Skip to comments.Hawaii "Certification of Live Birth" - Date Accepted vs. Date Filed (Some clues)
Posted on 07/30/2009 6:25:00 PM PDT by trueamerica
On the Decosta COLB (which no one alleges is a fake,) every field header matches that of the Obama COLB except for one. On hers it says : Date ACCEPTED By State Registrar. On Obamas it says Date FILED By Registrar (Notice not the state registrar, this would be the local one ). Two different things. Either that field header is forged in Obamas ( they are from the same form - OHSM 1.1 Revised (11/01) ) or it means his registration was FILED at that date BUT was not ACCEPTED. If you look at the long form copy of the birth certificate available online from 1963, Field 20 says : Date Accepted by Local Registrar. Field 22 says Date Accepted by Registrar General ( which is the State Registrar ).A change from accepted to filed are significant enough linguistic changes that a different form would have to be created. Legally, accepted and filed are two very different things. So both these phrase were used on the form depending on the circumstances.
This section of the Hawaii Revised Stautes explains why that would be used:
Sec 338-16 ( late registration defined ) d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.
So, something entered on the long form was not verifiable and thus, it was not approved by the state. So assuming his online COLB is not fake ( or the forgers were just too incompetent to notice they put in the wrong field header ), all you have with his online COLB is a FILING, not an ACCEPTED certificate
Could this be what he is hiding?
Ping. This information could be very important.
Interesting catch! Too many questions about this matter, it won’t be long before HolyO will HAVE to answer questions, and not in a mocking manner!! This story is spreading like wildfire, and going viral, that’s for sure!
That is interesting. Not enought information about him then either, starting to see a pattern here...
It would be helpful if someone would post side-by-side images of the DeCosta COLB and the Obama COLB to illustrate what is being claimed here.
Was discussed quite a bit last year. Good to bring it back up again. Axelrod is on a flop sweat now.
Lost my ping list!
Right across the bottom of the COLB, it says:
ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE
“...starting to see a pattern here...”
The most important pattern that should be observed and remembered is that no congress critter is willing to stand up and deliver to shine some light on this matter.
A question about DeCosta. The line “date accepted by state registrar”. The date is 1930. That is 29 years before Hawaii attained statehood. There would have been a territorial registar, but not a state registrar. Or does the computer program that produces these COLBs not differentiate pre and post statehood dates? Just asking and am open to explanations.
First COLB has an entry that states: ‘DATE ACCEPTED BY REGISTRAR’.
Second COLB states: ‘DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR’
This discrepancy, along with the other missing records, make it appear that Obama is definitely hiding something that he doesn’t want the American people to find out. Obama is losing the faith of the American People and the foreign governments as well because of his deception on his origins. He will always be suspect until he levels with the people. He sounds and acts like a habitual liar.
Here is the long-form birth certificate of one of the Nordyke twins. The Nordyke example is important, because if Obama was born around the same date in the same hospital (Kapiolani), Obama's long-form birth certificate should look just like the Nordyke certificate.
Looking at the fields on the Nordyke birth certificate, both fields 20 and 22 refer to "accepted."
The Nordyke-style basis for birth registration seems consistent with the Decosta short-form birth certificate, in that the operative word is "accepted."
The different word "filed" in Obama's may be indicative that a document other than a hospital-generated certificate of live birth was the basis of the birth registration, such as an affidavit of birth filed by a family member.
What would be useful would be to see what a short-form COLB based on the Nordyke original birth certificate would look like - would it use "accepted" or "filed?"
Not enough information to reach any conclusion on this.
Very good question. NOT a state in 1930. What is going on?
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.