Hawaii "Certification of Live Birth" - Date Accepted vs. Date Filed (Some clues)

DecaLogos ^ | February 8, 2009 | Mike C (Comment Section)

[Danae]

DANG IT! You got me! Shoot! (walks off muttering about having to reconquer the world all over again)

[IrishPennant]

bkmrk

[BP2]

It's a huge advantage for him to keep them focused on the B.C. issues and distracting them from the other damaging issues that they are blind folded from seeing and touch on!!!

I've heard this argument before. In fact, I heard it A LOT just earlier this week by people concerned about ObamaCare being passed by the House. What happened with that, with ALL the birther talk going on? NOTHING. More and more people are breaking free of Obama's trance.

Don't give Obama or his strategists too much credit -- he's not playing "dumb as a fox" with this. If anything, he's trying to change the topic FROM his birth certificate -- too many people are asking now.

[MHGinTN]

This post explains why the Danae exhibit was shoved in Polarik's face and why the mysterious anomolies are being dangled for confusion at FR.

LorenC has used different names to log on at FR and attack Polarik. It's the Chicago way don'tchaknow, to threaten someone who has personal flaws, if they don't shut up and get out of the criminal enterptrise's way. But conspicuously absent were the refutations of Polarik's work on the forgeries posted at Factcheck, KOS, and fight the smears Obama website!

Earlier on Thusday, the thread posted to attack Polarik directly was pulled by the mods. But this little entry is not only allowed to remain up, but some of the defenders of the questionable exhibit are pointing to it, to the links aimed at smearing Polarik, and even bragging that this poster has scads of evidence on Polarik! Is there a clear enough pattern here that we are being played by ateam of dnc operatives?

Polarik is not the issue, the ofrgeries are the issue, and the mysterious exhibits which appear, with odd anomolies in them. And this same team of posters are echoing the refrain that Hawaiian officials are incompetent. Is there a pattern here? I think there is. It's your site. I rest my case and will step aside now. Let the team have their way at FR, smearing Polarik rather than addressing the work he did which speaks for itself, and making outrageous claims of their own credulity when the exhibts in use are very suspect.

[NaNaNaNaN]

The stamped serial number at the top of a long-form was stamped AT THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AT THE TIME OF FILING. That is why it is called a “file number” - and it can be proven easily that this was the case. Anyone working at the Registrar General’s office could confirm it, but also, there is simply no other way to account for the known fact that file numbers correspond to birth dates for ALL KNOWN long-form certificates that have ever been published.

Simply put, if the blank forms were distributed to the many hospitals and local registrars all over Hawaii in stacks, then the numbers of any given certificate would not correspond to the birth dates, because one hospital would get all the “low numbers” and another would get the next stack, and so on.

For example, we know that in 1961 there were 17592 births registered in Hawaii. Therefore, serialized filing numbers near 10650 correspond to early August, assuming that people are born with nearly equal frequency each day of the year.

This pattern is consistent for the years (and decades) worth of published certificates. See :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2303014/posts?page=198

For example, the January births have low serialized file numbers, and the December births are later. There is no way to do that with pre-numbered blank forms. For example, if the first baby born in Hawaii happened to be born at a hospital that had a stack of pre-numbered blanks with high numbers, then that baby would have a high serialized file number, even though he was born Jan 1. This is not what is observed.

The file number was not pre-stamped on the blanks distributed to the hospitals. The question is, why would Obama have a higher number than the twins, despite his form arriving at the Registrar’s office three days (and presumably about 100 certificates) earier than the Nordyke twins.

Is there any evidence of “batch” filing? No, there is not.

TOTAL Hawaii births 1996 to 2006:

18451
17419
17567
17032
17515
17043
17446
18066
18238
17922
18986

note the “resident births” stats are different than total births stats given here: http://hawaii.gov/health/statistics/vital-statistics/vital-statistics/vs_sbook/020108.html

Birth RATES over time for HI are shown here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/statistics/vital-statistics/trend_graph/birth_chart.html

(which is why the 1930 Decosta certificate has such a high number 10259 despite being born May 14 - there were more births that year)

I find it remarkable that I can see an original birth record from Hawaii in 1855 with a few mouse clicks but I can’t see Obama’s : http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/vitalsta/index/assoc/HASH156c/0a659111.dir/doc.pdf

[NaNaNaNaN]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/200XNAT_web_with%20clearance%20revisions-acc.pdf

That is the official CDC document which outlines the database data standards for the uniform US certificate of live birth.

This is the document which controls things like how many digits of the year (61 vs 1961) are shown in the data. It confirms that there is a serialized certificate file number six digit numeric data field called “FILENO” and also an 12 digit Auxiliary State file number called “AUXNO” - since this document probably governs the new electronic system Hawaii uses to print off new short form abstracts, this might help explain some of the slight differences.

It also gives the allowed data entries for Parent Race and “African” is not an allowed entry.

If, somehow, Obama’s “birth record data” was made to conform to this database, it would be interesting to know how the term “African” made it onto the abstracted data.

[NaNaNaNaN]

That article cites a birth certificate with number 151-61-07236 . Has anyone actually seen an image of it? Or is that just a lie?

[MHGinTN]

In your opinion, could a form marked “(Rev. 11/01)” in the lower left corner be sent out to a request in March of 2000? And, could a 2000 CoLB have stamped on the back a 2007 date?

[mojitojoe]

Oh really??? :) :) :) Located?

[mojitojoe]

It is possible that the two missing numbers indicate miscarriages or stillbirths, so those would not have been filed as cerificates of live birth. They would reflect something completely different, but necessary for the record either for burial, or whatever way the deaths would have been handled.
________________
Yes it could and didn’t someone say that Nordyke had triplets and one didn’t make it? It’s possible Barry took that number and entered his information.

[Danae]

Let me state this up front.

I am responsible for my own mistakes.

The HDH dug through all of my records, which at the time the lady I spoke to did, but did not fine any other requests for my COLB, and I did not recall any either.

They went through it again and found one. The Scans (redacted) of the Receipts are below.

I was mistaken. I am responsible for that mistake! Everyone, plese take the COLB that I have posted here previously to be correctly Dated by the DHD. I do have a copy of my COLB that was printed in 2000. It was not and is not with this one. I do not know where it is. I do now recall the circumstances of how and when the 2007 document was ordered. My only excuse for not remembering it was because it was right after I had reconstructive knee surgery. There is I would imagine a lot I don't remember from that time period.

There it is.

MHGinTN you have my apology.
Polarik you have my apology.

[MHGinTN]

Dear Lady, you need not apologize to me, I was too harsh at the first jump, and was properly chastised for it. Thank you for your honesty in sharing this further revelation.

[Danae]

:)

I am an honest person, and when I screw up I admit it.
Clearly I screwed up.

[MHGinTN]

And clearly, as MestaMachine noted, I jumped too harshly, a typical ‘Leonine’ kneejerk reaction don’chaknow. Have a Happy Birthday and have an extra piece of cake for me.

[Danae]

I was still wrong. And I still don’t remember ordering it. Good painkillers I guess!

[LucyT]

MHGinTN you have my apology.

Polarik you have my apology.

Your apology is appreciated.

[Danae]

I am an honest person. I screw up I own up.

[DavidFarrar]

Keep up the good work, patriots all!

ex animo
davidfararr

[Vendome]

It is okay. I had doubts about the provenance and wondered what was missing in the story.

Makes sense now and you can stop pulling your hair out.

Look forward to seeing ‘round here more.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Bump Dat...