Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: fso301; WOSG; SE Mom
Not so Fast....

From this comment by Aragon on June 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm at the TexasDarlin site see link above ...post #1379:

Why reference is made to filed and not accepted;.....cont

****************************EXCERPT Of the Comment************************

Aragon // June 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm

It’s right there and you all can’t see it.

I am an attorney of 13 years so am used to working with lingo and working my way backwards to figure out which laws and regulations are in play.

What do the two following discrepancies have in common:

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

2. There is a black field where the certificate number should be.

The Answer to the discrepancies noted in 1 and 2 above are the same. You get a birth cerficate number when the proposed certificate is accepted by the State Registrar!

There is no certificate number because, while a proposed certificate was submitted (Date Filed by Registrar), it was never accepted (Date Accepted by Registrar).

The black field you see does not cover a certificate number rather it hides the fact of its non existence.

As an attorney allow me to work backwards here. Given my familiarity with legislating I submit that the State of Hawaii had a system in place wherein if a proposed certificate of birth was submitted by a hospital or registered medical facility it would, as a matter of administrative rule, be routinely approved and accepted by the State and a Birth Certificate issued. However, if not born in a major hospital or registered medical facility then further proof would be needed upon submission of the proposed certificate. In the instant matter, while a proposed certificate was filed with the Registrar it was not accepted for any number of reasons.

Where a proposed certificate is not accepted then an applicant can ask for a hearing or otherwise submit proof surrounding the circumstances of birth for purposes of having a birth certificate issued. My guess is that Barrack’s mother never provided adequate proof to the Registrar of the circumstances surrounding Barrack’s birth. This may be because Barrack was born elsewhere, adopted, or who knows.

As further proof of matters as surmised above, the fact that the certificate of birth we see references African as race testifies not to the State’s labelling practices (which practices did not include such a label) but rather to how the mother or father classified themselves as it was they that submitted the proposed certificate of birth. This explains this oddity “African” very well.

So what we have here is a State Summary of a Proposed Birth Certificate which certificate was never accepted by the State. Perhaps Barrack was born in the U.S., however, what he doesn’t want is to have to apply for a hearing with the Registrar’s office for purposes of submitting proof of the circumstances of his birth. This would be a zoo. And it may be too late to ask for such a hearing in which case he would have to apply for the hearing, be rejected, then appeal to the higher court’s for resolution of the matter. Further, the their may be a constitutional requirement of U.S. birth, a birth certificate while likely presumptive evidence of the fact, is not the only means of proving the fact. Here, Obama, if challenged on his place of birth could file a declaratory action with the Federal Courts seeking to establish his birth in the U.S. for purposes of satisfying, not the State of Hawaii, but the constitutional requirements of one seeking to hold the office of presidency. But this again would be a zoo and legally murky.

Anyway, my familiarity with the law indicates that the above explanation is a good one and accounts for many things:

1. Why reference is made to filed and not accepted;
2. Why there is a black field where the certificate number should be;
3. Why Obama refuses to state what hospital he was born in;
4. Why there is a discrepancy in accounts as to which hospital Obama was born in;
5. Why there is no attestation and seal on the certificate of birth submitted by Obama; (Note what has been produced is not a birth certificate nor a substitute for same as it was not accepted, therefore, no seal was necessary as it is merely a public document.)
6. Why Obama won’t release his birth certificate.
7. Why Obama can say straight faced he was born in Hawaii (because he thinks he was or can say he thinks he was and can just say the birth certificate was nothing but a mere formality that his family never took care of.).


1,386 posted on 07/05/2008 2:39:50 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1381 | View Replies ]


To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Mid-sixties photos.

1,392 posted on 07/05/2008 3:05:09 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Thank you for that well reasoned post.


1,394 posted on 07/05/2008 3:10:11 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

EXCELLENT post and reminder, Ernest!

My sense is that a lot of folks are coming to the birth certificate discussion/question thinking we are jumping to conclusions based on a few blog posts.

There’s been exhaustive studying and research done on this topic by people much smarter than I am- from techies to lawyers and everything in between.

What we’re left with is a mystery that is not answered by - the documents on the Obama or Daily Kos websites.

When reasonable freepers warn this could be a set up- I repeat:

IF we’re being set up- then the documents on the sites are false, correct? Otherwise- there’s no set-up because the doc’s are legit.

SO- IF we’re being set-up, THEY are the ones being deceitful in the first instance. For them to now turn around and say- Looky here- this (different) document is the REAL ONE. Ok, but it’s then reasonable to ask-why did you provide a false one initially? (AND LET IT STAND FOR TWO PLUS WEEKS ON THE OFFICIAL SITE)

Logic...


1,398 posted on 07/05/2008 3:24:56 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Interesting, Ernest. So are we to believe there is no valid CoLB from Hawaii?
1,401 posted on 07/05/2008 3:31:26 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
...the above explanation is a good one and accounts for many things...

I agree...this is an excellent treatment of the "black field" issue. I would like to see a courageous Secretary of State etc. of one of the fifty, or is it fifty-seven, states challenge BO's qualification for the ballot- provided he is nominated- based on the discrepancies in his currently released birth records. We, after all, are dealing with a Constitutional provision.
1,406 posted on 07/05/2008 3:52:06 PM PDT by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
...the above explanation is a good one and accounts for many things...

I agree...it is an especially good treatment of the "black field" issue.

I, like millions of my fellow citizens, have been required to produce certified copies of my birth certificate for matters much less weighty than satisfying the requirements for being placed on a ballot for POTUS. It makes no difference to me if BO has been allowed to slide in the past with respect to passport applications etc.. I would like to think that at least one courageous Secretary of a State in this nation would require proper proof of "natural born Ctizenship" prior to placing him- should he be nominated- on the state ballot for a general election.
1,413 posted on 07/05/2008 4:11:13 PM PDT by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
5. Why there is no attestation and seal on the certificate of birth submitted by Obama; (Note what has been produced is not a birth certificate nor a substitute for same as it was not accepted, therefore, no seal was necessary as it is merely a public document.)

there's a huge loophole there, the document can be used as a COLB until someone questions it?

1,420 posted on 07/05/2008 4:27:28 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; icwhatudo; DCPatriot; WackySam; All
I have tried to not comment on this because my attempts to clarify things in a couple of threads about 2 weeks ago fell on mostly deaf ears. I'll probably regret jumping back in here, but this is driving me nuts:

1. A regular Certification of Birth says “Date Accepted By State Registrar” vs. Obama’s “Date Filed By Registrar”;

This is simply not true. I was born in Hawaii have a Hawaii "Certification of Live Birth" right before my very eyes and my copy says clear as day "DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR".

In fact, the BC put up by Dolores or Doris whoever that people are gobbling up looks funny to me, not Obama's. That's not to say Dolores (who is this person anyway, and why is she deemed credible?) has offered up a fake, but rather a version that looks significantly different than mine--and Obama's.

I am watching this whole thing unravel like a train wreck in slow motion. And I pray to God I am wrong, but from the beginning, this has felt like the Obama camp taking a page out of the Rovian rope-a-dope playbook.

While I'm at it, I'm pinging a couple of FReepers (the minority on this thread) who seem to share the same concern.

1,440 posted on 07/05/2008 5:09:39 PM PDT by KJC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
More or less like the F(lds) situation in Texas where babies are born, no birth certificates issued, and they get popped into graves without ever having achieved public notice.

That's still going on today, not just in 1961.

Now, regarding "submitted but not accepted" (or other statements to that effect), it's possible the specific document which is being referenced was "submitted" and then "re submitted" with some sort of correction or change required by whoever it was accepted records. That would then serve as the source of the "updated" information noticed on the second supposed official certificate.

I'm very happy to note that I have at least one more person besides myself who recognizes that the appelation "African" comes from the respondents, not from the government, and one does imagine Hawaii has always had multitudinous "list".

1,449 posted on 07/05/2008 5:29:12 PM PDT by muawiyah (We need a "Gastank For America" to win back Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1386 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson