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 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.
Wow! That's a big tease (your comment), but I'm going to have to see something really compelling to believe that births weren't provided by or through a state agency to the local newspapers. Knock our socks off.
There’s a problem with FR. Threads are 5 posts behind and freepmail is 4 hours late.
In my view, the DOH vital record birth index disclosure is inconclusive as to whether there is "at least one" or "one, and only one" or whether it was amended or unamended. The HI officials seem to me to be too evasive and uncertain as to what specific data trail there would be beginning in 1961 and going forward for the different possible amendment or non-amendment database fields mapping to an alleged short form COLB.
I will not be satisfied or draw any firm conclusions until the entire vital record file is released, as any honorable public official would have authorized before running for office to remove any suspicion of ineligibility.
Wong was read and dissected the summer of 2008. You are late to the party.
Thanks! I just private mailed someone to check.
parsy
No, what I defend is the integrity of law from those who would bastardize it on the basis of political disagreement.
Allow me to draw your attention to this paragraph in #1230:
“...Nelson confirmed that West, who died only months ago, spent a great deal of his life in medical management, working with the major obstetrics providers in Hawaii, serving the American Medical Association in the state and directing one of the obstetrics clinics...”
Seems she became aware, after she told her ‘story’ that Dr West ‘spent a great deal of his life’ in an adminstrative position.
IMO her story is pure fabrication and that’s why the article was removed.
You’re welcome. Makes for sloooooow reading.
BUT.....There was decision in Nov. or Dec. 2009 which relied heavily on Wong. I feel comfy with Wong!
The Indiana case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
For some reason, the “Birther” guys, did not mention Wong and relied on Vattel, etc....However, the Court reminded them about that little Wong sitting out there...all alone.....and waiting for the Birthers....
parsy, who thinks Wong is Wight
You post a comment on the average of very few minutes between different threads and I have yet to see even one meaningful contribution from you.
If you are sooooo smart, why are 99.9% of all your comments mere trashing of someones argument rather than credible debate.
And for the record, repeatedly posting the same old ‘cut & paste’ tidbits from your washed up traffic law clerk's site is not considered as credible contribution.
“The Dudette” who has just finished with
Alexander Porter Morse's 1881 treatise on: “citizenship, by birth and by naturalization, with reference to the law of nations, Roman civil law, law of the United States of America, and the law of France; including provisions in the federal Constitution, and in the several state constitutions, in respect of citizenship; together with decisions thereon of the federal and state courts”
and I recommend it to all patriots who wish to debate these DRONES who are unable to function on any shred of independent thought. They only know how to cut and paste from their masters sites.
Yep. I have a link. I’m in the car. Give me a few minutes to get home.
Good comment, but it will fall on deaf brains. The bulk of the WKA decision is a review of common law and case law in trying to ascertain the meaning of the various types of citizenship. The meat is in the conclusion where citizenship (not natural born citizenship) is dependent on the status of the parents being permanent immigrants and not visiting scholars. Nevertheless, there will be more cherry-picking and twisting by faithers than you'd see at an IFP Clinton intern party.
Not yet, since no court has asked for one, nor has any of the cases gotten to the point where evidence is submitted. But if they ever do, then it would be submitted.
Has the Hawaii DOH admitted the FactCheck COLB was sent by the Hawaii DOH? What was the Chain of Custody when FactCheck recieved the COLB from the Hawaii DOH?
Hawaii didn't send the COLB to factcheck. The latter got it directly from Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago.
Lastly, are you saying that Hawaii's DOH records have appeared in court?
Not in Obama's case because no court has asked to see them. But they could, if a court asked to see them.
I don’t see how she contradicted herself. From memory, so I may be wrong:
Nelson says Wests says “Stanley had a baby this week”
Nelson now says that West may not have delivered the baby, but could have known about as medical director or something.
The two statements are not mutually exclusive.
parsy, who hates to look this crap up again
Yeah. I know. A lot of assumptions being made. Freepers have been discussing and researching this for a looooong time. It is insulting to pretend any of these people haven’t researched. I believe that was the point.
Good post. Someone asked why Dr. West would have become board-certified after retiring from delivering babies ... and the obvious answer is to gain the minimum qualification needed to be an administrator. Sometimes you have to have the credentials on your resume to move up. Also, if you remain a clinician, you may become more specialized in a certain aspect of your practice and narrow the types of cases you work on. In either case, the board certification does not debunk the claim that he stopped delivering babies two years earlier. That two years was probably spent studying for the board exams.
Bwaahahaha! Isn't it a bit too early in the day to be consuming so much koolaide?
Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?
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.