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 Oahu or on the neighbor islands of Kauai, Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, or Lanai), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of Oahu) 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 (Obamas 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.
ROTFLMAO.....
I disagree with your interp. of Wong, but DAAAAAYMN... that was funnier than hell!
But he perjured himself in Arizona when he signed a statement saying that he was a natural born US citizen.
Yep. Just one of many laws the cretin has broken. He makes Bill Clinton look like a cub scout out to get his first merit badge....
I been listening to that kind of stuff since I was a kid in the 60’s. Heck, I’m more scared of Wall Street than I am the commies taking us over.
Do Americans look like they’re cowed BY OBAMA?
parsy, the fearless
You mean that Indiana state case where they punted as in writing obfuscations from their desk so they don’t have to see the NBC issue go to trial on the merits ....that case really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
OK, I’ll pull it up on another window. So I can read it at my leisure. :-)
See, the law CAN be fun!
parsy, who’s got to get a new front wheel on the “His” trike
LOL
Ok that begs the question... what happened to the first one?
Don’t EVEN go into the extension cord thing...(shudder)
Can a class of people have standing where any one of them doesn’t individually?
For instance, “Jane Roe” had already had the baby by the time Roe v Wade was decided. But when SCOTUS took the case they took it for a class of people that didn’t even include Jane Roe by the time the case had gone that far. It was basically a class-action suit on behalf of anybody who WOULD have standing - and they justified it by saying that a person shouldn’t be denied rights simply because their “standing” would be gone by the time the judicial gears had gotten far enough to decide the case.
So they totally got around the issue of “standing” by saying they were deciding as a class action on behalf of theoretical people who WOULD be affected.
Can “we, the people” as a class have standing to demand our Constitution be followed, or bankruptcy laws, or Senate rules, or anything where the rule of law is being violated by the government?
Somehow, I just knew that wasn’t going to light your bulb.
But, you can learn from it now, and try to start helping your fellow Birthers bring the Mother Ship back to Earth, or you can find out in the future after you have wasted years chasing the Elusive Butterfly of False Hopes thru the Cow Pastures of Reality.
parsy, who was feeling poetic
You almost have to. The back and forth of what what was what when... its confusing, but THAT is the law as it stood when the cretin was born.
The law has him by the short hairs, regardless of the Hawaiian adoption loophole he used.
I got your number Bambi... we know what you did.
Feeding....feeding... I posted that before I read others saying that he using junk from Politico or whatever it is.
The freak is certifiable, like an evil clown. Somehow he reminds me of that Gacey monster. Only weaker.
I agree with what you say, except that the bad guys aren’t necessarily all in agreement. They don’t all like each other. Sooner or later they’ll start eating each other up.
It's already been broken down into component facts. I don't recall seeing where anybody sought advice nor your opinion on how you think a lawsuit should be filed. You've demonstrated no expertise and poor understanding of some of the things you've cited anyway. Your shtick won't work here.
OK, parsy you go girl - I’m now convinced. Keep those ditty doooos coming.
Hee.
I'll give it the slow and the slower read.... ;-)
Wow .. you’re new here, too, as of today.
FR’s gettin’ suddenly mighty ‘attractive.’
LOL ..
edge919
Since Feb 25, 2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/~edge919/
You probably wouldn’t lose the standing argument if you had some evidence. That’s whats missing. I think the courts would bend stuff a little if there was some reason to do so.
The problem is, when they get into the birther stuff, there is just nothing to it. I know you don’t want to hear it, but that’s just the truth. Do you know how we look at the truthers? Or the people who don’t think we actually landed on the Moon?
Then they start off on the “evidence” they have and when you start going thru it, it just kind of evaporates. Yeah, flags do wave in a vacuum. Building do fall down when thier inner skeleton melts.
Well, the sad truth is, the “He wasn’t born in Hawaii” birthers don’t even have truther or no moon-landing level of evidence. Birthers can’t even get it out of the gate before it stumbles and falls.
The “Not an NBC” birthers have it a lot easier. Their arguments are all legal theory, so there is no way to really slap them down until the theory goes ooopsies! And even then, they can argue the Court was wrong. And most people don’t have a clue about cases versus treatises, precedents, etc. And most people who try to explain it are stuffy lawyer types who don’t know how to put things into American.
Look at what I’ve posted tonite. That Indiana case is real easy to read. Wong gets affirmed. The case isn’t binding on any other court but it gives a pretty good clue how the existing law is going to come down. YET, I am having to go uphill against this stupid Vattel and John Jay stuff that any court worth its salt will drop kick out of the courtroom in afew minutes.
Birthers just don’t want to believe what they don’t want to believe. Its human nature. Sometimes, some people will learn and change. Its makes it all worth while.
Here’s the case. You read it. Pages 13 to 18.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy
That IS NOT A FACT. THAT IS AN OPINION. OPINION, huh? What are the FACTS, Parsley?! FACT:
Lots of FACTs there, Parsley. And a lot of "blind faith" by the After-Birthers.
|
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.