Posted on 07/30/2009 6:25:00 PM PDT by trueamerica
On the Decosta COLB (which no one alleges is a fake,) every field header matches that of the Obama COLB except for one. On hers it says : Date ACCEPTED By State Registrar. On Obamas it says Date FILED By Registrar (Notice not the state registrar, this would be the local one ). Two different things. Either that field header is forged in Obamas ( they are from the same form - OHSM 1.1 Revised (11/01) ) or it means his registration was FILED at that date BUT was not ACCEPTED. If you look at the long form copy of the birth certificate available online from 1963, Field 20 says : Date Accepted by Local Registrar. Field 22 says Date Accepted by Registrar General ( which is the State Registrar ).A change from accepted to filed are significant enough linguistic changes that a different form would have to be created. Legally, accepted and filed are two very different things. So both these phrase were used on the form depending on the circumstances.
This section of the Hawaii Revised Stautes explains why that would be used:
Sec 338-16 ( late registration defined ) d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or “when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.”
So, something entered on the long form was not verifiable and thus, it was not approved by the state. So assuming his online COLB is not fake ( or the forgers were just too incompetent to notice they put in the wrong field header ), all you have with his online COLB is a FILING, not an ACCEPTED certificate
Could this be what he is hiding?
I know what I heard the Vital Records person tell me on the phone. You jumped in with a specious assertion that the Hawaiian official refuted. ANd now you and cynwoody and Danae are chumming the same bait, that Hawaiian officials are incompetent. I think I’l reserve trust until more data is available.
Not much after either. Possibly the same day, maybe the next day, since BHO's apparent sequence number is only 3 numbers higher than that of the younger of the Nordyke twins.
So someone should look at the babies listed as born that day or the next at Kapiolani and figure out if any of them died some time in the intervening years. Then see if a copy of their COLB or Certificate of Live Birth could be obtained from a parent, surviving spouse or sibling.
But it might be good to check all the people born Aug. 5, and Aug. 6, '61 at Kapiolani, since they might not have bothered with a dead one, figuring no one would think to check.
If one could be found with a number that matches Obama's.
Well, we'd have him by the short and curlies.
Danae’s COLB says date FILED by
1) I am not mistaken about the year. It was the year I moved from Texas to California, the millennium year, 2000. The Receipt that is in the mail to me now will prove that. I will post it as soon as I get it.
2) Someone in Hawaii is mistaken. Thats is why I am asking in email and have sent scanned copies to them in order to get it sorted out.
3) Polarik himself decided that I was pawning off a forgery because I forgot to send him copies with a different contrast. THATS HIS ONLY EXCUSE so far. He has not responded to a SINGLE one of the multiple emails, scans and pictures I have sent since then. I don’t care how many degrees ANYONE has, he is still human, and can make MISTAKES. He made one here. Thats HIS problem. He should have sent me a reminder before he popped off his mouth. Thats HIS responsibility not mine. I know where I was born when I got my damned wallet stolen, and when I had my MOTHER order my damned COLB so I could freakin get my damned ID built back again.
4)I don’t need you to give me the bloody number you arrogant little pissant. I have it. Not only that, I have people working FOR me to figure this all out because I was LEGITIMATELY BORN THERE. Not only that, I have emails to them because I have sent them scanned copies front and back in order to get a damned answer.
I want to state this loud and clear. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to be questioning me. Not only do you not know what the F%^$ you are talking about, you aren’t even qualified to question me.
Having said that, how about you post up YOUR birth certificate and all that and I can question YOU about how legit YOUR documentation is. Yea, don’t want to do that do you, too much work eh? Yea, you can dish it can’t take it can ya.
I have been honest forthright and open. You have been a jerk and so has polarik. Thats the way it is.
The image at Obama’s website was the exact same one factcheck and KOS posted then later scrubbed from the web.
And the 11/01 in the lower left corner of the CoLBs is the revision date when the new version of the form goes into use, as per the Vital Records person with whom I spoke at 808 586 4539 two days ago. You might find a short conversation with them instructive.
Thanks! I turn 40..... over da hill!
When was your COLB (Certification) printed/obtained? What year is probably close enough.
“I am not mistaken about the year. It was the year I moved from Texas to California, the millennium year, 2000.”
Whoa. That was when every freakin’ body was going nuts trying to update the computer software because of what they THOUGHT might happen in 2000. That could very well explain some of this. if they updated to 2001 to avoid what MIGHT happen....
A lot of places did that out of panic.
IF I were to post my Birth Certificate from 1945, from D.C General Hospital, delivered by Dr. Notes, I doubt you would find anything fun to explore. Your exhibit on the other hand has a “(Rev. 11/01)” in the lower left corner and you say it was sent to you in the Spring of 2000. Now that is an interesting anomoly to explore, so I am. So far, the person who answered the phoine at Vital Records tells me the data is the revision date for when that form went into service.
Thanks for posting that.
I note that the terminology used on the form was “date received by local registrar” and “date accepted by state.”
In light of that, although we don’t have enough information to conclude anything definitive, I think the most likely explanation is the one offered by El Gato above, that the formulation used by the state agency was probably changed sometime in the 2000s from “date accepted” to “date filed” on COLBs issued by Hawaii.
Perhaps they changed the language to try to minimize the possibility of someone claiming that the “accepted” language means that the state vetted and assumes some kind of responsibility in the case of birth registrations made on the basis of fraudulent underlying documents. I don’t know.
But as I say, we don’t have enough information to make any conclusions and there might be another explanation for the “date filed” vs “date accepted” discrepancy.
Wish we had a recent COLB for a Nordyke twin to compare.
Thanks for being willing to post your information for this purpose. And Happy Birthday!
It was printed and sent to my mom who then sent it to me in March of 2000.
My original Certificate of Live Birth dates from August 14 1969. I don’t have that original document, its in a safe deposit box that is under my mom’s control. All I have of that is a photo copy.
“And the 11/01 in the lower left corner of the CoLBs is the revision date when the new version of the form goes into use”
Which you know I ALSO stated as a possibility. The MILLENIUM year was snafued by a whole ton of ignoramuses out of panic.
You just don’t want to accept anything else as a possibility. So be it. You are entitled to your opinion. But do NOT. I repeat. Do NOT attack me for pointing out different possibilities because they don’t agree with what you THINK you know.
Um hum, and who were you talking to? What is their position in the office? What is their experience? Are you dealing with supervisors? How is it that they know what they know? Are you dealing with people who are just willing to answer your questions or are you working with people in a more official capacity?
I am dealing with Vital Statistics as a person Born in in Hawaii with issues regarding my own documentation from that state on a far more official level than you can.
I suggest you just pipe down until I get my damned receipt and work on your written apology.
I see that you already answered my question. Of course your answer blows my “when it was printed” theory right out of the water, since 2000 is before most of the other COLBs that say “accepted by”, while your’s, one other from 2007, and Obama’s purported one, all say “filed by”.
BTW, happy birthday coming up. Mine is Auguist 5, so it is looming also.
Sure thing. I wish it could help.
And Thanks for the birthday wishes!
Thank you! Happy birthday to you too!
We are both Leos, no wonder we are butting heads... (I should have known)
A plausible answer. an update quirk.
Do we know for sure that some of the “accepted by” formulations were issued AFTER Danae’s COLB and not all of them before?
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.