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 the patience born of cold nights when lonely men struggled to keep their fires lit...No, wait, that’s whats on the Yukon Jack bottle...
parsy, who has a bottle somewhere....
Irrelevant. Note the date. Pre-Wong.
parsy, who ducked that spear, spun and...bzzz....bzzz....
I think it was patlin who called me an inhuman fiend...
parsy, who could be wrong...
You mean sometimes I’m not a know it all? The meds are working!!!!
parsy, who was losing faith...
You should go back to taking about shrimp and Louisiana.
Maybe someone new to this thread will think you are pleasant and quirky.
The rest of us know who you are. A bully who sounds and acts bizarre and irrational when your posts are followed throughout the full thread.
We see right through you.
You’re just mad cause I’m nailing the birthers. I am the one of the little boys who said, “Hey, y’all! The Emperor’s nekkid!”
People aren’t falling for all the Vattel stuff, and the conspiracy stuff and it shatters the gtoup illusion. I am however curious how you feel about Reagan not being an NBC because he was in a line of Irish Kings....
parsy, who notes the tom toms have picked up in frequency...
I don’t personally believe the census records, if available, would tell us whether SAD lived with her folks or not. She was a college student and would have used their address as her permanent address. This is another possible reason Obama doesn’t want anyone to see the COLB. Mama may have used Granny’s address as her permanent address and Barak Sr.’s address in Kenya as her home address or vice versa.
TMI about being a little boy.
It was figurative edgy, figurative. The Welsh parsifal came from a long line of Poet-warriors kings.
parsy, who says that is TMI......
And now that I have answered all the pings... You are missing the part where WONG Court has decided what the language meant. Read Wong again. SCOTUS trumps the Dept. of the Navy on constitutional interp.
This is what I meant in my fair and balanced and completely neutral analysis when i said the thing about a “silver ball in a pin ball machine caroming around”
You can find all sort of language that says what you want it to say. You can even find it in Wong. But unless you study up on the context, you are going to come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions.
Like when you said something about “no Federal or national common law” something like that. True. Strictly speaking there is no federal common law kinda, but there kinda is. By necessity. Whatever, the Wong court and God knows how many other federal courts have relied upon English common law for “original intent” like from the beginning.
And when federal courts got involved in state case law, for whatever reason, the feds had to use English common law for a lot of things. You are still THIS VERY DAY living under English common law in ways you would never believe. This is a good and beautiful thing.
As good and beautiful as puppies, kittens, rainbows, Louisiana shrimp....
parsy, who is wondering why he said that....
You come back with nothing but ad hominem which was the typical DRONE response. I expected nothing more from you.
No I didn’t. “Ad hominem” has a meaning. It means “against hominems” which are words that sound the same but are spelled differently. Some times you are beyond the pail.
parsy, who forgot candy apples are good and beautiful, too
ROFLMAO
Why don't you debate with anything but WKA? Because you can't and you know it. The Virginia citizenship law passed in 1779 was writtten by Jefferson you drone.
If he didn't know what the common law was, I surely don't know who else would have.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You'll notice I took the definition from the site that you received your cut & paste jd from to show it is a valid definition. May I suggest you open a book once in a while. Your cut & paste is lending you no credibility.
Yes, I finally get it. All you DRONES were hatched from pods because you have no concept of natural law, natures law wherein it requires no law to make the ‘natural born’ a citizen; unlike the feudal form of government wherein it requires a man made law to confer citizenship onto a person.
Homophonephobia can cause dizziness and fainting.
Res ipsa loquitur. Amen.
I never mentioned any of the things or people in your post. Look it up if you can or care.
You are losing it.
You need help. Get some.
_________________________________________
I sure hope FReepers remember this thread and what Parsifal has said and done.
Taking anything he has to say seriously on this thread or any other would be a mistake.
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing “to [the point of] nausea”.[1] For example, the sentence “This topic has been discussed ad nauseam” signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively and everyone involved in the discussion is sick and tired of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam
Gee, I wonder how many more terms I can find to use from the site in which you received your cut & paste jd from?
Well, I can go back 2000 plus posts to try to figure out your position, or you could just state it.
parsy
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.
This pretty much covers & sums up the parsy drone syndrome we have been experiencing.
Because we are discussing the legal issue of NBC and that is the main case on it. It is still good law, so I laid that Indiana case on you. Which somebody else pointed out had a 7th Cir. case, Diaz, which called the kids “Natural Born Citizens”, too.
parsy, who says you can’t getthis to court without WKA coming up and WKA will end it for you.
parsy, who appreciates the definition and would give you a candy apple if he had one
Ouch. (Caesar provinciam est!)-—(To strive and to conquer!)
parsy, the Pail Writer
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.