[Fred Nerks]

Please read the comment posted here - from TD blog. Interesting analysis of FILED/ACCEPTED CoLB - that may explain the reason for a trip to Hawaii:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2059075/replies?c=123

[Calpernia]

I did see RayCPA’s comments from your last link. I can’t remember if it was Polarik or TechDude. One of them was able to figure out what the coding was for that was under that black bar. If they had the original data (which they do now), it would have filled in the blank to give the entire Vital Statistic’s file number. Then the data can be verified.

I think that is why TechDude didn’t release the owner of the COLB right away. To verify the data on the COLB with HI Vital Statistics. But others were able to see the name themselves from the process described and it should Maya. So TechDude verified the owner.

Now, any of us can verify the data with HI. If I find the post with the code instructions, that is.

[SE Mom]

Can you get on TF’s blog? I just went over there and it told me I had to log in- sign up- I did- then it looks as though the site disappeared. I searched on WordPress for it- still can’t find it.. WTH?

[Spunky]

"What do the two following discrepancies have in common:

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

2. There is a black field where the certificate number should be.

"The Answer to the discrepancies noted in 1 and 2 above are the same. You get a birth cerficate number when the proposed certificate is accepted by the State Registrar!"

"There is no certificate number because, while a proposed certificate was submitted (Date Filed by Registrar), it was never accepted (Date Accepted by Registrar)."

I don't buy his analysis. As I said in a comment before. My birth certificate says "Filed" and it has a certificate number.

My analysis on the difference of "Filed" versus "Accepted" is this.

There is such a thing as a "Delayed Birth Certificate" There was a time when births were not officially recorded. There was also a time when territories were not states. (Like when DeCosta was born 1930) So in order to get a registered BC a relative had to fill out all the information and swear under oath that the information was true to the best of their ability.

So it is my opinion that these BC were "Accepted" as being true. Otherwise anyone who was born after these times their certificates were "Filed"

This is my opinion and I am going to stick with it.