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.

[edge919]

It’s a pretty bad mistake to make if it ends up failing to protect somebody’s privacy rights. I would think the DOH or any state agency would be very careful how they respond to requests for protected records, especially things like adoption records.

[BP2]

> It is still good law.

Yes. However, it's the After-Birther’s use & interpretation of Wong that is embarrassingly flawed!

If "Natural Born Citizen" for the office of President was resolved by WONG, Congress would have never seen a need to attempt to define “Natural Born Citizen” as it has numerous times this decade alone. At best it would be seen as needless redundancy; at worst it would be an attempt to override a SCOTUS ruling!

AGAIN, here's just ONE example of a Congressional Bill on that very issue:

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2128

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 25, 2004

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' .

(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--

(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

(2) any person born outside the United States--

(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

[parsifal]

Actually, this was germane. (germane means half german and half french)

“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!”

You are right about the first part. But, when you define “being born in the country” as fitting into it, it stays kinda defined. And, a reasonable person cannot read Wong in its entirety without coming to that conclusion. Over and over and over again.

Now, an unreasonable person can. An unreasonable person can ignore all the language going back to 1608 or earlier. An unreasonable person can say to the ones who believe it “there’s no way you can think that, that Wong defines NBC, without being an Obama lover”

Holler, kick, and scream all you want to. You can not reasonably deny that NBC has been defined in Wong. And you sure can’t in the Indiana case. They come right out and say it, in what, one or two sentences.

Methinks thous dost protest too much.

parsy, who “methinks” a lot

[BP2]

Actually, this was germane. (germane means half german and half french)


"The g*ddamn Germans got nothin' to do with it."

You can not reasonably deny that NBC has been defined in Wong.

Yes I can. The answer lies in the language and source materials used at the time the Framers ratified the Constitution, as they indicate from Minor v. Happersett. And in that Constitutional-context, not a statutory-context, the issue has yet to be decided upon by the SCOTUS or via the Constitutional Amendment process.

And you sure can’t in the Indiana case. They come right out and say it, in what, one or two sentences.

I most certainly do! If YOUR interpretation of "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')" falsely confirms that Obama is a NBC, I will affirm that it's a flawed and improperly applied lower court decision. In that regard, it is just like the 70 years of flawed decisions that emanated from the 1939 United States v. Miller SCOTUS Opinion that I schooled you on earlier.

Parsley, the only protesting is by After-Birthers who pick and choose SCOTUS Opinion citations like they're eating slop at a Chinese buffet!

(hey Monkey-boy, I think they're serving bananas for you over on the fruit bar)

[edge919]

You can not reasonably deny that NBC has been defined in Wong.

You're right. It's been defined, and if adhered to strictly, would invalidate any claim of Obama's being a natural born citizen.

And you sure can’t in the Indiana case.

The Indiana case is a mess. It seems to lazily denigrate the plaintiffs case, "Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite." Pinpoint citations?? What the hell is that supposed to mean. I noticed they selectively OMIT the part about the parents being permanent immigrants form their citation of Wong: "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment." Leaving that out completely changes the legal context. They include this quote: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens." So, Obama is a natural born subject AND a natural born citizen?? Obama has apparently claimed the former not the latter. And then this final part, pure comedy: "Based upon the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." Yet in the footnote on the same page of the citation, they admit that Wong Kim Ark did not pronounce the plaintiff a natural born citizen. "The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States." So, wait, this acknowledge that WKA didn't really say that being born within the borders of the United States made anyone a natural born citizen. How stupid is that??

[BP2]

Pansley,

Again, stop quoting Wiki and READ Wong Kim Ark v US.

Justice Gray's citations are VERY CLEAR:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

[parsifal]

I think you are worrying way too much about Diaz. Diaz does not help the Birther cause. Here’s the reality. In legal cases, one has to be realistic. Sometimes the law is just not one’s friend.

If it was, the Indiana birthers would have used Wong. Like I wrote in my totally unbiased and neutral thing for Non Legal Types, those who argue Obama is not an NBC-—do not rely or use Wong. To the contrary, they trash Wong and say bad and hurtful things about it. They would not do this if Wong was their friend. So all your “Wong doesn’t say NBC stuff or whatever” is belied by the actions of birthers who have gone to court.

That is one reason why I gave you the Indiana cite. So you could see how fair and balanced I have been. AND, I ain’t flopped all over the place. I have stayed with Wong and that little Indiana case. There are a whole bunch of other cases I could lay on you. I haven’t because non-legal types would just get more confused.

What you need to do is just accept reality. You have done a good job of trying to wiggle out of Wong, but it ain’t gonna happen. You need to do with Wong, what Andy Griffith and Barney did with Aunt Bea’s homemade pickles——learn to like ‘em.

parsy, who says this has been fun

[parsifal]

Thank you so much for reading the case!

They include this quote: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” So, Obama is a natural born subject AND a natural born citizen??

No. The English courts used “subjects” because they had a king. Since we based the meaning on English law, for the point that where you were born is what mattered and not who your parents were, “the concept crossed the Atlantic”, and we put in “citizen” for “subject”.

The court is saying that so everybody Knows it means the same thing.

“Yet in the footnote on the same page of the citation, they admit that Wong Kim Ark did not pronounce the plaintiff a natural born citizen.”

This is true because the Wong court did not directly say it. BUT, it is contained in the analysis of the law by the Wong course.

This might be confusing because when you cite a case, in another case, you don’t just put in the conclusion. That doesn’t explain anything. So in Indiana, if the Indiana court had said just, “Since Wong was a citizen, Obama is a citizen” —nobody would have a frigging clue what they were talking about. The language and reasoning from the prior case is what has to come over to the new case.

Look at the Indiana case and read where they bring over some of the old English cases from Wong into the current case. That is so the decision makes sense. A reader can tell how the court is deciding something,

Well, in all that old English stuff in Wong, is where you find the conclusion that being born here makes you a NBC. They don’t say it again at the bottom, but it is smeared all over the place throughout Wong.

When a court relies on, affirms, or adopts language or reasoning from an older case, and sets it forth in the current case, the older stuff is incorporated in the newer. That is how we maintain a conservative legal system.

Look at the beauty of it. There is a line of reasoning that runs from at least 1608 in England to November 2009, and beyond into 2010. That is stable. That is predictable. That is conservative.

That is one reason why I keep gigging bp2 on “Blackstone”. There are other reasons, but one is that Blackstone is one of the most conservative legal people of all time. When you attack Blackstone, you attack some of the very core concept roots of conservatism. Now Jefferson wasn’t fond of Blackstone, but it was because Blackstone was too conservative for him.

Remember we were born as a nation in change. Jefferson was part of that change. Back then, if you were a conservative, you would probably remained loyal to England. So it is kind of funny/sad to watch people trash Blackstone, and they don’t even know what they’re trashing. They’re trashing conservative roots to get get Obama. Just amazing.

parsy

[FormerACLUmember]

Okay - tell me who would do something and how they would go about it.

OK, but why is all this a Top Secret Cover-up?

Every inquiry is met with further obfuscation.

[Fred Nerks]

[parsifal]

What you keep posting is the rationale for the Wong court to do what they did.

parsy

[Las Vegas Dave]

Bump...for later reading..

[Beckwith]

I understand perfectly pansy.

[parsifal]

It’s Sunday. Start the day off with a smile! You just jealous of all them womens....

parsy

[parsifal]

It’s Sunday. Start the day off with a smile! You just jealous of all them womens....

parsy

[Beckwith]

Are you ready to spend another 16 hours defending the usurper, pansy?

Are you an hourly employee, Obot? Do you have to send in a statement of hours worked, or are you on salary?

[parsifal]

Time and a half on weekends. But, my welfare check comes in this week, too, so I will have plenty to blow at the boats.

parsy, who wants some of that Louisiana Purchase money

[Non-Sequitur]

You better watch yourself! He found “Blackstone” and is going to give us all heck over it.

Before all this the only Blackstone BP2 ever heard of was a cheesy magician. It's amazing how people can build a whole conspiracy from Wikipedia and out-of-context quotes from Birther sites.

[parsifal]

And attack the most conservative attorney who ever wrote a book.

[Non-Sequitur]

I found a picture of BP2 and his buddies unwinding after a hard day of research.

Non-Sequitur, who's dating himself.