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.

[parsifal]

Does, too! Does, too!

Seriously, you may have to re-read the thing a few times. google it and see what others have to say about it and what cases have cited it.

parsy, who is swinging on the monkey bars...

[BP2]

I asked you to demonstrate what you know and you did ... not a g*ddamn thing!

In your 1,555 word screed, only a few sentence sentences actually had anything to do with Wong Kim Ark v US.

First of all, it is Clause 5, NOT “Clause 4” of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that the Wong Kim Ark Opinion addresses in regards to “Natural Born Citizen”. EPIC FAIL.

Second of all, as you and every other After-Birther out there knows, the Wong Kim Ark Opinion was about who is deemed a CITIZEN, not “Natural Born Citizen”:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed.

[butterdezillion]

Absolutely.

[BuckeyeTexan]

My discussions and criticisms of Obama and his policies take place on threads other than birther threads. It is only the birthers who insist that I am an Obot, a paid troll, a DOJ employee etc.

The mods have told birthers many times that accusing fellow freepers of being trolls over a disagreement is tiresome. And it is tiresome because it’s illogical when examining the entirety of the accused’s posting history.

As usual, birthers turn their suspicions into their own reality.

[El Gato]

you may have to re-read the thing a few times

Stick that where the sun don't shine. I'm sick to death of being told I can't read.

In reality I've always scored high on reading comprehension. I scored in the 99th percentile on the ITED, and did well enough on the PSAT to be awarded a National Merit Scholarship. I must say that my wife beat me on the math part of the GRE, and I'm an engineer, while she was an elementary teacher at the time, but I scored higher on the other part of the test, much of which was reading comprehension, and vocabulary. I scored high enough on the AFOQT to be awarded a full tuition and and books scholarship for my final two years of college. (Of course being an engineering student helped, since we, along with the math and science types, had our own category for scholarships). Which meant I got the money from my National Merit Scholarship back, to put in my pocket, (and help buy my commissioning uniform)

My daughter and son-in-law are lawyers, graduates of one of the more well thought of law schools, once you get beyond the so called "elites" of the Ivy League. They compliment me on my knowledge of the Constitution and the law.

parsy, who is swinging on the monkey bars..

And flinging the same stuff that the monkey's do.

[Red Steel]

First of all, it is Clause 5, NOT “Clause 4” of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that the Wong Kim Ark Opinion addresses in regards to “Natural Born Citizen”. EPIC FAIL.

Parsy, who is not so well read.

Second of all, as you and every other After-Birther out there knows, the Wong Kim Ark Opinion was about who is deemed a CITIZEN, not “Natural Born Citizen”:

Parsy, who will drone on and on and on.... Parsy, where is my Prozac?!

[Red Steel]

The mods have told birthers many times that accusing fellow freepers of being trolls over a disagreement is tiresome. And it is tiresome because it’s illogical when examining the entirety of the accused’s posting history.

If they ever take a good look at your posting history, the conclusion is inevitable. The mods who have zotted many of after-birther friends over the last two years.

It is only the birthers who insist that I am an Obot, a paid troll, a DOJ employee etc.

You're certainly working for their goals.

[Danae]

Right on Parsy. You aren’t attacking the birthers or what is believed. You just want a clear cogent argument. A is B because of C influenced by D.

You want a written argument that gives a thesis, then states all of the supporting evidence for the thesis.

Gotcha. Thanks! :) Good post!

[parsifal]

Start here. Its how to read a case. And, if I am so wrong, how come the Indiana court went right where I did? I’m sorry, are you better at reading Wong, than a judge? I have not seen any evidence that you can do anything but pick up random bits of language and go off half-cocked on it. And post monkey pictures. And call Obama a lawyer.

I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you leap before you look in an effort to be part of the debate. You could do the same thing by asking relevant questions. And, you still have a Blackstone problem, or two.

So: start here:

http://volokh.com/files/howtoreadv2.pdf

parsy, who is awaiting your “jumped-to-conclusion” and your monkey picture

[Red Steel]

Hey parsy I've given you more than a hint to why that silly dismissal in Indiana doesn't mean squat.

Here it is again in verbatim:

-------

Friday, February 26, 2010 3:02:47 PM · 1,425 of 1,909
Red Steel to parsifal; DJ MacWoW

The Indiana court's opinion uses as their "crown jewel" the NBC comment (seen below) right before they hold to dismiss the case in the next sentence.

The comment comes from an INS case that is unsupportable by any Supreme Court precedence. It's a comment out of the blue, which I suspect, was spoken by the alien's lawyer to elicit emotional appeal to get the case reopened and that a liberal judge felt pity who placed it in his opinion. Furthermore, the Indiana court never said categorically that Wong Ark or Barack Obama are natural born citizens.

Here is my last post to you below as it seems things need to be repeated to you over and over again:

------------

Friday, February 26, 2010 2:20:21 AM · 1,250 of 1,408
Red Steel to parsifal; BP2; DoctorBulldog; mojitojoe; Fred Nerks; bgill

Taking a closer look at that Indiana court decision.

Which says "...see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)"

http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156

These Indiana judges concluded by using an INS deportation case to quote in their dismissal which was accepted as fact by the sitting circuit Judge Cudahy, appointed by Jimmy Carter, that is irrelevant to his deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer of the illegal alien.

You've got to be kidding me Parsy if you think this Indiana court case, you love to post, could really stand up to any scrutiny. These guys threw ink to paper just to sweep this case under the rug. If I can shoot holes in it from the early hours in the morning think of what a good team would do with it. It is pure folly barely worth the paper it's written on.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1222 | View Replies

-- - - - - -

Parsy, who cannot seem to fathom that citing a 'natural born citizen' statement from a circuit court opinion doesn't mean a dang thing. A statement that is not backed up with any Supreme Court holding or upholdings or anything else to that matter.

[El Gato]

If all that Wong stuff was “dicta”, it would not have been in the 2009 case.

Dicta is quoted all the time as if it were part of the holding. Other times it's aknowledged, if only obliquely, as dicta, but used for "guidance" anyway.

But yes, I read the Indiana case, promptly dismissed it, and forgot most of it.

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 Justice Gray did manage a single paragraph:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Those reasons were stated in a few paragraphs right above that final one:

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and

any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.

Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and

that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

(I've italicized what was indented in the original)

[parsifal]

If that the way I have come off, that you can’t read, I apologize. But sometimes legal opinions kind of ramble on, and in Wong, there is a lot of that. I went back and reviewed some of your posts. Maybe the problem is structural.

On a legal opinion, you can’t just ignore all the stuff in the middle of the opinion, and jump to the issue and conclusion. Ask your daughter and son-in-law. But, consider how you would reference the case in a future case. Suppose for a second that Wong was denied citizenship.

Now suppose “Son of Obama” comes up, a guy who wants to recognized as a citizen, but his daddy was a Kenyan. Son of Obama wants to run for president, his mom was an American, and he was born in Hawaii. California won’t accept his filing for the primaries, etc. because he is not an NBC.

He goes to Court. Now the gov’t isn’t just going to say, Well your honor, in Wong, the Court decided he wasn’t a citizen. And leave it at that. They have to go back into that stuff in the middle of the case, all the reasoning, all the case cites, and the determination of the Framer’s intent, and pull out what it was that formed the basis of why Wong wasn’t granted citizenship. Some of that may or may not be relevant to Son of Obama.

All that stuff in the middle isn’t just fluff. It is how the Wong court got to where it did. It’s relevant. And when “Son of Obama” opinion gets written, all the relevant stuff from Wong is going to be set forth in Son of Obama again. BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT...it’s how the court decided the case.

Look at that Indiana case again. Notice how the Indiana court grabbed the relevant parts of the Wong opinion and laid them out again. That’s how it works.

parsy, who was not trying to insult you

[Red Steel]

But yes, I read the Indiana case, promptly dismissed it, and forgot most of it.

The court tries to give the reader the impression that Obama is a natural born citizen but it doesn't really say that he one.

[parsifal]

Give me as minute.

parsy

[Red Steel]

Go for it.

[El Gato]

All that stuff in the middle isn’t just fluff. It is how the Wong court got to where it did. It’s relevant. And when “Son of Obama” opinion gets written, all the relevant stuff from Wong is going to be set forth in Son of Obama again. BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT...it’s how the court decided the case.

Justice Gray laid out in the final few paragraphs exactly how the case was decided. That being on the basis of the 14th amendment, and somewhat tangentially that Wong had not expatriated himself. The rest may have something to do with how it was argued, I suppose, but I have not read the arguments and briefs, and I doubt anyone else here has either.

But the fact remains that the case was not about "natural born citizenship", it was about citizenship. Wong was not running for President, and that is the only time Natural Born citizenship matters. Any mention of "natural born citizenship" is dicta, or in most cases merely part of citations or quotes where it would be awkward, at best, to remove.

[Jedidah]

Well, patlin is saying that the Nordyke and Obama announcements ran three days apart. If that’s the case, maybe the newspapers printed them daily. But that’s hard to believe. Births simply are not breaking news.

An educated guess would be that a Friday deadline for submission would likely be for Sunday publication. But just because Kapiolani reported to the state registrar on Fridays doesn’t mean that the newspaper got the list the same day — unless the hospital made a carbon copy, which is indeed possible.

This was back in the days of mimeograph machines and carbon paper. That’s something to think about. Did Vital Stats compile a list especially for the newspaper, or did it require the list in triplicate from the hospital and then pass one copy on to the newspapers? We are SO spoiled to quick and easy copying. It was NOT easy then. No computers, no Xerox copiers.

If vital stats just got the birth certificates (no list) and had to take data from them to make a list, the labor involved might mean that they did not get the list ready for the newspaper on the same day they received the certificates.

The issue isn’t when the hospitals submitted to the registrar, but rather when the office of vital statistics submitted lists to the newspapers. How often did the newspapers print these announcements? It is indeed possible that various sources/hospitals reported to the state on different days and that the state, in turn, submitted the info to the newpapers not in one comprehensive batch per week but rather on different days sorted by source. If that’s the case, the newspapers may have printed announcements more than once a week with different locales on different days.

That would certainly explain what patlin claims. The Obama and Nordyke announcements on different days strongly suggests different places of birth. The Nordykes on the Kapiolani list, Obama on a general list that includes family-reported births?

Remember that this was in pre-computer days. I doubt that there would have been any effort made to merge lists from different sources. It would have to be done manually and would be labor intensive for no good reason. The births from each hospital would more likely be listed together. I forget how the Obama announcement column reads — is it alphabetical, sorted by date, etc? I need to go back and look.

I would seriously doubt that births from the outer islands would be merged with Honolulu births, but they could certainly have been at the beginning or end of the list. Or they could have had their own day.

As to newspapers’ discretion — they can print anything they want or omit anything they want to, as long as it’s not libelous. However, they really try to be as inclusive and fair as possible, and they would almost certainly try to include any reported birth in their circulation areas. They would just take the official report of vital records and print it as received, no editing. As I said before, this kind of stuff sells papers.

Pardon my meandering thoughts. Hope it makes sense.

[parsifal]

And the two are the same. Read the Indiana case at page 16 where it says the citizenship language parts in 14th and Art. II have been read in tandem since Minor and Happersatt, which was affirmed by the Wong Court. That’s the way the Wong case reads. You can not read it without coming to that opinion. That’s why the Wong Court and the Indiana court went back to 1608. It was two-fer. And in Wong, its in like the first or second paragraph as I recall. I can go grab it again if necessary.

parsy, who is hurrying

[Red Steel]

You can not read it without coming to that opinion.

Orbital dictum by itself is not always an end to its own, and in many cases, may not support the conclusions or holdings in a particular case.

[DJ MacWoW]

I believe that this speaks to what we are trying to get across. It's about citizenship and dual citizenship. It has nothing to do with NBC but is good reading nevertheless.

To "Possess the National Consciousness of an American"