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.
Orbital dictum or obiter dicta.
;-)
I hate to seem dumb, but I am missing the relevancy of Diaz. It looks like the Indiana court was just piling on the Birthers by giving them one last kick in the pants in case the door didn’t hit them in *ss on the way out — to wit, and saying in effect “Dumb *sses! Even an illegal mexican who fathers kids here and is on his way back across the Rio Grande can make little “natural born citizen” bundles of joy while he is here.”
OR
It was being cited for two reasons, one above, and as a “standard of review” case which had the extra kick of the NBC angle.
A standard of review is hard to explain, but basically in this case it would be the court saying to them, “I have the right to kick you out the door, because you have not really overcome the burden you had coming in the door of my courtroom.”
Notice, in Diaz, that there were some “abuse of discretion” questions, which is a “standard of review” for certain agency decisions. Courts have to give a legal basis for what they do. That is why we get written opinions.
The placement of Diaz at the end of the case makes me think it was more “standard of review”.
Also, I have said all along the Indiana decison is not binding on feds, only on any courts below it. What it is good for, is that it is a whole lot shorter and easier to read than Wong; that it is current; that it shows how modern courts use Wong; and it specifically mentions Birthers; and it specifically mentions the Vattel end- around-the-Constitution stuff, and —it deals with Obama!
I apologize for not answering you quicker. For some reason, I had it in the back of my mind this was one of those things bp2 brought up.
And finally, the Diaz decision really goes to show how stupid the government is. You got a guy here who is married and got two kids, AND A JOB, and been here nearly 20 years, and we ship him back so mom and the kids can go on welfare and food stamps....
And, he probably just swum the Rio Grande and come back anyway.
parsy, who hopes this answers your questions
I have a link to the briefs if you want them.
http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/case.htm
I haven’t had time to read them yet. I don’t have a printer hooked up yet, and I am used to printing off decisions and using a yellow/pink hiliter to zero in on relevant points and language.
parsy, who has been staying busy
Sorry, but I posted a direct source saying EXACTLY what can be released. If you called the hospital and asked for a person by name, they can tell you if the person is there, unless they were instructed not to tell anyone. SAD isn’t exactly able to do this.
“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.”
Sorta, but during the Wong analysis, they ended up doing both. The Wong court knew about the NBC clause. They mention the NBC language often. Yet, they say there are only two kinds of citizens-—born here’s and naturalized—and the way they got there was adopting language and English common law as indicative of the Framer’s intent. But since Wong wasn’t running for President, they didn’t need an extra sentence to cover that.
But it is clear that it does. They could have said, “The 14th covers indicates we have 2 kinds of citizens, and BTW, if the NBCX question ever comes up, that makes 3. They didn’t. Because the analysis CLEARLY covers that point.
Is that just my opinion? No. It is the common sense view of most people.
Look at Indiana again:
The Birthers: “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, the Court: “ 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)
And remember the Birther Admission: Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject....
parsy, who is in the majority for once
No, it's a regular news item. It wouldn't have to be breaking news to be published on a regular schedule. Hawaii had around 15,000 births in 1961, IIRC. What is that ... about 300 per week?? Depending on a newspaper's guideline for publishing names, they would need to print them very regularly, just to stay on top of the volume of announcements.
How closely would you expect the Honolulu papers to resemble each other on the announcements?
Sorry, but Indiana was wrong about Wong. As you’ve shown several times, the lack of citizenship was an important element in the decision and it only reached the conclusion because the parents were permanent immigrants who didn’t have temporary allegiance. You posted all the citations that prove this and just ignore these facts in favor of a glossy misunderstanding of the decision. The Indiana court didn’t hear full arguments and made a nonbinding inclusion of its own argument, which is moot to its actual decision. You know as well as I that sloppy work like this gets overturned. This judge is safe, because this part wasn’t binding. The judge would have been better served to write a letter to the editor of the local paper.
Thanks! I like to think I’m the Birther’s favorite non-birther.
parsy, who hopes he isn’t delusional
Assuming the source information was the same, I’d expect it to be a lot alike. Reporters, editors and typesetters don’t want to invest a lot of time into stuff like this. My guess is that a list was picked up from the state registrar and handed directly to a typesetter in the newspaper office, and was reviewed by the page editor for misspellings. The formats of two different papers, in how they print the announcements might markedly different, but the information should be nearly identical IMO.
You don't seem to understand the irrelevancy in citing that case Diaz-Case by Indiana. It's a totally unsupported statement that the Indiana court chose to place in their opinion from a circuit court. And you spamming the thread with this is not going hand credibility to your viewpoint.
These judges who dismissed the Indiana case hardly have a background in deciding constitutional issues. Judge Brown who addressed family issues and substance abuse. Judge May background is in insurance defense and personal injury litigation. Judge Crone founded a program that minority students law related field and founded a South Bend commission in the status of African-American male coalition against drugs.
Notice, in Diaz, that there were some “abuse of discretion” questions, which is a “standard of review” for certain agency decisions. Courts have to give a legal basis for what they do. That is why we get written opinions.
LoL! Hey Parsy, where did you cut and paste this one from?
I see you didn't find anywhere in the Indiana opinion that Wong Ark or Barack Obama are natural born citizens.
Psssst Parsy, because it's not there.
No, the parents did not have to be permanent immigrants. Look at that Diaz cite in Indiana. Red Steel provided a link. In Diaz, an illegal Mexican fathered two kids while he was here and was being deported for being here illegally. The Federal Appeals Court said his kids were natural born citizens.
Wong’s parents were here legally. The Mexican wasn’t. IT DON’T MATTER CAUSE THE KIDS WAS BORN HERE IN THE GOOD OLD USA!
parsy, whose fingers are tired
I would not expect either paper to make any changes from what they received from the state, which would, after all, be the official data. I mean, what would there be to change? They should print the data verbatim, assuming they get the same list.
That statement most likely came from the illegal alien's lawyer who judge Cudahy, a Jimmy Carter appointee, who took the erroneous and unsupportive statement at face value by placing it in his opinion.
Is it a known fact that all Hawaiian births were recorded in newspapers?
I was born in ‘68. My mother kept a very detailed baby book for me. Every darn thing you could think of was recorded or saved.
Same for my sister.
I remember asking her why there wasn’t a newspaper clipping about my birth in my baby book. (I was asking because my sister had one in hers’.)
She told me she never notified the newspaper about me being born. So no notice.
Just to add more to this story, my mother and father subscribed to and read daily every main newspaper in every city they ever lived. They spent a least an hour every evening going through them. (news junkies-old school style)
They read everything—news, sports, opinion, wedding and death notices, etc....
I’m thinking if my mother or father saw a notice of my birth, they would have saved it.
Just wondering aloud if every birth was put in the paper, or only when submitted.
Good point. So maybe they did, indeed, print the list regularly, even daily.
Maybe the state just sent a list over every time they got a page full. Who knows?
I think all I’ve ever seen of the newspaper announcements are clippings. I’d like to see a whole page, perhaps from different dates. It’s entirely possible that one or both of the papers specified where each batch of births occurred.
What libraries have Honolulu newspaper microfilm? This really shouldn’t be that hard to figure out.
Specifically, Honolulu had 29,628 births in 1961. The total for the state was over 35,000.
So what we see in the Aug 13th Advertiser and Aug 14th Star-Bulletin is what you’d expect to see all the time? The same list published a day or two apart from each other?
Is there anything you can think of that would cause a paper to split the lists in half and print part of the list one day and then the other part some time later - like a couple days later, or a couple weeks later?
Can you think of any reason that a particular Honolulu birth would be included in one paper but not the other?
First, the link you gave:
http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156
Next, the standard of review language from Diaz:
A denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings is, on the other hand, a final order of deportation and thus reviewable by this court. Giova v. Rosenberg, 379 U.S. 18, 85 S.Ct. 156, 13 L.Ed.2d 90 (1964). We will not overturn a decision of the BIA denying such a motion, however, absent an abuse of discretion. Kashani v. INS, 547 F.2d 376 (7th Cir.1977); Tupacyupanqui-Marin v. INS, 447 F.2d 603 (7th Cir.1971).
The way this stuff works, the decision of the INS (agency) can be appealed. The INS has their own little court system—an Administrative Law thing with an Administrative Law Judge—who isn’t a real Federal judge. I think they are Article III judges, but I have to look up again to make sure that’s the right article.
Now if you lose in the “INS Court” you can appeal, but the reasons for appeal have a certain burden. The Federal Court don’t want to spend all its time cleaning up INS court messes. So on this issue, the Mexican had to prove the INS Court abused its discretion. That is the standard of review. Some issues are what is call “de novo” which means in non-legal terms, a “do-over”, they start fresh. These are usually on legal issues, not factual issues. Factual issues usually go back down to the lower court for re-hearing of some sort or cleaning up.
So, yeah, its there but unless you know what that stuff is, it just sounds like gobbledegook.
Now as to whether Indiana called Obama an NBC, one more time (this is fun because I have this on my word processor)
The Birthers: “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)
The Very Intelligent and Good Indiana Court:
“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)”
The only person at issue who was born within the borders of the United States was Obama.
parsy
You know that ‘reading’ thing you keep having trouble with. This is another example. The judge says that the natural born citizen claim was made by the petitioner. And, coincidentally, Diaz was attempting to live permanently and legally in the United States (the reason for his lawsuit). When did Barak Sr. try this?? Will wait until you overwrought fingers can come up with new spin. An honest answer, of course, will be, “You were right again edge919.”
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.