kinda.

They construct this new fabric of what a “natural born citizen” is, based on Vattel and start pumping him like crazy. BS. You see, the Wong Court has already reviewed the laws of nations type stuff, and they don’t find anything there which is really too far out of line with English common laws which say being born in a country is enough to make then a natural born subject. Along the way they discuss some of the Vattel like “allegiance” arguments and THEY ANSWER THEM. The Wong decision HAS ALREADY BUILT THAT INTO ITS DECISION.

Now, is this just me? Is this just my opinion. Yeah. But its why most legal minded type people don’t have a real legal problem with Obama being a natural born citizen. But, lawyers have to eat, too. Sooooo, if you pay one several hundred dollars per hour, he will “hop to” and start spinning out the BS. But its BS. Most legal people figure Wong covers it.

Now within the last few months, another court has decided this way. So it ain’t just me. Here’s the case. Only five or six pages are applicable. Pages 12-18, as I recall. And it is easier to read than Wong, Its got a “Natural Born Citizen” heading where the discussion begins.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Now if you read this, you will note that a couple of Plaintiffs filed “pro se” that is without a lawyer. They did their own legal work, and LO AND BEHOLD, they somehow completely miss the Wong case. A Supreme Court Case which is in every legal analysis of the issue.... they miss. Somehow, these two guys find the Vattel, stuff, which ain’t exactly falling off the book shelves. This is why I doubt the sincere motives of the crybabies. Nobody who is honest just kinda misses the biggest case out there on the issue. But, this Court reminds them about Wong!

And that “kinda” stuff above? Well Vattel isn’t really even LAW. Its Vattel listing out some of the laws of the world and talking about them. It would be the same as citing the “Law for Dummies” book as law itself. The more knowledgeable types should know better. And, behave better. And, most of us don’t want the United Nations or World Courts trumping our rights as Americans. But the crybabies think it is OK to open that door with their “laws of nations” arguments. Go figure...

But, lets look at this recent decision in a little more detail. Remember, this is from the November 2009 Indiana case. It is not binding on any Federal court, but the reasoning is probably what any court will follow. In essence, the crybabies made their arguments. The Court sent them packing, to wit:

The Crybabies’ Argument (based on Vattel and the usual speeches from whoever they find):

Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)

(Now for the next 5 plus pages, the Court lets them know all about WONG. A string of cases and cites from Wong running all the way back to 1608 England!)

Now the Court is ready to rule:

The Court’s Smackdown of the Crybabies : ( Short answer: No, there isn’t any difference!) The longer answer:

Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)

That’s pretty straightforward. The Crybabies got one thing right-—the thinking of MOST PEOPLE is that there isn’t a difference between “citizen” (non-naturalized) and a “natural born citizen.” AND, this is NOT LIBERAL RADICAL law. For Heaven’s sake, this case incorporates the established law for over 400 years, from 1608 and maybe earlier through to 2009. And 1608.....that’s well before Saul Alinsky and Hippies and Ted Kennedy

parsy, who hopes this helps

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s not how an electronic database index works. For critical data, such as vital statistics records, corrections to original data are usually made in the form of additional records. The purpose of that is having the ability to produce a chronological history of changes to a record. For example, with an adoption, the original electronic database entry for the birth certificate is not deleted and the originally issued piece of paper is not destroyed from the archives.

The index data that Okubo released was from an electronic database. It provided the names of the columns from the table that she selected when she queried the database and the sort order she specified to display the results.

Someone suggested that the Hawaii DoH may consider receipts for copies of birth certificates as vital records. Maybe so, but the index data for receipts would be stored in a receipts table not in the birth index table.

[parsifal]

Refute-—no. No reason to. Anybody is entitled to an opinion. Did you know what Button Gwinnett said about citizenship? Probably not, and why should you. Maybe Button thought if you were born here, you were a citizen. Maybe not. Why aren’t you trying to find out?

BECAUSE YOU DON’T CARE. You have found a person whose opinion YOU like more and now, we are all supposed to run there and agree with you. Sorry. This Drone don’t run! Bzzz! Bzzz!

You see, this little thingie called a SUPREME COURT reviewed this matter and read a whole bunch of stuff and decided that being born here was enough. They didn’t think whatever Wilson offered as an opinion was good, or more likely they didn’t even know he said it. They went by the LAW. And good Anglo-Saxons do just that. (I put that in so you would know I read your Wilson thing)

Now other nations-—like the French, Italians, the Third World, Latin America, Banana Republics, Commie States——they all work by WHIM. You see, they kinda do what they want when they want and run all over the place like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off. They might change up the whole Constitution because they don’t like the results. Just like ‘em.

BUT IT AIN’T LIKE AMERICANS! We have a nation of LAWS, not WHIMS, not TANTRUMS.

You don’t like Wong? Tough luck. Its the law.

parsy, the Little Drone, with a mind of his Own! bzzz....bzzz

[MissTickly]

“That’s not how an electronic database index works.”

None of this is clear from what I have read and researched.

If you can direct me to your source I would very much appreciate it.

Thanks!

[patlin]

You are the one that is full of crap, now be a good DRONE & go take your meds.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I provided the definitions of lawyer and judge in the statement that I made. One has to be trained in the law in order to be a judge.

[parsifal]

I did take ‘em. That’s why I’m so feisty!

parsy, who also had some candy and may be on a sugar high???

[curiosity]

“You can’t just say the claim ISN’T true and expect any reasonable person to believe you unless you’ve got sources that trump the 15+ that I’ve given to document the claim."

All the 15+ documents you posted say is that the DOH is supposed to say no record exists if no record exists. They do not say that a denial of access is tanemount to an confirmation that a record exists.

A DOH denial of access to amendment records could mean such records exist, but it also could mean it doesn't exist and the DOH bureaucrat screwed up and didn't do what he was supposed to do.

But of course, in the birther fantasy world, bureaucrats never screw up. They always follow protocal, and any violation of must be attributed to some nefarious conspiracy theory, never mere incompetence.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I’m a database administrator, so my experience is the source of the statements I made. If you’d like to understand how databases work, you’ll need to research the concepts of data modeling and database administration.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I really didn’t mean for that to sound as flippant and arrogant as it came across. I apologize. I can point you to some basic conceptual information if that’s what you’re asking me.

[Red Steel]

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.

Like yours is all time. And not always just by us regular posters:

- - - - - - -

To: pissant

Don’t you grow weary of the Orly Taitz freak show?

Don’t you grow weary of being strung along by the ridiculous promises? (”I can have Obama out of office in 30 days!” Her time was up on Oct. 12th, BTW)

Don’t you grow weary of reading one interpretation of events and finding out later that it didn’t really happen that way?

Don’t you grow weary of having your hopes raised only to have them dashed?

Don’t you grow weary of the incompetence and unprofessionalism?

Don’t you grow weary of group think?

15 posted on 10/20/2009 3:39:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: BuckeyeTexan

No.

57 posted on 10/20/2009 5:06:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jimrobfr)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[parsifal]

I gave the birthers this a 100 posts ago. It bears repeating, and if they did do this, they would probably make it much easier on them, and us. And, bad conclusions would be a whole lot easier for them to spot:

It’s your info. Set it out in a step wise method where other people can follow what you are saying and see the evidence for each step, and decide on the relevance.

For example, on the one non-white kid with no birth weight, ...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. How can I, or anybody else, base a decision on this kind of stuff when we have no idea what you are talking about or how it ties into Obama.

It would be like saying “Obama is lying about being born in Hawaii, because everybody knows when you have a dog, INSIDE THE CITY, it has to have its shots.”

Now look at my statement. Part of it is true. Dogs inside the city have to have shots. But that is completely disconnected from any kind of relation to Obama and whether he is lying. Do you see? If you said that to some one, they would dismiss you as a quack, because your statement is just meaningless.

Read it again and tell me how anyone is supposed to have a clue what you are talking about.

BUT, suppose you put it this way.

1. Obama wrote in Das Kapital, that his grandmother bought him a new puppy when he was first born, a Shitzoo named Bonkers. (evidence)

2. At that time, the Dunhams and Obama purportedly lived within the city limits of Honolulu at 1313 Wackaheeni Drive. (evidence)

3. A review of all dog tags issued by the City of Honolulu in 1961 and 1962 reveals no tags issued to a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” or to anyone named Dunham or Obama. (evidence)

4. A review of all AKC papers issued for Hawaii in 1961 and 1962 show no papers issued on a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”or to any one named Dunham or Obama.(evidence)

5. However, a review of all dog tags issued in Mombasa, Kenya for 1961 and 1962 reveals a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” was issued a Non-food Animal tag on August 5, 1961 to an Stanley Ann Dunham registered owner, whose address was 4236 Jihad Drive, Mombasa Kenya.

5. Therefore, based upon the above premises, it is apparent that Obama is a liar, and a commie liar to boot, because no good American would ever lie about his dog.

You see, my statement is set forth in a logical fashion. It is something a non-birther can read and understand.

WARNING TO BIRTHERS!!!! DO NOT TAKE THIS DOG STORY AS TRUE. IT IS MADE UP! OBAMA NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD A SHITZOO NAMED “BONKERS”-—DO NOT ADD THIS ITEM TO THE BIRTHER DATABASE!!!

parsy, who hopes this makes it more clear

[patlin]

Chisholm v. Georgia,33 the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State . . . .

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. . . .

Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.

Jay‟s articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizens is confirmed by Justice James Wilson‟s opinion in Chisholm. Wilson noted that with the exception of Article III, the Constitution refers to “citizens” and “persons,”35 and not subjects: “[t]he term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet „foreign‟ is prefixed.”

Both Jay and Wilson‟s opinions suggest that usage in the founding era reflected a significant conceptual distinction between the words “subject” and “citizen”—a distinction that was strongly associated with the ideas about the nature of sovereignty.

The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptual of the monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject, owing a duty of allegiance and duty to the monarch. This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” which was used instead of “natural born subject,” the phrase that served as a term of art in English legal usage. The notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects.

Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign and the notion of a “natural born subject” would be anathema(a vehement denunciation). This leaves a gap in the theory of citizenship—a gap that the Constitution fills with the concept of a natural born citizen.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885

[Fred Nerks]

Are you sure you are on the right thread? We are not discussing aged care nor your religious views.