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.
If the COLB was such good evidence, why hasn't it been introduced at any of the court cases??
You promoting that jpg image purported to be a COLB that was posted first at DailyKook.org doesn’t amount to a pile of horse dung. If Obama wants to prove that it’s real knucklehead, he should submit it to a court in the number of active cases that are against him. But no, he can’t doooo thaaaaat can heeee. You guys are pathetic.
Typical Birther! Half-way reading something and jumping to conclusions. No wonder you guys are the laughingstock of Jon Stewart!
OK, yes photos get entered all the time. Car wrecks. Husband slipping into the motel room with sweetie pie. Photographs of hot check.
Documents?? Kinda sorta yes. Sometimes photocopies of a document are admissible, but there are some rules. Often the original has to be unavailable. Depends on which court someone is in. Often, documents are presented “certified”. Sometimes, non certified documents are presented by a “Keeper of the Records”
And, the two attorneys can “Stipulate” to the Entry of Evidence, which means they agree to enter something before the Court without objection. Good lawyers do this a whole bunch, because it cuts down a lot of the costs and other BS.
So, bwahahahahaha away. Once again, you screwed up. I suggest you go online and google “rules of evidence documents records” and see what you get.
And, do me a favor. READ something all the way thru before you jump to your little birther conclusions.
parsy, who is tempted to send a note to your teacher
| A court won't have to settle for an image of the COLB. They get to see the real thing. Has a judge seen a certified hard copy, or just a reference on a response saying it was on the internet? Has anyone in Congress seen it? |
The bozos cannot answer the question with any credible answer.
NOT a credible answer and not worth the pixels on your screen.
They haven’t entered it as proof to stop the court cases because it’s not real. That would be discovered immediately. Also, a COLB is not sufficient.
But don't forget the cunning way Barbara Nelson told her story...she did not say that Dr West had said he DELIVERED the child. She says he said 'Stanley Ann had a baby...'
Obama by not clearing up the matter by not volunteering it to a court just hurts his credibility. Oh, I almost forgot, he has no credibility like you.
How can an answer that is incontrovertibly true not be “credible?” If you think there actually is a judge who has asked to see it... then show us.
Because the Birther cases have been so pathetically weak, they never get to that phase. They have been getting thrown out at a very early, and embarrassing stage of litigation.
And here’s the other thing. There is practically no evidence for the Birthers to present. Orly presented TWO PHONY KENYAN BIRTH CERTIFICATES. There has been no testimony for the Birthers to present. Frankly, they don’t have a case.
And if it ever did, on the basis he wasn’t born in Hawaii, the attorney for Obama would make a Motion for Summary Judgment, attach a certified copy of the COLB to it, an affidavit to lay foundation, and prsent that to the court. It would probably be granted.
I do not say this to be hurtful, but....There is more evidence for Aliens visiting Roswell in 1947, than there is for the Birhters. You have a newspaper, some testimony that people seen dead alien bodies, some photographs.
There is more evidence that Fred Prumpl was abducted by aliens, and probed, than there is for the Birthers. Fred can give an affidavit that he was picked up. Who knows, Fred might even believe it. But Fred would at least have ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. He might even get a doctor to swear that Fred has a sore butt. That would be two pieces of evidence.
Birthers do not even have this much. All the time. All the carrying on. All the martyrdom. All the BS. And they do not have ONE SINGLE SOLITARY PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
parsy, who’s been sitting so long, his rear end is sore, but he wasn’t abducted by aliens
Yes DJ, you win the proverbial kewpie doll! Do you think dunces like Wigg can figure that out?
....No, they have drunk too much Obot koolaid.
Espero knows that. That’s why his bill to change UIPA calls for “2 strikes and you’re out” when it comes to UIPA requests - where the 2 strikes can simply be 1) working with somebody else or asking what somebody else has already asked; and 2) appealing a wrongful denial.
If they were really concerned about reducing the work load they should be thanking God that some of us are working together because it saves us from having to all ask everything.
But this bill isn’t about saving work time. It’s about getting rid of even the facade of transparent government. It’s an attempt to undo the open records law.
I’ve been wanting to post about this on my blog also, because the actual introduction of a bill aimed at knee-capping people who ask too many questions or expect transparency laws to be kept is a HUGE red flag, showing they are desperate.
The only people claiming to have seen it are the Bobsey Twins from Factcheckamateurs.org, yet for some reason, the embedded photo dates were five months prior to when they claimed to have taken the photos. Without explanation, factcheckamateurs.org scrubbed this data from the photos to cover up their duplicity or incompetence.
Can you cite the document forensics credentials of this alleged independent third party??
No court has ever even asked to see it.
A lucky happenstance for Barry Soetoro. The standing issue has prevented this from being a necessity. Of course, if it was volunteered by defence council, it could have been officially verified as real by an offical legal body. Until then, it has no legal value.
Credibility is an issue that comes into play at court. To get to court requires some sort of factual basis, and hopefully, something resembling evidence.
As time goes on, aren’t you guys becoming a little teeny weeny bit concerned that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE?
parsy, who wonders why this isn’t bothering you guys
“Not only is the COLB reliable, it is so reliable that it requires absolutely no “extrinsic evidence of authenticity” whatsoever. The document itself, even if it were to have fallen from a clear blue sky or have been hand delivered by a partisan flack is completely self authenticating.”
Here is Apuzzo’s refutation of the COLB’s conditional self-authentication:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/02/court-grants-motion-for-leave-to-file.html
Apuzzo:
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate, a long-form birth certificate providing the name of the hospital in which he was born and other corroborating data which was generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which some unknown person posted on the internet in 2008, or other contemporaneous and objective documentation. At the bottom of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB), it states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. To date, Obama has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and two unreliable newspaper announcements regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie validity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fail and Obama should be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept Obama as a “natural born Citizen.”
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.