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.

[parsifal]

When are you going to learn to keep your trap shut lest you cram your big foot right in it? Your proper response should have been, (Psssst: Hey, parsy, what does this sh*t mean?Keep it on the DL.)

And I would have told you, IT BACKS UP WONG, in that Congress can’t decide what a natural born citizen is for purposes of the presidency by passing a law. It takes either an Amendment or a court case LIKE WONG to decide...

But, you never learn...

parsy, who says get the shoe out of mouth, go brush your teeth, and come back, and next time think and ask before you leap, Grasshopper!

[Las Vegas Ron]

Grow up. You’re not too ignorant to realize that there is no law federal or state that requires a presidential candidate to produce his birth certificate.

LOL, rest easy Buckhead, maybe your nest POTUS will be the son of Putin, or maybe even osama himself.

You would support that too, wouldn't you?

Your lame attempt at obfuscation is once again apparent, this thread and most the discussions have been about the validity of what was posted on line and the NBC clause.

Buzz off, defender of the won.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm trying to find a link to any story that says that Lingle has seen the birth certificate. There are none. There are stories that report that she sealed the birth certificate, but nothing that ties Lingle's comments to having seen the certificate first-hand.

The first article you link only has a reference to Lingle having made statements. ("Birthers denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii's Republican governor, Linda Lingle.")

The second article you link only has the throwaway line " Because as you know, as he was born there..." which is not backed up by any evidence. Lingle could simply have been repeating what she heard Obama say. I do not know if this statement is what was being referred to in the above quote from the first link. It would be circular if it were -- one circumstantial comment used to validate another.

There is nothing that I have been able to find that has Lingle saying that she reviewed the evidence and can positively state based on her review that he was born in Hawaii.

Only Fukino has made a statement like that.

-PJ

[BP2]

> The Wong Court didn’t make a mistake. They got it right.

If Wong Kim Ark got it right, why did we need to pass:

The 1924 Immigration Act for American Indians?
The 1946 Filipino Naturalization Act for Filipinos?
The 1952 Immigration Act for Chinese Americans?

[Red Steel]

The Indiana court's opinion uses as their "crown jewel" the NBC comment (seen below) right before they hold to dismiss the case in the next sentence.

The comment comes from an INS case that is unsupportable by any Supreme Court precedence. It's a comment out of the blue, which I suspect, was spoken by the alien's lawyer to elicit emotional appeal to get the case reopened and that a liberal judge felt pity who placed it in his opinion. Furthermore, the Indiana court never said categorically that Wong Ark or Barack Obama are natural born citizens.

Here is my last post to you below as it seems things need to be repeated to you over and over again:

------------

Friday, February 26, 2010 2:20:21 AM · 1,250 of 1,408
Red Steel to parsifal; BP2; DoctorBulldog; mojitojoe; Fred Nerks; bgill

Taking a closer look at that Indiana court decision.

Which says "...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”)"

http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156

These Indiana judges concluded by using an INS deportation case to quote in their dismissal which was accepted as fact by the sitting circuit Judge Cudahy, appointed by Jimmy Carter, that is irrelevant to his deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer of the illegal alien.

You've got to be kidding me Parsy if you think this Indiana court case, you love to post, could really stand up to any scrutiny. These guys threw ink to paper just to sweep this case under the rug. If I can shoot holes in it from the early hours in the morning think of what a good team would do with it. It is pure folly barely worth the paper it's written on.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1222 | View Replies

[BuckeyeTexan]

I’m not following you. The Constitution does not define natural born citizen. U.S. Code (Title 8) 1401, which is a statute, lists everyone who is a citizen (and therefore not a naturalized citizen, but a native citizen). 1401 specifically lists those born abroad to two citizen parents as being citizens (native citizens, right?). Yet the Foreign Affairs manuals stipulates that just because they’re citizens doesn’t mean they are necessarily NBC eligible for the presidency. So the State Dept seems to be saying that not all citizens (native, since they’re not naturalized) are inherently eligible for Constitutional purposes.

[DJ MacWoW]

That’s about the size of it. Anyone who knows history realizes that the Founders had just won our freedom and would NOT compromise it by allowing any kind of foreign influence. Men lost their lives in order for us to be SEPARATE from other countries. ANYONE with foreign ties would be verboten.

[parsifal]

I have no idea whether she saw it or not. I have to suspect she snuck a look at it, because heck, I would have. All Iknow is what was reported, that she said he was born in Hawaii.

parsy, who is sorry he has nothing else

[parsifal]

I know. But, I read the case. Re-read the case. It will be good practice.

parsy

[edge919]

I though it was more specific:

” ... the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

Sounds like they have mutually exclusive definitions of what it means to be a natural born citizen, and it certainly doesn’t conform to the distorted faither view of WKA.

[DJ MacWoW]

Give a link to Gov Lingles statement.

[BuckeyeTexan]

There aren’t more than two classes of citizenship. There are only native and naturalized. There are multiple paths to being designated a native citizen. But only ONE of those paths makes one inherently eligible to the presidency. (Born here, two citizen parents) There is doubt as to all of the remaining paths to native citizenship. Thus the stipulation in the FA manual and the statements of Justice Waite in Minor v, Happersett. Thus the need for a clear SCOTUS ruling. IMHO.

[Fred Nerks]

...we don't know whether Dr. West had seen a report of an HI birth or a report of a foreign birth to an HI resident.

And we don't know if that conversation ever took place. She used the name of a Doctor who had recently died.

If Toot went to a local registrar to report the Kenya birth of her HI resident daughter on Aug 8, 1961, the "accepted" filing (looking perhaps like the Blaine BC) would have gone into a pile at DOH separate in time from the Kap. hospital BCs.

That is what fascinates me about the entire BC saga. In 1961, if I wanted a birth announcement to appear in the local newspaper, I simply completed the appropriate form at the newspaper office counter, paid the fee...newspapers aren't published for nothing. Space has to be paid for. Another question: WHAT IF THE PARENTS DID NOT WISH THE BIRTH TO BE ANNOUNCED?

The system we are expected to believe does not allow for any choice for the parents! The birth will be ANNOUNCED WHETHER IT SUITS YOU OR NOT?

Such a Kenya birth BC might have been reported to the newspapers one week before the Nordyke twins based on an "accepted by the local registrar" status in field 20 of the 1961 long form. It might not yet have been "accepted by the "Registrar Gen.", as it says in field 22, which may have been the trigger for assignment of a certificate number.

Someone had to go the newspaper office and PLACE THE ANNOUNCENT. Pay the fee. The newspaper wouldn't ask; where was the child born, and btw, SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

What I am suggesting is that DOH reporting of births to newspapers of births may have been made after BCs were accepted, but before they were filed in some cases. Also DOH may have reported foreign births of HI residents to newspapers without any special notation.

You get what you pay for? So many lines.

Thus the appearance of birth announcements in HI papers doesn't tell you where the birth took place or whether the BC was only accepted, or was also filed with a certificate number assigned. Fukino and Obuko weren't there so they may be guessing and the people who were there in 1961 are likely dead or retired.

Mrs Nordyke could answer all that, but don't hold your breath. HER story was that the birth took place in the same hospital as her twins. Not bad, considering there's been NO EVIDENCE THAT STANLEY ANN DUNHAM WAS PHYSICALLY IN HAWAII.

[Bellflower]

I still think the cretin was born in Hawaii

Barry reminds me of a Frankenstein. He is handled and been patched together by a shadow faction. He was created by them according their diluted idea of good but it turns out it seems that he is a soulless monster bent on nothing but destruction.

The weird thing about it is that he actually looks quite Frankensteinish and acts stiff, scripted and scary.

[parsifal]

The statute might call someone a natural born citizen for whatever reason. Who knows what Congress will pass. The language says, that whenever they are called NBC’s in a statute, it doesn’t mean NBC for the purposes of determining presidential eligibility.

Suppose, that Obama wasn’t an NBC. Suppose his daddy was the Kenyan ambassador. Obama is getting ready to run for president, and getting his ducks in a row, and then Perkins & Coie, do a little research and say “WAIT a minute. You fit in that exception! We got problems”

SOOOO, Obama goes to his buds in Congress, and buried way down in the fine print of the Great American Pork Bill of 2006, is a little teeny weeny thing that says “NBC’s are any child born in the USA whether his daddy is the Kenyan ambassador or not”

Being 12,000 pages long, no one catches this. It passes. George W signs it.

Can Obama run for office under these circumstances? No, not just because its a constitutional question. But there is also statutory language which keeps statutory NBC status from being used for presidential purposes.. Which wasn’t necessary but does save the time and cost and worry of a court battle. And there is another reason it is in the statute but I am going to save that one back.

parsy

[BuckeyeTexan]

I’ve been arguing this point since I joined FR. N-S and I have had multiple discussions on this point.

[parsifal]

Happersatt was pre Wong. Wong decided the issue. IMHO, the only thing missing from Wong, is direct language. Which is why I think SCOTUS will never see it (unless they have original jurisdiction which I have not researched). It is such an easy call, that if it can be decided below, it will be.

parsy, who always has an opinion

[parsifal]

“Mrs Nordyke could answer all that, but don’t hold your breath. HER story was that the birth took place in the same hospital as her twins. Not bad, considering there’s been NO EVIDENCE THAT STANLEY ANN DUNHAM WAS PHYSICALLY IN HAWAII.”

If Stanley wasn’t there, how did Obama get delivered there? There is a COLB which says he was born in Hawaii. Point being, there is evidence.

But the real question,where is Momma Nordyke’s statement?

parsy, who says this is a new one

[BuckeyeTexan]

It’s not mutally exclusive if you look at it from the standpoing that the government says there are only two classes of citizenship: native and naturalized. If you’re not naturalized, then you must be native. But just because a statute says you are a citizen at birth (i.e. native and natural born) doesn’t mean you meet the Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS because the FF failed to define natural born in the Constitution itself.

[patlin]

The one thing you did say that is worth response is:

” 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”

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924020027870

No, birthers. Don’t waste your time. Not unless you enjoy reading for the joy of reading. Lookie at a calendar. 1881 is BEFORE 1898 by 17 years. 1898 is when Wong was decided.

Hey ALL, the DRONE says not read & learn, instead believe him & Grey's ruling in WKA wherein Grey uses the dissenting opinion of the previous SCOTUS holdings in Slaughterhouse, MvH & Elk to invent his erroneous ruling that someone who could never have even been a naturalized citizen due to a TREATY, was as much a citizen as the ‘natural born’ citizen, but he never declared him to be a NBC either. Why was that?

The ruling stated that WKA was a citizen by statute, not by nature.

What's the matter DRONE? Afraid of the truth? Me thinks you doth protested a bit toooo much in that response. I really must have struck a chord.