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.
My sister was born 3 years earlier (1965) in El Paso, TX.
The local newspapers just put it in automatically. It didn’t cost anything.
(My parents were really frugal. Something like a newspaper announcement was extravagant to them if it cost money)
My birth in Honolulu was not recorded in the newspapers. Of this I am 99% positive. My parents would have found it and but it in my baby book.
What in God’s name are you talking about?
parsy, who says it is probably too late to impeach Reagan
Are those your posts?
I don’t recall it. Again.
And, BTW, is this yours?:
“I hate Obama and would do anything to get him out of office. Anything,”
parsy, who asks WTF are you talking about?
I have a link to the posts by Parsifal.
I don’t recall it. Again.
From Dec 2009 and you don't recall it? But you don't deny the sentiment. Those are some pretty incendiary comments on the Founders. And it would certainly explain your anti-Constitutional stance.
Well then put up the link so I can go look at it. Are you pulling that well known commie trick, of when somebody has trounced you in an argument, rather than dealing with it, you start trying to smear people?
I would not put it past you Birthers because, as a group, you guys are real good at that. You think calling names is an adequate response to an argument. Which is why a lot of freepers don’t even bother to fuss with you guys.
parsy, who says put up the link so I can see
And one more thing, Mr. Constitution: Ignoring case law you don’t like and trying to get a do-over of an election is what is anti-Constitutional.
parsy, who says remember Al Gore 2000
Common sense about today’s political class
Scroll down to the comments.
Parsy, grow up.
Easy. Not me. Never heard of that site. Plus, the little “parsy” things were missing.
parsy, who wonders why you made that so difficult
Easy. Not me. Never heard of that site. Plus, the little “parsy” things were missing.
parsy, who wonders why you made that so difficult
I wouldn’t have to look. I’d know if that was my opinion.
I would advise against doing what you did in post # 2091.
That is, using language in a pattern typical of that used by someone trying to deceive.
Especially when you’re trying to convince others that you’re not being deceptive.
(parsy, who doesn’t like me much at the moment)
But you are not a zen master with MPD. Context is everything. Plus I pretty much stay on FR unless I am in PUF, which is on hold at the time.
parsy, who is not in just one place at a time
Oh my goodness! Is there a full moon tonite?
parsy, who doesn’t dislike you. (I am a little ticked off at DJwoW for that all that run around, but I will get over that in a few minutes.)
You just gave yourself away again.
If you hadn’t been trying to be deceptive, you would have asked me what I meant in my post # 2093.
But instead you preferred to move on, hoping it would get lost.
Plus, the little “parsy” things were missing.
THAT'S the way you tell it's not yours?! Not by the opinion?!
The posts are his. He never denied the sentiment.
I was afraid to ask. I have ruthlessly attacked and humiliated already on this thread. I feel like Elephant Man, and I am running down the street with hordes of Birthers trying to get me, simply because I am different. I holler back, the best I can...I am a man....I am a man....
parsy, who has suffered in silent dignity
I’d wager you’re right.
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.