Why does Bambi’s COLB read “DATE FILED”, whereas other samples read “DATE ACCEPTED”? Does use of the word “filed” imply a lower level of authentication of the facts the certificate represents?
Here is the best explanation I have read on the accepted vs. filed question:
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/obama-birth-mystery-cont/#comment-2061
#
Aragon // June 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It’s right there and you all can’t see it.
I am an attorney of 13 years so am used to working with lingo and working my way backwards to figure out which laws and regulations are in play.
What do the two following discrepancies have in common:
1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;
2. There is a black field where the certificate number should be.
The Answer to the discrepancies noted in 1 and 2 above are the same. You get a birth cerficate number when the proposed certificate is accepted by the State Registrar!
There is no certificate number because, while a proposed certificate was submitted (Date Filed by Registrar), it was never accepted (Date Accepted by Registrar).
The black field you see does not cover a certificate number rather it hides the fact of its non existence.
As an attorney allow me to work backwards here. Given my familiarity with legislating I submit that the State of Hawaii had a system in place wherein if a proposed certificate of birth was submitted by a hospital or registered medical facility it would, as a matter of administrative rule, be routinely approved and accepted by the State and a Birth Certificate issued. However, if not born in a major hospital or registered medical facility then further proof would be needed upon submission of the proposed certificate. In the instant matter, while a proposed certificate was filed with the Registrar it was not accepted for any number of reasons.
Where a proposed certificate is not accepted then an applicant can ask for a hearing or otherwise submit proof surrounding the circumstances of birth for purposes of having a birth certificate issued. My guess is that Barrack’s mother never provided adequate proof to the Registrar of the circumstances surrounding Barrack’s birth. This may be because Barrack was born elsewhere, adopted, or who knows.
As further proof of matters as surmised above, the fact that the certificate of birth we see references African as race testifies not to the State’s labelling practices (which practices did not include such a label) but rather to how the mother or father classified themselves as it was they that submitted the proposed certificate of birth. This explains this oddity “African” very well.
So what we have here is a State Summary of a Proposed Birth Certificate which certificate was never accepted by the State. Perhaps Barrack was born in the U.S., however, what he doesn’t want is to have to apply for a hearing with the Registrar’s office for purposes of submitting proof of the circumstances of his birth. This would be a zoo. And it may be too late to ask for such a hearing in which case he would have to apply for the hearing, be rejected, then appeal to the higher court’s for resolution of the matter. Further, the their may be a constitutional requirement of U.S. birth, a birth certificate while likely presumptive evidence of the fact, is not the only means of proving the fact. Here, Obama, if challenged on his place of birth could file a declaratory action with the Federal Courts seeking to establish his birth in the U.S. for purposes of satisfying, not the State of Hawaii, but the constitutional requirements of one seeking to hold the office of presidency. But this again would be a zoo and legally murky.
Anyway, my familiarity with the law indicates that the above explanation is a good one and accounts for many things:
1. Why reference is made to filed and not accepted;
2. Why there is a black field where the certificate number should be;
3. Why Obama refuses to state what hospital he was born in;
4. Why there is a discrepancy in accounts as to which hospital Obama was born in;
5. Why there is no attestation and seal on the certificate of birth submitted by Obama; (Note what has been produced is not a birth certificate nor a substitute for same as it was not accepted, therefore, no seal was necessary as it is merely a public document.)
6. Why Obama won’t release his birth certificate.
7. Why Obama can say straight faced he was born in Hawaii (because he thinks he was or can say he thinks he was and can just say the birth certificate was nothing but a mere formality that his family never took care of.).