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]

Grumblebuckets!

No, the court writes the decision:

” The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

parsy, who reiterates—if you are born here, you are a Natural Born Citizen

[edge919]

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at with the questions. I mentioned these two papers may have different formats and a different publication schedule too. Maybe the one paper didn’t have a Sunday edition and had to print on Mondays??

[Red Steel]

parsy, who reiterates—if you are born here, you are a Natural Born Citizen

Parsy who has no definitive court opinions that back her up.

[parsifal]

Have you read the Wong case yet?

Diaz was here illegally. He was headed home to Mexico. The Wong parents were here legally. I have shown you the relevant language from Wong at least once, maybe twice or more.

At least you seen to be reading Diaz. Note the stuff that wasn’t there-—Because the Petitioner is attempting to stay here permanently-—

That’s cause it was relevant. Born here=natural born citizen.

Again from Indiana:

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)

REALITY as promulgated by the 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)

parsy, who wishes you would just learn to trust me!

[Jedidah]

The lists from the state should be identical. There is no reason for them to differ from one paper to the other.

I suppose a family could purchase a classified ad to announce a birth in one paper and not in the other, but that would be a completely different thing, not on the list we’re talking about.

Right now I’m wondering if they really did run lists of every baby born, because the numbers cited by edge and patlin must be taken into account. If every birth in Hawaii was published, that’s a list of more than 90 babies PER DAY. Even in tiny type, that’s a lot of column inches.

Privacy wasn’t an issue in 1961 like it is now, and public records were much more accessible. However, it is entirely possible that there was an opt-in/opt-out when the birth info was first gathered from the birth families. Perhaps only some births were published, only those who specifically said they wanted the info in the newspaper.

I seem to recall there being such an option when my sons were born. It’s been a while — not that long, but still . . . One forgets, even the precious times.

[butterdezillion]

According to the CDC’s Vital Statistics Report for 1961 (p. 157), Hawaii had a total of 17,578 births in 1961 and Honolulu had 14,874.

That report can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf

Did you find a report that had different numbers?

[Jedidah]

Sorry, didn’t answer your question about whether the paper might print part of the list one day and part of it another day.

I doubt it. With the numbers cited by patlin and edge919, if the lists were that long, seems falling behind one day would leave you in a situation similar to Lucy and Ethel in the chocolate factory.

[edge919]

Try again, parsy, it’s very easy to do ...

“You were right, edge919. I apologize for doubting you.”

[Jedidah]

Same numbers here.

http://www.nber.org/vital-stats-books/vsus_1961_1.pdf

That’s still more than 40 babies a day.

[butterdezillion]

Yep. Most of them in Honolulu too.

How many were in the Sunday and Monday papers that had Obama’s birth announcement?

[butterdezillion]

They can both be accessed from here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

The Advertiser had 25 total. The Star-Bulletin had 26 and the scan doesn’t show whether that was all there were or not.

[butterdezillion]

Very interesting, Aurorales. I remember being asked at the hospital if I wanted my kids’ announcements in the paper. Is your mom saying she had to actually go to the newspaper herself and place the announcement, or did somebody at the hospital ask permission to place the announcement in the paper?

BTW, I’ve been meaning to make sure you knew one of the latest additions to my blog:

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/corroboration-re-cert-numbers-assigned/

[curiosity]

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.

LOL. The depth of birther paranoia never cease to amaze me!

[BP2]

> I’m sorry, are you better at reading Wong, than a judge?

Yes ... I am saying that! Save your Liberal, new-age, Progressive sanctimonious “Judges don't get it wrong” crap for someone else who just fell off the turnip truck and doesn't know any better!

To put it bluntly, judges f*ck up all the time! Just look at now-Justice Sotomayor — several of her cases were reversed BY the SCOTUS before she was kicked upstairs TO the SCOTUS by Barry Soetoro. Incorrect Judicial opinions are the very basis of our Appeals process. One does NOT even need a law degree to KNOW that Sotomayor's decision regarding preferential treatment of Black firemen over White firemen was FLAWED!!

And do you really want to have a legal debate about Roe v Wade and how misinterpretation of the law led to that screwed up SCOTUS Opinion?! Laws which govern such issues should be determined at the State level, and ANY SCOTUS Court should know this!

A twist of an old legal saying is that “interpretation is nine-tenths of the law.” As such, I assume you also know that SCOTUS judgments HAVE been reversed by later SCOTUS Courts. The first case that pops into my head is Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, which was overturned by the 14th Amendment and, in part, by the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873. There are other examples of SCOTUS reversals in SCOTUS Court history.

In more modern times, the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion — regarding handguns in Washington DC — politely suggested that the 1939 United States v. Miller SCOTUS Opinion was incomplete and poorly written, leading subsequent lower court judges to “overread” Miller's findings. That led to nearly 70 years of laws and misinterpreted lower court rulings that improperly curtailed the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans!

So, yes, I'm also saying that YOU and all of the other After-Birthers are GUILTY of “overreading” and misapplying Wong Kim Ark v US in the same manner! That 1898 SCOTUS Opinion was NEVER intended to determine Presidential Eligibility in the eyes of our Framers — a FACT that you After-Birthers KNOW to be true, but just choose to ignore!

Now ... have another banana, monkey-boy!

[curiosity]

That’s because a standard denial, without the Glomarized response, is a confirmation of the record’s existence. Otherwise, why add the “if any”?

LOL. So the birther argument now hangs on the fact that some Hawaiian bureaucrat forgot to write "if any" when denying some crank's request for documents.

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

[parsifal]

They live in their own world, for sure. I suspect they are having internal conflicts and their bodies are rebelling against what they are typing. There’s probably a fancy name for it.

parsy, who also has psychic defenses

[parsifal]

But, when court after court comes to the same conclusion, you gotta kinda figure they’re getting it right. Which is what really gets your goat, or monkey, whatever. I read somewhere Wong has been cited like 1,000 times. It is still good law.

parsy, who says the monkey pictures are the best part of your logic!

[BP2]

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

Apply your pity to the foolish and gullible After-Birthers like yourself who TRUST the Chain of Custody
of a "document" given BY a LIAR TO partisan hacks, then TO MORE partisan hacks, to then
be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate.

To the few dull-witted people like yourself who still don't get it,
here are some pictures to aid in your comprehension:

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a "FACT".

Now move along, Coco ... snack-time is over!

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

Apply your pity to the foolish and gullible After-Birthers like yourself who TRUST the Chain of Custody
of a "document" given BY a LIAR TO partisan hacks, then TO MORE partisan hacks, to then
be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate.

To the few dull-witted people like yourself who still don't get it,
here are some pictures to aid in your comprehension:

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a "FACT".

Now move along, Coco ... snack-time is over!

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

Apply your pity to the foolish and gullible After-Birthers like yourself who TRUST the Chain of Custody
of a "document" given BY a LIAR TO partisan hacks, then TO MORE partisan hacks, to then
be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate.

To the few dull-witted people like yourself who still don't get it,
here are some pictures to aid in your comprehension:

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a "FACT".

Now move along, Coco ... snack-time is over!

[Red Steel]

“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.

Bad court opinions happens all the time just look at the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, see below. Those judges that I've pointed out to you don't have much experience in Constitutional issues. The Indiana court opinion is inconsequential.

LAT article: U.S. Supreme Court looks over 9th Circuit's shoulder This term, justices reversed, at least partially, 94% of the Western appeals court's rulings.

part of the reason, experts say, is the court is perceived as liberal and partial to the underdog. June 29, 2009|Carol J. Williams.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/29/local/me-9th-scotus29