TerriK: Rejected? (Link Only)

Through reading Op.No. 84-14, I can now give you confirmation that the language found on President Obama COLB ‘Date Filed by Registrar’ is inferior legalese to the language stating “Dated Accepted by State Registrar.’ President Obama’s COLB, indeed, lacks legal veracity. Moreover, I now have reason to suspect that the COLB may be directly related to my question about an amended certificate and Fukino’s answer on July 27, as well...."

*******

I say that the public should put tremendous pressure on Hawaii officials----especially on Dr. Fukino---to explain in detail the difference between "Date Filed by Registrar" that is on Obama's birth certificate that we see on the internet, and "Date accepted by state registrar."

That is, I don't see how Hawaii officials can hide behind the concept of "confidentiality" in this instance, when all we want is an explanation as to what is the difference between "Date filed by registrar" and "Date accepted by state registrar", phrases that are found on various Hawaii birth certificates.

That is, which is more important to have on one's birth certificate: "Date filed by registrar" or "Date accepted by registrar"?

Or, do they mean the same thing, and one is not more important than the other?

So, Hawaii officials: Tell us the difference, and stop stonewalling on this topic. You can't claim or hide behind the concept of confidentiality on this topic.

More great work, MissTickly. Really seems like you are on to something.

MissTickly wrote:

“This kind of trick with her language begs the question of whether or not they COULD see the original birth certificate. Could the original be sealed by court order? If so, it would explain why we might see a “Statement of Disagreement” printed on a COLB with no original files attached to it. Could this be possible?”

My Post:

I’ve often thought that they didn’t say that they saw the ACTUAL original birth certificate but that they could have look at a data base listing that said they have it in some form or other “in accordance with policies and procedures.”

Could it be that Obama only disclosed to the public the print out of the (filed but not recorded) COLB but not a letter or form that Hawaii ISSUED ALONG with it saying that it was only a “Statement of disagreement” not a recorded COLB.

Example, if Obama had authorized Hawaii to send you (his employer) his COLB, they would also send attached information explaining that his COLB was a “Statement of Disagreement?” Since they sent it to Obama he only released the COLB and not the additional pages.

If Obama only provided his employer with the COLB, the employer would easily be deceived since I doubt most would understand the difference between “filed or accepted.” Or understand that they were looking at information that came from a “Statement of Disagreement.”

This might also explains why Hawaii has not balked at the online COLB. You’d think if they thought it was fraudulent they be investigating the fraud.

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.