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.

[DoctorBulldog]

[little jeremiah]

Has even a photo been presented in court?

[EnderWiggins]

"I say it's not authentic as we've seen no solid proof that it contains the seal and the signature. Since you agreed I'm qualified, that means you can't disagree with my conclusions. Good call."

Excellent!!! See how well that works? You have now vetted the President exactly as the Framers envisioned he be vetted. By the voters. You now can act on that personal judgment and vote accordingly.

"You're finally right about something. I think there's enough evidence now to make this a criminal matter. We're talking about an impeachable offense. As for the DOH, the evidence of complicity is a little tenuous yet, but for cantfactcheck.org, a very strong case indeed."

Actually, if it's a forgery then the DOH is inescapably involved, since they would absolutely know it was a forgery and thus be complicit by definition in not exposing it. You forget, it is their certification that is supposedly on the COLB... they are aware of it, and they know whether its real or not.

So... if you think there is finally enough evidence to make this a criminal matter, why are all the brilliant Birther lawyers still putzing around in civil court?

"You don't get it or don't want to admit it. We do have evidence now. Spokesbabe Okubo has confirmed that Obama's cert number can't be legit."

Oh... poor edge. You've been buying the MissTickly / Butterdezillion nonsense? Okubo has confirmed no such thing.

Butter and MissT just made that up.

[MHGinTN]

You will notice that this axelgreasy lying fool thinks the DOH should be accused of forgery for what the obamanoids have been touting as authentic, yet it would not be a forgery if it were actually issued in total as displayed IF it came from the DOH. "You would file a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH for complicity in fraud where there is no hurdle of standing to overcome."

Isn't it interesting the misdirection these lying bastards try at FR and remain protected!

[Red Steel]

Actually, not even ghost lawyers are needed to defend yourself from a lawsuit against somebody else. Most of the suits have not even been against Obama... they were mostly against State Secretaries of State. So... most didn't cost him a penny.

Not so. And yet approximately $1.7 million was paid from the Obama campaign to the firm Perkins & Coie who defended Obama before the Government lawyers who took over in about June of last year. Fact: money exchanged hands from Obama to the firm that defended him and who were on retainer.

Of course it's evidence. And until you come up with something to contradict it, it is all the evidence he needs.

Only in the futile minds of Obots and Chrisssy 'I got a thrill up my leg' Matthews.

[parsifal]

I realize it makes no sense to you. It is the way real lawsuits are prepared. You set forth your facts and allegations step by step so that a logical basis is provided for the other side and the court.

You can’t just file something that says OBAMA IS A POS! and expect a court to look at it.

Surely, with all the facts and evidence at your disposal, you and other birthers could prepare your allegations in a form that others could understand.

parsy

[MHGinTN]

Yes, one idiot leftist judge even cited the twitter responses on the issue as proof he didn’t need to go further with the case! That is precisely the sort of judge the enemies of the Constitution just love to have sitting/soiling the benches.

[DoctorBulldog]

"Excellent!!! See how well that works? You have now vetted the President exactly as the Framers envisioned he be vetted. By the voters. You now can act on that personal judgment and vote accordingly. "

LOL! One of the few things I've ever agreed with you on, Wiggie!

Power to the People!!!

Cheers

P.S. - Vattel approves.

[Gorefan]

You wrote: “Actually there is a difference. The reason wong is important is because it repeats what was in Minor v. Happersett, decided in 1875”

What is your opinion of this quote from the Wong Kim Ark decision:

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

[EnderWiggins]

"And yet approximately $1.7 million was paid from the Obama campaign to the firm Perkins & Coie who defended Obama before the Government lawyers who took over in about June of last year.

Oh, pulleeeeze. You have no evidence that a penny of that $1.7 million had anything to do with Birther suits. Please... before you can connect dots, you actually have to have dots.

Obama had lawyers represent him in exactly 3 cases total. At least one of them was pro bono and free to Obama. In the other two (actually in all three), the lawyers moved for dismissals and got them. If you think that cost $1.7 million, I want some of what you're smoking.

[parsifal]

Then sit down and do your homework. List the stuff out in a rational fashion. Make it understandable to people.

parsy

[STARWISE]

Welcome to FR ... interesting topic you
jumped into on your FIRST day ... LOL.

Gorefan
Since Feb 25, 2010

http://www.freerepublic.com/~gorefan/

What drew you here ?

[DJ MacWoW]

What drew you here ?

Reinforcement? :-)

[patlin]

No. the law does confer the citizenship on a foreign sovereign, his kids, or his consuls and ministers.

Neither does it confer citizenship on children born to foreigner nationals residing in the US per the authors & congressional records of the 14th Amendment which Grey cited in Elk, but then disregarded in WKA.

Again, what changed in those years between 1884 & 1898? Nothing!

[editor-surveyor]

Great to see you still posting Mr Ayers! How’s Bernadine?

[STARWISE]

[DJ MacWoW]

:-)

[little jeremiah]

Keep your comments coming, MHG - there are many here who do appreciate them. To others, they are thorns. Ha.

[Red Steel]

I find myself wondering which of the three different purported authentic images posted at various times on the Internet Barry's lawyers would expect a judge/court to accept?

I suppose the one from the non "FactCheckers".org from the Bots who took the pictures and are now working or were working for the Obama campaign. BUT that's never going to happen. That COLB would never see the insides of a court house. They'd float some story saying BO the dog ate it or it float it got burned in a household fire.

However, any court order to see Obama's birth records would be directed at the Hawaiian DoH bypassing Obama.

After a few days of these shills falling on their swords for their freak-in-chief, it becomes obvious that they are more than willing to swallow axelgreasy's Koolaid and believe whatever they're told to believe, regardless of proof that they are swallowing forgeries. When you post comparative evidence that the posted CoLB is not authentic, they just dismiss it with another of their talking points or just lie openly.

The falls will spectacular.

[editor-surveyor]

That’s why the founders insisted on “natural born citizen” instead. They didn’t want any British loyalists holding office.

Natural born citizens are born only of parents that are citizens, not subjects.

Is Gore going to have you tonight? (lucky Algore!)