Actually, BO’s simply says “Date Filed By Registrar”.
“It’s interesting that all of the genuine docs, whether birth or marriage, say “Date Accepted by State Registrar”, while the Obama doc says “Date Filed by Registrar”” (fixed and quoted)
I am going to post this again from the other thread:
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/hawaii-vital-records-question-1/#more-386
“Hawaii Vital Records, Question 1
June 24, 2008
...This entry focuses on one of those questions: Why does Obama’s Certification of Live Birth say “Date Filed with Registrar” in the lower left area, in contrast to Patricia Decosta’s certification (offered for comparison), which says “Date Accepted by State Registrar.”...
You can see a larger version of both images on Polarik’s blog...
Readers have offered intriguing ideas. Here is an excerpt from one comment:
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 (sic) 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…
And here is a quote from another reader:
Here’s my crazy theory based on trying to make a pastiche document myself:
1. The original document was an application to register the baby. That’s why the father is African and the bottom says “filed” on Barack’s.
2. The second document used was either a real certification or a blank form.
3. The artist captured the black part of the original and pasted it over the blank form. That’s why the letters are a little weak looking.
4. The black spot was either a blank because it was a blank form, or it was someone else’s BC and the numbers had to be blanked out.
5. The application was rejected. If it had been accepted, it would have had a number and said accepted.
This is all presuming that the applications are entered in a format that is compatible with the final Birth Certification…
Now, I tried to ask Vital Records why two different Certifications from their office on the same form would use different language, one “filed” and one “accepted” and I was abruptly put on hold for an unusually long period of time, after which I was told that they could not comment and I was referred to another number, where no one answered.””
I was thinking about this issue some more, and I think the attorney is on to something. “Filed” versus “Accepted” is an internal concept of that office, i.e., the nomenclature has two distinctly different meanings.
PS - I had a friend get out of the military years ago. They told him to go home and FILE his discharge papers with his home County Clerk so that if it was ever lost or damaged, they would have it recorded.
Anyone can go to their County Clerk and FILE any important document for posterity and safekeeping in case of loss, fire or.... floods! This does not mean the document was originally ISSUED by that authority, but that it was FILED with them.
??