|
> Once again... nothing there to do with Presidential eligibility. Sure it does. You and the rest of the After-Birthers are basing your TRUST in Obama’s Eligibility
Please tell me what I'm missing here, Wiggy.
|
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.
So this source is accessible to people from the Mainland?
This is me, protecting.
|
> Once again... nothing there to do with Presidential eligibility. Sure it does. You and the rest of the After-Birthers are basing your TRUST in Obama’s Eligibility
Please tell me what I'm missing here, Wiggy.
|
And what is the evidence that says he IS Eligible, Wiggy?
How reliable is that evidence, Wiggy?
The electoral vote certified by Congress. How reliable is that evidence, Wiggy?
Reliability is not the issue. Finality is. He's the President.
I just added this to my blog post about Fukino’s e-mail. I’ve got clickable links to the sources cited there at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/confirmation-that-certificate-number-given-by-state-registrar%e2%80%99s-office/ :
UPDATE - Feb 25, 2010
What Fukino stated about the state registrar assigning the certificate numbers is regularly stated in the National Vital Statistics Reports when they explain why using 50% sampling is still accurate. For instance, on page 232 of the 1961 National Vital Statistics Report on Natality it says:
“With few exceptions, records are numbered in the State offices of vital stadstics as they are received from the local offices. The assignment of the last digit in the number is not selective, and the systematic sample of even-numbered records may be assumed to be unbiased. Furthermore, because the records are almost always in geographic order before numbering, twice the sample count of births occurrring in the great majority of counties in table 3-1 in Section 3 is virtually the same as the corresponding figure based on all records,”
On page 356 of the 1971 Report a similar statement is made - although we know from the DOH Administrative Rules, Chapter 8, Section 4 that local registrars were to devlier certificates to the State Registrar’s office weekly rather than monthly (except for outlying islands, which were to mail certificates on the 4th of the month). Page 347 of the 1971 report contains an image of the 1968 revision of the standard birth certificate, which includes a space to record a local file number as well as the birth number - reflecting that the local registrars keep their own file numbers for locating the documents but the birth (or certificate) number is distinct from that.
|
>”And what is the evidence that says he IS Eligible, Wiggy?” >> The COLB. You mean THIS one?
conclusive [kənˈkluːsɪv]I don't think you understand the meaning of that word "conclusive," Wiggy ... |
Show me any place where it says that in internet image of a COLB is acceptable for evidence of anything?
Especially when the DOH that supposedly issued it is illegally hiding everything possible that would show whether the thing is genuine and has actually made 2 different statements which reveal that the COLB is a forgery.
Nothing is final until the Quo Warranto is done.
Did the President of the Senate ask for objections upon Certification as
required by Federal Law?
Reliability is not the issue.
Finality is. He's the President.
"Finality" based upon information provided by a LIAR and "verified"
by Nancy Pelosi, another LIAR?!
Please tell me how that's a good thing, Brown-eye.
I didn’t say it was a good thing. You asked what evidence existed that he’s eligible. The only evidence on record is the electoral vote and Congressional certification.
| Show me any place where it says that in internet image of a COLB is acceptable for evidence of anything? Yeah, the DNC attorneys used the internet image of the COLB as "evidence" in their replies to Eligibility cases before the Inauguration. LOL The US Attorneys, "protecting the office of President" now, don't for some strange reason. They hide behind Legal Standing, Jurisdiction and Political Question versus arguing the merits of the case. They, too, know the COLB internet image is bogus and UNRELIABLE. |
> The only evidence on record is the electoral vote and Congressional certification.
Yea, BASE UPON INFORMATION FROM A LIAR.
If Leo and Steve and ever get around to it. I tend to think that the denied appeal by Judge Gonzalez put Leo into a tailspin and he’s considering giving up in the face of intentional fraud.
I support Leo’s efforts on quo warranto. I just don’t know if it’ll ever be heard.
Actually, it don’t. I been fussing a lot with some birthers about the Wong Kim Ark case. The Birthers think the court made the “wong” decision.
By Wong, it just takes jus soli, and the parents not being Indians or ambassadors or invaders. Per WKA, there are only 2 kinds of citizens-—natural born and naturalized. Obama ain’t “naturalized” so that leaves ______________________.
There is no Type 1 citizen and Type 2 citizen under the non-naturalized type.
parsy, who says, That’s the Law!
FWIW, you are doing a magnificent job against the forces of darkness and suspicion! If they get too uppity about the NBC stuff, hit ‘em upside the head with Wong Kim Ark.
I had to tell a few Birthers already that they are the USURPERS, by refusing to respect the holding in WKA, and that if they really were “doing it for the childr,,er uh Constitution” then they would read Wong and respect it as law until it is overturned.
parsy, who clobbered two Birther Myths yesterday
Because then it would child’s play to find out that he’s lying.
(haven’t read rest of thread yet so manybe he came up with a name...)
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.
