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.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf
Second page.
Article which goes into some more detail, showing that there really was a hospital and a Navy doctor at Coco Solo in 1936. More info at WaPost Fact Checker
The reporter, Dobbs, claims to have seen McCains birth certificate and confirmed that the doctor who signed it was indeed stationed there at that time.
Teacher from Kenmore recalls Obama was a focused student
The Buffalo News ^ | 01/20/09 | Paula Voell
Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:08:54 AM by Corazon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2170432/posts
“I ran out of gas. I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn’t my fault, I swear to god!”
If you get a speeding ticket and fail to appear or respond I(i.e. provide a defense), what happens?
A default judgment is entered against you. I don’t need to cite a source to support that argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=1344#1344
I’ve requested a non-certified copy of the marriage certificate for BHO and SAD. The administrative rules authorize it to be released to anybody who asks for it.
But the DOH isn’t into this following the rules stuff. They refused. I showed them where it was authorized and that UIPA requires documents authorized for release to be released. They e-mailed back saying they had already answered my request.
I guess that must have been when Takase decided I was mentally ill because I couldn’t understand that I had already been given my answer...
HIPAA allows directory information to be released. If SAD was in the hospital, they could confirm she had been admitted. It doesn’t compromise the disclosure of private health records.
Yet, the DRONES continue to claim it does.
It is so simple, nature needs no law because it exists naturally.
James Kent in his 1st commentaries defined ‘Native’ as an artificial term for a person that is derived by the law of man and it is the 1st defined term in Kent's section pertaining to immigration & naturalization.
The natural born were defined in the prior section regarding the laws of nature.
We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation. If a person was born here before our independence, and before that period voluntarily withdrew into other parts of the British dominions, and never returned; yet, it has been held, that his allegiance accrued to the state in which he was born, as the lawful successor of the king; and that he was to be considered a subject by birth. It was admitted, that this claim of the state to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories prior to our revolution, might subject those persons who adhere to their former sovereign, to great inconveniences in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns might claim their allegiance; and, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was, undoubtedly, a very strong application of the common law doctrine of natural and perpetual allegiance by birth. The inference to be drawn from the discussions in the case of M’Ilvaine v. Coxe, would seem to be in favour of the more reasonable doctrine, that no antenatus ever owed any allegiance to the United States, or to any individual state, provided he withdrew himself from this country before the establishment of our independent government, and settled under the king's allegiance in another part of his dominions, and never afterwards, prior to the treaty of peace, returned and settled here. The United States did not exist as an independent government until 1776; and it may well be doubted whether the doctrine of allegiance by birth be applicable to the case of persons who did not reside here when the revolution took place, and did not, therefore, either by election or tacit assent, become members of the newly created state. The ground of the decision in the latter case was, that the party in question was not only born in New-Jersey, but remained there as an inhabitant until the 4th of October, 1776, when the legislature of that state asserted the right of sovereignty, and the claim of allegiance over all persons then abiding within its jurisdiction. By remaining there after the declaration of independence, and after that statute, the party had determined his right of election to withdraw, and had, by his presumed consent, become a member of the new government, and was, consequently, entitled to protection, and bound to allegiance. The doctrine in the case of Respublica v. Chapman, goes also to deny the claim of allegiance, in the case of a person who, though born here, were not here and assenting to our new governments, when they were first instituted. The language of that case was, that allegiance could only attach upon those persons who were then inhabitants. When an old government is dissolved, and a new one formed, “all the writers agree,” said Ch. J. M’Kean, “that none are subjects of the adopted government who have not freely assented to it.” The same principle was declared by the Supreme Court of this state, in Jackson v. White, and it was held, that though a British subject resided here as a freeholder on the 4th of July, 1776, and on the 16th of July, 1776, when the convention of this state asserted the right of sovereignty, and the claim of allegiance over all persons, was abiding here; yet that, under the circumstances, the person in question being a British officer, and a few weeks thereafter placed on his parole, and in December, 1776, joining the British forces, was to be deemed an alien, and as having never changed his allegiance, or elected to become a party to our new government. The doctrine in the case of Ainslie v. Martin, was contrary also to what had been held by the same court in the cases of Gardner v. Ward, and Kilham v. Ward, where it was decided, that persons born in Massachusetts before the revolution, who had withdrawn to a British province before our independence, and returned during the war, retained their citizenship; while the same persons, had they remained in the British province until after the treaty of peace, would have been British subjects, because they had chosen to continue their former allegiance, and there was but one allegiance before the revolution. This principle was asserted by the same court in the case of Phipps, and I consider it to be the true and sound law on the subject.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships21.html
It all boils down to (1) allegiance. The POTUS must have a very singular allegiance to the United States of America.
The point is that you introduced a phantom expert and then backed out when you are asked to identify who the expert was. I’m not contesting whatever claim you were making, just that you were hiding behind someone who couldn’t be vetted.
See post # 1505.
I take a stab at Beethovens Ninth sometimes in the shower.And the Mountie Song from Indian Live call. A musical maybe:
parsy, who sings “Soooouuuth Pacific where the wind comes rushing through the palms....
I feel your pain. All they have to do is stonewall the one time (despite violating laws and departmental rules), and then they’ve given themselves an excuse to ignore you on follow-ups and ignore your corrections of their procedural errors. This is scary and it’s even scarier that they would consider passing a law to virtually allow them to ignore the media and everybody who makes a legal information request.
Someone like Dan Nakaso should be equally alarmed. This is real abuse of the laws that were designed to protect the interests of the public and the media is the first line of defense at exposing this kind of corruption. He should be all over this, yet he acts like he’s their puppet.
You mean this:
“My regular doctor has kinda p*ssed me off. The last time I was there, he kept making phone calls. I think it was the same person and his girl friend, cause I kept hearing him whisper “Tara Soft”, “Tara Soft”....and glancing back over his shoulder at me like he didn’t want me to hear. He was warning her about something. Who knows, maybe his wife is on to them.
Anyway, I ain’t paying nobody $200 an hour to talk to their girl friend.
parsy, the cheap”
Las vegas Ron is my bookie and has a fiduciary responsibility to me.
parsy, who says, “You disseminated me!”
In 2002, Madelyn Dunham, suffering severe osteoporosis, was unable to walk without a walking aid. On a three week cruise? I very very much doubt it:
I suggest the next one to come forward with a story should choose a living person to provide cover for their third-hand anecdotes.
Can you ping me if parsnip answers you?
Is that Janice Okubo in the picture too??
Gosh, I thought it was because of "Standing" and "justicibility".
Silly me. Even though I think the courts have been wrong in applying those rules, those were the reasons given for not letting any case get to the "evidence" phase.
That’s incorrect. HIPAA allows phone book data (i.e. directory information that is publicly available) to be released. That doesn’t mean that a hospital can confirm that a patient has been admitted.
I wonder who that oriental woman is (not 0bama’s sister) - the one behind grandma.
|
> That failed bill included everything except the > Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen. Yep. Yet strangely, WONG KIM ARK's discussion
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. AS SUCH, where the Wong Kim Ark Opinion says "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar", it reads MUCH MORE like Vattel's definition of "Natural Born Subject", NOT Blackstone's.
Restated: It sure the hell sounds like Justice Gray believes "common-law" is Vattel.
Hmmm...
|
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.
