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.
Still money exchanged hands between Obama and Perkins Coie for services rendered. You know when you posted that list here this website ran a thread about it.
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/
It’s there somewhere at the website.
Unless you are an attorney or have worked in a law office, you probably don’t have a clue how to proceed. That is not uncommon.
Most of your “evidence” is against Hawaii as far as I can tell and I think you see that. Unless Obama is linked to that action, you haven’t really hit the target. Try to see if you can find a sample lawsuit on the internet. I will look also. The factual allegation part is where the rubber hits the road.
You have to be able to state your claim in discrete understandable units. I gave edgy or whatever the basics but he got mad and didn’t want to do it.
Once you lay your “case” out in that format, you will be able to sit back and read the narrative. it should flow and be easy to understand.
That is only the first part. Next you have to provide the applicable law, claim or cause of action, in the same format and how the defendant breached those laws or responsibilities.
Then, you have to decide what the remedy is or what the damages are, that is what you are going to ask for. What you want the court to do for you.
This is the BEGINNING. It is what Orly or somebody should have laid out in a cognizable fashion or what the instigators who gig the birthers should have done. Not to have done so is wrong. They basically wound a bunch of you up and turned you loose with little or no idea what you were doing.
So the the Birthers as a group here: Suing the president is kinda a big thing and you don’t approach that like an angry mob.
To sum up, if you guys think you have something, it’s time to get serious and start laying this stuff out in some kind of intelligent fashion. Calling people trolls, posting cutsie pictures, throwing tantrums, and expecting everybody to just accept your version of things is COMPLETELY CHILDISH!
If you can’t put this into an intelligent and structured format, then you can not expect all us non-birthers to just roll over and buy your bill of goods. This is YOUR responsibility. Some of the reasons you get so mad at us is your feelings of inadequacy about your claim (and the fact that we non-Birthers are real good at pokng holes in your stuff!)
But if you think we are tough on you, what do you think a court is going to do if you ever make it there? Or the media? Or the liberals? Or the lawyers on the other side? Do you think they are going to just roll over and say WOW! YOU GOT US!
Get it together, and if you can’t, it might be because you don’t have a case. If that is true, then own up to it, drop this stuff, and get your minds back into the real fights going on.
parsy, who is on his soapbox
and Separate the what from the chaff.
No .. I didn’t know that. OK .. it would
not cover the current figgers. I’ll see
what I can do.
No .. I didn’t know that. OK .. it would
not cover the current figgers. I’ll see
what I can do.
>> Who asked if it was needed? Asked if you had any.
>> Apparently, you not only don't have any, you don't even
>> think it's needed.
There's plenty of “rebuttal evidence” that only an Obama apologist like you will ignore.
But once again, HRS 338-13(b) and 338.19 is VERY clear:
A copy of Obama’s “birth certificate” has NEVER appeared in court to be established as FACT.
Translation:
“Yes, there’s plenty of rebuttal evidence! And uh I would give it to you——oh no, my dog just tinkled on my leg-—so I’ll have to get that for you at some other-—oh my computer battery is clicking that I am out of——er my girl friend just showed and my dog on my leg with the battery....is oh...I see lights and somebody is beckoning me to come to the light....”
parsy, who isn’t fooled that easily
I don’t need no interlopers! At FR, we take care of own Reality Challenged Individuals!
parsy, the altruistic
|
> The only people claiming to have seen it are the Bobsey Twins from Factcheckamateurs.org, yet for some reason Oh, I know.
I'm trying to demonstrate the BIASED “Chain of Evidence” for Obama’s “Birth Certificate” From
And all for a "birth certificate" which has NEVER actually appeared in Court.
|
No, he’s reading this paper I sent him called “How Not to Lose Your Temper with Slow Learners and Stubborn Children”
parsy, the cool, calm, and collected
He did, and volunteered at Pearl Harbor until just before he died. But he "retired" from delivering babies at age 46. He didn't go home and just sit around. He laready lived in Hawaii, so he didn't a long Hawaiian vaction either. :) Basically, he became an adminstrator, and active in various medical associations, after that.
How do we know this?
parsy
No, we are addressing the meaning of a term used in the US Constitution. That meaning is now, for Constitutional purposes, what it was in 1787. Only an amendment could change it, and the 14th amendment, the only one dealing with citizenship, did not do that. It just applied it to "all persons".
Heh, he beat the Barracuda by one point, in her state championship game. Of course she was a season long starter, not a bench warmer, who had injured her ankle in a previous game. She did not play much in that effort, but the game was much closer and she did go in as needed.
Except for the part about eligibility crieria?
FWIW, I first took the oath in August of 1971, but that was the one that required obeying orders. I took the other one 19 May 1973, according to the certificate I have here, and which I just checked.
Oh, I see. Hmmmmm.
Clarence Darrow III: Your Honor my client would like to introduce his COLB at this time. I have this marked as Defense 23, a copy for the Plaintiff, and the court....
Orly Taitz: Hmmmm. Your Honor, I would like to object to the entry of this document.
Judge: And...
Orly Taitz: Who? Me?
Judge: Yes Ms. Taitz.
Orly Taitz: Please?
Judge: Please?
Orly Taitz: Yes. I object to the entry of this Document, please.
Judge: No Ms. Taitz. You need to provide the basis for your objection.
Orly Taitz: Uh....Hearsay?
Judge: Hearsay?????
Orly Taitz: Yes your Honor. I didn’t hear him say he was ever going to enter it.
Judge: Well you heard him now. So give me a basis.
Orly Taitz: Uh....Chain of evidence, Your Honor, chain of evidence.
Judge: What in God’s name are you talking about?
Orly Taitz: Well, uh it didn’t go thru the metal detector, I mean it didn’t come straight here, and was in plain view when the officer did the search...over at the metal detector with an expectation of privacy for all the ....immunities and privileges clause of the Commerce Commission with Liberty and Justice for all.
Judge: Ms. Taitz. This is a certified copy from the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health. There is no “chain of evidence” which applies. Your objection over ruled. Marked and accepted as Defense 23.
Orly Taitz: Your Honor, since it is a Defense Exhibit, does it count against us on the Offense side?
parsy, who says you know this is how this would go down!
Ping: Another Orly Taitz moment!
parsy, who just zinged the Birthers good!
Ok.... since a lesson in remedial law is clearly needed:
What is the difference between Dictum and Holding?
From Cornell Law, http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dictum/
Dictum:
Dictum is a statement, comment, or observation in a judicial opinion that is unnecessary to the decision in the case.
Holding:
Unlike the holding (final determination) in a case, dictum is not binding on other courts deciding similar issues. However, sometimes dictum is so widely recognized by other courts that it is adopted into an opinion as though it were binding authority on a matter, and in such a case it is referred to as “considered dictum”. Although dictum may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the binding force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the remark was not part of the legal basis for the decision.
What you quoted is from the DICTUM of the case. Information and details that led to the majority opinion that finalized the case.
The quote that you chose, when taken BY ITSELF, out of context within the Dictum, can and does have a different meaning. When you read it IN CONTEXT with the entire dictum, and in the final HOLDING, it has a different meaning.
The justices here are giving information from which they BASED their decision, and in quoting it as you have, you have (perhaps deliberately or not) taken it OUT OF CONTEXT.
Our Laws have much in common with British common law, they have the same foundational basis. However, it is clear the founders took some parts of British common law, and left others to the British. The Law of Nations has much in common with both of our systems of law, therefore they share many similarities, and in many other respects they are quite different. You cannot accurately say that our laws descend from British Common Law. That is NOT an accurate statement.
We are not (were not) American Subjects, we are American Citizens, and different rules apply to us in our system than did to British Subjects did under theirs.
Dictum? Use that word in a sentence.
Orly Taitz dictum when she took money for for working on the case!
parsy, who is not trying to be risque, but I just got off an Orly thing and I’m still laughing at it....forgive me...
TO be a Citizen at Birth, read the last paragraph of the majority opinion, which says nothing about "natural born"
Per WKA, there are only 2 kinds of citizens-—natural born and naturalized.
Not quite what it says. It says:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
...
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
The 14th amendment, not the Constitution as a whole. Besides, birth is the source of Natural Born status as well, just with an aditional requirement at the time of that birth.
But the WKA majority opinon, in a quote and citation to a work by Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper from 1853, on the "Alienigenae of the United States" also indicates a distintion between a citizen at birth from a alien parent, and the "natural born child of a citizen".
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen
So, they have the same rights, but they are not the same, but only for purposes of Presidential eligiblity, and becoming President is hardly a right. If it were, it could also not be denied to naturalized citizens, since they too are "every much a citizen" as a citizen at birth. Nor could residency requirements be placed upon them for eligibility for Senator and Representative, nor could states have such residency requirements for their offices. Not what a citation and quote from that majority opinion idicates:
parsy, who selectively reads WKA.
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.
to 
to 
to 
