DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[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.

[parsifal]

I love the logical arguments of the Birthers! The sound reasoning. The complete explanations. The rational answer to questions.

[butterdezillion]

I’ve also added another post to my blog, at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/corroboration-re-cert-numbers-assigned/

This one shows that the certificate numbers we know of also corroborate Okubo and the CDC’s claims that certificate numbers are assigned by the state registrar.

Thank you to those here who helped me on this by supplying the raw data in your possession. We’re all just one drop alone, but together we can make a flood.

[MHGinTN]

Parsi, you didn’t need to post that. We already knew where your strange mind dwells.

[parsifal]

FWIW, they have a good answer to your questions. Here's their Exhibit I. I am not sure a Court would accept it or give it much weight, but I look for them to rely heavily upon it:

[BP2]

Parsley, do YOU want to take a crack at it,
since Wiggy is obviously stumped:

Is the reliability of the "evidence" that got us to the
"conclusion" on Obama's Eligibility unimportant?

[parsifal]

Look at number 848. I was merely passing along some of the Birther documentation. I can’t wait for Orly to use this in court, some day.

parsy, who thinks it fairly represents the Birther level of rhetorical skills

[butterdezillion]

I hear what you’re saying. Right now I wouldn’t want to rest my fate on any court in this land. That’s really sad to say, but I think that’s where we’re at as a nation.

After seeing what the “Magnificent Seven” did to try to help Clinton’s political buddies - including bypassing the random assignment of cases.... there’s just way too much crap going on for me to trust the judiciary.

I think the judiciary will be a lot more honest if they know the entire nation knows there is criminal activity being covered up. All we have as a check to the power of the judiciary is our own awareness and our voices raised publicly.

That’s why I keep pimping my blog. I’m normally a person who quietly goes about my business and if people want me to shut up I do. I just don’t think I have that luxury any more. Not if I want to give my kids a future in this world.

[EnderWiggins]

"Show me any place where it says that in internet image of a COLB is acceptable for evidence of anything?"

There you go again, changing the subject. I have never once said an Internet image of anything is reliable. It is the COLB itself that is reliable. We know it exists because independent third party reporters went to Chicago and checked.

Remember, butter. The best you (or the American people) are ever going to personally get in even the best of circumstances is an image (newspaper or Internet) backed up by the testimony of a reporter. You are never going to get to hold Obama's birth certificate in your own hand.

If that is not good enough for you, then you should absolutely not vote for Obama.

"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."

There you go again... trying to make excuses and blame the DOH because you have no evidence to contradict the COLB. I know that is the best you can do though, so I understand your predicament. But I have no sympathy for you.

If you have actual evidence that the COLB is not exactly what it is presented to be, then you are about a year and a half late filing the criminal charges against the DOH for fraud. That would have blown this whole thing wide open.

[parsifal]

All evidence has to be weighed by the fact finder. Either a judge or jury. So, yes the reliability is important as far as persuading the fact finder. It is not important as to whether it is admissible or not.

parsy, who says thats the short answer

[parsifal]

All evidence has to be weighed by the fact finder. Either a judge or jury. So, yes the reliability is important as far as persuading the fact finder. It is not important as to whether it is admissible or not.

parsy, who says thats the short answer

[butterdezillion]

lololol.

I’ve never been mooned by a troll before. Is that Ender’s ender? lolol.

[EnderWiggins]

"Wiggy, are you saying the reliability of the "evidence" that got us to that "conclusion" is unimportant?"

Nope. What I'm saying is that Obama has some evidence, and you don't.

It does not take a very high standard for evidence that actually exists to be more reliable than nothing.

And that's what you've got.... nothing.

[parsifal]

No. BP2 sent me that. One of his more logical arguments.

parsy, the snide

[DJ MacWoW]

The fact that a candidate is not required to produce proof they are eligible to be president?

I don't understand your problem. You were told yesterday that the DNC and RNC are responsible for vetting candidates. They send a document to every state that says the candidates are Constitutionally eligible. Those documents have been posted on this thread. Since Obama is not NBC, they and Pelosi are guilty of fraud.

Post 599

[little jeremiah]

Shut up, fool. I won’t be bothering with reply to or reading anything you dribble onto any thread.

[little jeremiah]

Oh, and they’re paying you too much. You’re a really dumb troll.

[BP2]

I don't have to. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution, US State Department regulations, and the Federal Rules of Evidence have already done that.

WOW.

The FFC, USCON, the State Dept and the FRE cover the "chain of evidence" of a COLB given BY partisan hacks TO partisan hack to verify the Eligibility of the POTUS??!

Do any of those references say anything about "reliable evidence"?

PLEASE school me, Wiggy ...

[butterdezillion]

Yes. Absolutely, keep working on that. It can at least help for 2012. And the court cases might take until then.

HEck, it might be until then before the conservative talkers ever get the courage to stop bad-mouthing us and actually look at the evidence we’ve got.

Everybody has a role to play. Those who aren’t comfortable bringing up something that makes them appear like a loony, that’s OK. There are much tamer routes you can take. We need it all. All I ask of anybody is that they be as honest as they can in sorting it all out and don’t make fun of people if you haven’t checked out what they’re actually saying.

[parsifal]

I went back to see exactly what you were talking about. The image of the COLB could only be entered into evidence as what it is, a photograph of a thing. If in court, the document itself would be presented into evidence. Some courts would want a certified copy. Some wouldn’t. But as evidence, oh yes the COLB could be easily introduced and accepted.

parsy, who went back

[butterdezillion]

I’ve tried to stay quiet in your conversations but when a person can look at all the stuff posted here and point to a picture of a troll mooning somebody and call that alone “documentation”, we’ve officially entered the loony bin.

lol.