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.
It didn’t sound flippant.
Would like any direction you can give me if this is your area of expertise....general info would be just fine with me..
Why would they be doing all that? They set out the question in the first paragraph or so, along with the mutually agreed facts, and answered it in the last paragraph.
Natural Born citizen was not even at issue. Clearly Wong had not been naturalized, that was not in the agreed facts. The question was only whether he was a citizen at birth, despite the law in effect at the time banning people of Chinese ethnicity from being naturalized. They were not even really trying to *define* "citizen", so much as determine if WKA was one at birth, under the laws and the Constitution of the United States.
When they get to the end, the Wong Court figures out there are only two kinds of citizens
Not quite what Justice Gray wrote. He said that the 14th amendment contemplated only two sources of citizenship.
They find this guy named Vattel from 1800 something or another who adds some additional qualifications to being a citizen.
And you lecture us about not having our facts straight? I think if you look it up, maybe even using Google or Wikipedia, you'll find that Vattel was born April 25, 1714 and first published "The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct of Nations and Sovereigns", in 1758, well before the Constitution was written. Actually it was during the French and Indian War, which started the 13 colonies on the road to independence. (Remembering that while he wrote in French, he was Swiss). Heck, he wasn't even alive by the time the Declaration of Independence was written, let alone the Constitution, having died Dec. 28, 1767.
At any rate, they believe that Obama is not eligible to be President. They also believe that politics are so corrupt that nothing will be done about it. They aren't members of any forum nor do they visit political sites online (despite my encouragement).
Everyone of them is over 40. Their understanding from what they learned in school is that he is ineligible because of his father.
You can argue all that you like. But the understanding of average Americans is he's a fraud.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=1514#1514
which I responded to with this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=1721#1721
And from there you went off on a tangent nit picking my use of the word ‘chair’ which was totally ridiculous in nature and I should have just left you with your little fit at my choice of words and never responded, however i am partial to the elderly who do deserve our respect. It is how moral societies evolve & maintain and isn’t that what we are all working towards? Without morality there is no liberty.
Do you really believe that Jimrob was implying that he doesn’t grow weary of groupthink, incompetence, and unprofessionalism?
He NO'd your "Don't".
It's there for everyone to see.
Why don't you be honest and tell us that you do support Barack Obama?
Yes, there is a distinction. It is covered in Wong in at least two places:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
(I left out one place because it is talking about something not being an exception to the English law, which some of the people here (yes bp2, I’m talking about you!) would look at, and think “Gotcha!”, and then would post that in bold letters with a picture of monkeys or something, and they would be all wrong, but trying to explain it to them wouldn’t do any good, but they are too busy talking to listen and learn, like many young Grasshoppers)
parsy, the helpful Drone
Thank you for the date correction on Vattel. On everything else, you are mistaken. Did you link to that 2009 Indiana case? If all that Wong stuff was “dicta”, it would not have been in the 2009 case.
And for Wong, all that stuff in the case is how they are analyzing the case and determining it. It would have been nice if Wong had wrapped it all up in one sentence, but they didn’t. But that is what the case stands for. You can see that by the way the 2009 case put the language into their decision.
Let me try to find you an example of a case so you can see how a court sets forth the relevant law and reuses language from the prior cases. It may help.
parsy, who will try
University of the Netherlands http://www.rug.nl/corporate/index?lang=en
No wonder his works are all over the place & the founders rejected him. He wasn't even respected during our founding by the London Bar.
Bwaahahahaha
My computer has frozen 4 times today - 3 times in the middle of trying to post. Somebody wants to shut me up.
So I’ll probably be absent for a while.
But before I go, I want to point out that OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 says that if the very existence of a record is to be protected from disclosure a Glomar response (”The records, if any, are protected from disclosure”) is to be used.
That’s because a standard denial, without the Glomarized response, is a confirmation of the record’s existence. Otherwise, why add the “if any”?
The OIP is supposed to safeguard against careless answers by checking to make sure that the response follows the guidelines. Paul Tsukiyama wrote the guidelines saying that records’ existence is to be checked before anything else, and if the records don’t exist, the box is to be checked and that’s the end of it. He wrote that shortly before telling MT, on appeal, that the DOH properly denied her request for supplementary documents offered in support of the claims on the original or amended BC. This isn’t just SNAFU; this was checked for accuracy by the OIP director, who certainly knows the rules.
Seize the carp, thanks for the insight on how the Obots operate. Apparently I’m getting too close for their comfort. Bgill, if you’re keeping count - my computer froze 4 times today. Never on Drudge. Never on HotAir. Never on news sites. Just on FR and on my own blog, today. And I haven’t even been online so much today.
If you don’t see much of me in the next few days you’ll know what’s going on.
Back up your files Butter...
You left out this one:
To: Fred Nerks
OK, I’ll let the elderly in church know we can’t move them around in theirs anymore.
You feel better now? Geez, I can’t believe I am responding to such idiocy.
1,809 posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:05:50 AM by patlin
Sorry for the delayed reply — had to go out of town.
I really can’t envision a scenario where the list would be cut or delayed. It was likely a regular weekly feature, and that column was likely typeset and a hole reserved for it in its entirely. Generally, editors will have plenty of space for what is necessary and use fillers if there’s space left over. If there are cuts, it would be a filler or inconsequential wire story.
In my experience, announcements such as these would likely run the same day of the week, every week, a regular feature. Because they would not be breaking news, they would be typeset when they came in and the galleys ready for the press in advance of daily production. They would be on a page of similar articles — those with a public interest, but not urgent or time sensitive.
Dear Abby, the comics, the crossword, etc. are all similarly prepared in advance of the daily news deadlines. So are feature articles, those that tell a human interest story, but don’t have to published the day they’re written.
The editor in charge of page makeup for the section in which these announcements ran would know what to expect and would have all his copy in advance — some for days, some probably the day before publication. He’d simply make it all fit the available space. If he needed more space, he’d drop a short article or lop the end off of one. But not likely the birth announcements, not likely at all. I can’t imagine them not running in their entirely. After all, holding over some would just demand more space the following week.
This is assuming they ran weekly, which they probably did. We need to check microfilm to see for sure.
The number of pages in a newspaper is decided not by how much copy (articles, etc.) but how much ad revenue there is. And different sections will have different allocations and deadlines. National and local news pages are put together at the last minute, in a hurry. Same with sports. But not editorials and features and data like the announcements, which would be prepared in advance to free the linotype operators to set deadline articles.
Another thing: those announcements from the other islands may not have been sent to the Honolulu papers, unless the islands were in their circulation area. I have no idea. Again, we need to see microfilm to determine the pattern.
I have no experience whatsoever with Hawaii newspapers, so take it for what it’s worth.
You and bp2 both have a “Blackstone” problem. Do you want to figure it out, or do you want me to set you straight. If I set you straight, I expect a “Thank you, parsy, for clearing that up!”
parsy, the brave and fearless Drone, going where no other Drone has gone before.....bzzz.....bzzz....
I've made it perfectly clear to everyone that I don't support Obama and in fact detest him and his Chicago thugs. All but the most obtuse and disingenuous birthers, like yourself, recognize that fact. But it has become the modus operandi of birthers like you to attribute a disagreement between freepers to something sinister and deceptive. Your refusal to accept that there are loyal freepers who don't see things your way is arrogant and/or egotistical.
Yes it is case law, but it does not say what you represent it to say.
Thanks, Jedidah.
It appears from the BC’s posted online that Kapiolani at least sent their BC’s to the state registrar on Fridays. I don’t have a lot of the Tripler or Wahiawa BC’s but it seems like Tuesday may have been the day for them. It could be that they staggered the days so that Kaiser-Queens had one day, Kapiolani another, etc. That would keep things on a more continuous basis rather than everything coming in on one day.
Just looking at the Kapiolani BC’s (since that’s where Nordykes were born and where Obama claims he was born), if they gave their BC’s to the state registrar on Friday, when would you expect the typesetting for that list of births to be done, and what kind of publishing date would that result in?
Regarding births from the other islands, if those were reported on a master list by the DOH, wouldn’t those have to be included in the Honolulu announcements? Or would a newspaper have discretion to print only certain announcements?
It was already shown that the Obama and the Nordyke announcements ran 3 days apart. The same number of days between the filing dates of the birth certs.
How would things be done if there were announcements for, say, 3 days in a row and then a couple days were skipped, and then 2 days in a row and then a day skipped.... IOW, if there were announcements on more than half the days but not all the days, and there was no rhyme or reason as to which days lacked announcements?
If there was a master DOH list of births for the week, what procedures would result in this kind of patchy outcome?
But it has become the modus operandi of birthers like you to attribute a disagreement between freepers to something sinister and deceptive. Your refusal to accept that there are loyal freepers who don't see things your way is arrogant and/or egotistical.
Oh contraire, it's you who behaves disingenuously with faux responses.
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.