If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
ADMISSION MADE IN EMAIL TO CONCERNED CITIZEN
by John Charlton
(Nov. 28, 2009) — The final nail has been driven into the coffin of Obama’s online COLB (Certification of Live Birth), which was released in 2008 by his campaign to bolster his claims of being born in the United States of America, and which has been used as the reason, motive, or simply the excuse by members of Congress and politicians throughout the country, to explain away doubts regarding Obama’s eligibility.
The now infamous COLB alleged that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961 to Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham, in Hawaii.
However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document. Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo refused to admit that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.
Todays newest revelation discounts entirely the authenticity of the information on the alleged COLB, which bears the notation “Date filed by Registrar.” It has been speculated for nearly 3 months, by concerned citizens who have examined the rules of other departments of Vital Statistics accross the country that this designation, “filed by” indicates “submitted to, but not yet accepted as verified.”
This interpretation has now received indirect confirmation from the Communications Officer of the Department of Health, Janice Okubo herself, in her email response to Mr. James H. Roberson, which was published today online at 5:58 PM Eastern Time at Free Republic. The email was originally published at the blog of Attorney Leo Donofrio, which is now defunct.
Mr. Roberson sent his email on Oct. 31, 2009:
The revealing email to and from Okubo reads as follows:
Aloha Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo – from sunny South Carolina and Old Dixie,
Conducting research, I have examined a significant number of Certifications of Live Births, issued by your Department, for children all born in Honolulu. The children differ, of course, by which year each child was born, and a large range in years is represented in the population of COLBs examined. All COLBs were printed using your laser printer, and thus all demonstrate the same basic layout format, and page spacings of “form-words” fields (i.e., CHILD’s NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, MOTHER’S RACE, etc. all occupy comparable locations on the page).
Aside from the different “distinguishing” information, specific to each child, that was inserted in the fields beneath the respective “form-words”, all COLBs appear identical except,
1.) Different years seemed to have a different style Border – which I assume was intended to inhibit “alterations” ( say a young teenager wants to make a computer template, and then add a couple of years – so they can buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. The young nippers are amazingly adroit with computers these days.), and
2.) On the lower left side of all COLBs, except for 1, the “form-words”: “DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR” were printed. However, on 1 COLB the “form-words”: “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” were printed, instead.
As I’m sure you’ll agree, “Accepted” and “Filed” carry different meanings, or nuances. For example, “Accepted” indicates that all required forms/information were present (and, nothing looked out-of-order) – as specified by Standard Procedures – and thus this connotes the Certificate of Birth was issued with few reservations as to its validity. On the other hand, “Filed” leaves the hint that perhaps the information supplied may be either insufficient, or questionable as to its accuracy. In this latter case, the Certificate of Birth might carry a less than “full confidence” as to its completeness, authenticity, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness.
Likewise, “Registrar” (which could be either a “local”, or Island, Registrar) might perhaps be different from the “State Registrar” ???
I would be most appreciative if you will help me with the following Questions:
1.) Am I reading too much into the different “Words Choices” ? (I don’t want to sound sinister, or cynical.)
2.) Can you tell me under what circumstances would the above different “Words Choices” be required ?
3.) I have reviewed – without success – Hawaii’s Chapter (Title/Section ?) 11 “Rules and Procedures” looking for a definition of when the above “Words Choices” should be imprinted on COLBs. Could you please provide me with a “path” that I could follow to learn about the wording prescribed to be used on these type certificates / documents ?, and finally,
4.) Would you hazard an educated guess (just a general “ball park” figure would do) as to approximately what proportion of COLBs issued carry the “Filed” vs. “Accepted” classifications ? Less than 1%, less than 10% ? Or, do I have a “bad” population of specimens ?
If you are required to be presented with an “official” UIPA request, in order to provide the above information, then please consider this e-mail as such. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give me.
IN RESPONSE, I RECEIVED from Ms Janice Ukubo the following email:
“Aloha Mr. Roberson,
Under the UIPA, the state is not required to answer all questions posed to it. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you at this time.
Please see attached response to your UIPA request.”
Okubo’s refusal to explain what “Filed by” means, can only be interpreted as withholding evidence that would indict the veracity of the online COLB and the credibility of their department in giving the semblance of truth to Obama’s claim to be born in Hawaii, because there is really no reason in the world to obstruct the request of a concerned citizen regarding what terms, which could be used on official Hawaii Vital Records, mean.
Okubo’s response also now makes her liable for criminal charges of conspiracy to use her office under color of the law to defraud the general public. Because in the fulfilment of her official duties she is legally obligated in State Law to explain what terms used on official documents mean, or at least to direct citizens to the published documents which explain these.
The response of Okubo, therefore, it tantamount to saying the online COLB is a fake, because if “filed” meant that her department accepted the information on a vital record as true, in saying so, she would have indirectly affirmed its authenticity. In refusing to do so, she has, contrariwise, attempted to hide its lack of trustworthiness, by avoiding the question of how a vital record with this specification might contain unproven assertions.
But numerous general inquiries for copies of such documents have been refused by the Deparment of Health for nearly 3 months.
The Post & Email reminds its readers to click the tags on this report, at the end of this post, to find many more articles with information about this story.