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.

[pissant]

You are doing alot of “let’s supposes”. WHy do you give a sh*t about this to spend every waking hour worried about what the crazy ‘birfers’ say? Since some on your ping list are RATS, that might help explain it.

[Diver Dave]

You were first born that month or year. Were you first born that week?

First-born that year and month (Jan 1st). 'twas a Monday that year but don't know about any births the day before on Sunday (Dec 31st).

[Diver Dave]

Grandfather time indeed. The year was ‘45.

[Man50D]

Does a candidate have to provide a certified birth certificate to run for president?

What part of the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2 Section 1 don't you understand? Are you actually stating this requirement therefore the Constitution can be ignored?

[ilovesarah2012]

You are missing my point. There is no requirement for a candidate to PROVE they are a natural-born citizen to be elected president.

[DJ MacWoW]

Remember the announcements from the DNC that stated the candidate was Obama? And it said that they found him Constitutionally eligible? Accept that statement had been removed from some of the states documents? It was signed by Pelosi. Does ANYONE actually believe that she bothered vetting Obama? No.

So the answer to ilovesarah2012's question is, yes, they are supposed to prove eligibility. ilovesarah2012, do you think the DNC or Pelosi asked for proof? LOLOL

[parsifal]

That would not satisfy most.

parsy

[DJ MacWoW]

There is no requirement

You are wrong.

[EnderWiggins]

Yes Butter. I knew that this was why the Nordyke COLB did not say what whoever it was I was responding to claimed it did. But that’s not your problem.

Again, your problem is that Okubo’s explanation, no matter how authoritative she is as a source, cannot actually be reconciled with what is actually on the Hawaiian BCs and COLBs that we are so intimately familiar with..

[BP2]

> Does a candidate have to provide a certified birth
> certificate to run for president?

Up until a couple of decades ago, a handful of States reserved that
right. I believe Vermont or Minnesota were one of the last
States with Election Laws allowing for verification of National
candidates.

The Arizona AG has some special rights too, but only after
the Certification of the vote. That's a TALL ORDER to tell
America that you don't TRUST the first Black president,
so it didn't happen in 2008. Hindsight is 20/20.

Currently, the State Legislatures leave it up to the RNC
and DNC to confirm Eligibility requirements. Bwa-ha-ha!

Remember that MOST Congressmen seem to think that ALL
Citizens are "Natural Born Citizens," especially the Democrats.

Politicians have always been corrupt, but this TRUST in the
wolves to properly guard the hen house must hearken back to a simpler
time when CORRUPTION and COLLUSION wasn't as prevalent
as it is today ...

[ilovesarah2012]

Then how did Nobama get on the ballot?

[ilovesarah2012]

So the bottom line is they do not have to PROVE they are natural born.

[patlin]

I guess I don't understand where you are coming from since Okubo confirmed in the reply just posted that the file numbers were not given out until the cert applications reached O’ahu and then the date is stamped on the cert. Okubo stated that the date showing on the colb is the date stamped by the state office, not that of the county and that makes logical sense.

As one who has to deal with dates regarding several stops that paperwork makes in its journey to the final destination(my desk), the date placed on all final paperwork that is used for all reference pertaining to that document is the date it was completed, not started.

This leaves one with a common sense & logical conclusion that the announcements would have also been 3 days apart.

But if you truly get absolute/concrete confirmation aka prima facie evidence that the terms ‘filed’ & ‘accepted’ are indeed not used interchangeable and do mean something different than what Okubo has stated, my hats off to you.

[butterdezillion]

I’ve finally got the 1955 Territorial Public Health Statistics Act posted at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/1955-territorial-public-health-statistics-act/

Section 57-17 says, in part,
“Subject to sections 57-10, 57-20, and 57-21, the United States Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Statistics, may obtain transcripts or, without payment of fees, certified copies, provided the Territory is put to no expense in connection therewith.”

And then Section 57-21 says, in part:
“Subject to the provisions of this section, the board may direct local registrars to make a return, upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown thereupon to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies.”

Would you understand that to mean that the national vital statistics for Hawaii come from the local registrars who send the information from their copies on to the feds?

The reason I ask is because the national vital stats for 1961 include Hawaii stats from even-numbered certificates which include BC’s having no birth weight recorded - which is a required item according to the feds and is thus required in Hawaii also. So a BC without that information would not be complete and should not be accepted and given a number by the state registrar. But those records had a number when they were sent to the feds by the local registrars.

Seems like that means that either the local registrars sent their local file numbers to the feds, or the state registrar gives numbers to incomplete BC’s.

Any thoughts, anybody? Bgill, any thoughts?

[pissant]

The only one making sh*t up is you, troll. You are an Obama stooge and do not belong on FR.

[DJ MacWoW]

The party vouches that they are eligible Constitutionally. If they aren’t, that’s fraud. Yes. The party is supposed to vet candidates. So, yes, they are supposed to prove eligibility. We all know how honest Pelosi and Obama are.

[butterdezillion]

They have to sign an affidavit in some states in order to get on the ballot. Obama signed an affidavit in Arizona (if I remember correctly) saying that he is a natural born United States citizen.

But from what we’re seeing in Hawaii, I believe he may have perjured himself. I think we have enough evidence of forgery to compel an investigation. The country has a right to know.

[little jeremiah]

As usual, worthy freeper researchers found out everything in short order, got his photo, biography, and when he retired from active practice and became an administrator - in 1956!

Ha Ha Ha Ha!

For some reason I have a selective memory and some things stick.

[Danae]

It would go a long way to ending the controversy.
A statment of:

“Yes, the information in the online document seen at FightTheSmears.com and FactCheck.org regarding Barack Hussein Obamm II matches what is on file in the offices of the DOH in the State of Hawaii.”

That doesn’t give anything out that isn’t already known, and legitimizes what has been posted by the cretin himself.

That’s not at all hard. But they won’t do it.

Why?

Maybe because they can’t. It doesn’t match, and they can’t say that with out revealing personal information that they have to have permission to give from Obama who refuses.

They are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Its a forgery and they can’t say so because they can’t reveal the information that proves it with out a subpoena or permission from the cretin.

You have to admit, its possible. All the pieces fit. Likely or not, no one thought that a person could become president with out revealing ANY of their personal history or being a Natural Born Citizen either...

[little jeremiah]

Feeble and transparent.

You really need a better script.

If you were a real person, you would have read the thousands of posts of actual useful information on FR and would get yourself up to speed.

Please, ask your supervisor; tell him freepers are totally on to you.