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.
it is total bogus hokem that he wouldnt be in Hawaii in late August or mid August 1980
Even if he was signed in to school, he could still be home before leaving
classes started when? What week?
Maybe he was still home a few days before leaving?
It is a complete fallacy to claim he was not in Hawaii just because he was signed up for classes
I never claimed to know the exact date, I never claimed to have a photo
I do claim that I met a Mulatto male, about age 18 (19 would fit right ther regardless of anyone being a parsing fool) who told me he lived in Hawaii, was raised in Indonesia and was born in Mombassa. And I remember that grin, that part of his physical description, I do remember that.
Some people just pick apart what they dont know to be curmugeons
So , Screw Parsifal
The Department of Health would have only one vital record.
They only house birth, death, marriage, divorce records.
Thought that was understood, sorry.
err....correction, they don’t house divorce records as I recall. That’s the dept of justice.
A birth certificate might verify statutory citizenship, but not natural born citizenship ... plus, sorry to be a stickler, I believe a person would tecnically hold U.S. citizenship, not American citizenship.
Tempting isn’t it? ROFLMAO
I don’t disagree. My point was her use of the words “vital records”.
The DOH should have only one vital record for Obama.
Can you live with that?
They still house archived divorce records. Okubo had to admit this to Donofrio when we noted that their own Web site says they hold divorce records.
I think they’re playing with me right now. I think they want to know what I know. But don’t want me to be able to post it to anybody else.
They don’t want me to post about the birth announcements.
McAfee is bad news.
And, I think I am right because I have begged and pleaded for some birther to present some logically formatted presentation of the birther claims without result.
_______________________
GET LOST YOU EFFING OBOT! YOU ARE TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO TALK SO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE SO YOU CAN HELP THE MARXIST KENYAN, YOU ARE DESPICABLE YOU LOW LIFE POS.
So, if I may put words in your mouth, when you said...
She has. She’s confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii. Problem is, nobody is listening.
You are now retracting that statement and agreeing that it was circumstantial hearsay?
-PJ
I’m trying to help clarify the limitation on what Fukino could declare based on the vital records. The divorce record to Obama’s father is missing a page ... speculated to be a copy of the birth certificate ... so theoretically Fukino could cite the birth record and the divorce record, the latter of which is under Obama’s name (since it’s the same as his father’s). And again, I’m still recalling these claims that applications, requests, receipts and post-it notes are alleged to be PART of the vital records. Fukino said these vital records were maintained by the DOH, but I don’t think she said they were maintained in accordance to state law. IOW, her lack of legal specificity could allow her to reference just about anything as a vital record maintained by the DOH. Since she stated she would add anything else to her statement, there’s no real way to get her to reveal what these alleged records are ... I’m just not convinced that it’s only the standard records she was talking about.
Exactly. And I contacted the Hawaii Attorney General as soon as I was able to find his address (the site said it was being revised and would be out of commission) to ask him to investigate whether Fukino’s statement was legal. Never heard back from him. Now Okubo and Nagamine are giving conflicting stories about whether AG Bennett ever approved the statement.
LMAO!
Spokesbabe Okubo is a piece of work. She really pointed to wikipedia to identify what vital records are?? I hate to mean about a public servant, this is so {Rahm Emanuel’s description of certain Democrats}.
I guess don’t see how a divorce record would impact her statement unless the missing page was used to amend a birth record...in which case it would become part of his vital records.
I asked Fukino specifically on 7/27/09 about whether his amended birth certificate was on record in accordance to policy and procedure. The press release from that evening is what she sent me in answer to that question.
So you are correct (as far as i am concerned) they were not on record in accordance to policy and procedure.
The DOH has been using the term, “public health statistics records” (which is defined in 338-1 as including the records of processing) to refer to everything they’ve got. But 338-18(a), which restricts disclosure of anything on the record doesn’t refer to “public health statistics records”. It refers to “vital statistics records” - which is consistently used in both the rules and the statutes to refer to certificates. 338-18A governs disclosures from the certificates themselves and gives the administrative rules the authority to state what disclosures may be made, to whom, and how.
But the DOH refers to “public health statistics records” (including processing records) as though 338-18A applies to those records. It doesn’t. A is about certificates. B through F(?) are about “public health statistics records”, which includes the records of processing.
So the DOH is mixing up the terminology, the subsections of the statutes, and everything else - to obfuscate everything that comes out of their office.
She or it does love the attention.
VERY good analysis. You have more information that I do. I bow to your superior knowledge!
Thank you for pressing the issue with her and with the DOH in general. They and the OIP are like dealing blows to pillows... its hard to get any satisfaction out of them.....
Nice work!
BTTT and I remember that whole discussion and the final outcome, which meant that date format alone certainly did not impeach that document. I think the document could be real; whereas the internet image of the COLB cannot be rea.
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.