If I have to Put up with a Bazillion Trump aka neuveua Palin Threads ....

[G.T.]

whatever GT...

you are more interested in trying to disprove than you are in trying to prove..

You are a ******* tool......go for it....

This Hawaii law clearly states who issues the COLB.

Be a grown assed man and say you were wrong, and then apologize for acting such an Obama hating dipshit all along.

You want him to ******* dance for you, and you're mad because he's not saying "how fast."

Get a life.

lol...obama hating?

Funny.....so thats what is about you.

You love the man and god forbid if I say something that might make him look bad.
Jez...I never saw this as an Obama hating or Obama loving thread.....

But YOU did.....you are a pathetic individual....

Get his dick out of your mouth GT....your mumbling.

Shoo child. Cya <S>

You were arguing so profoundly from the incorrect position that yea, one might say you're just a big ole' hater. Don't run from your cloth.

 

[Jarhead]

Yep, apparently in your silly mind no one born in Hawaii is allowed to work.
Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands &mdash; Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

**** off...you and GT are both such ******* sheep you cant even see the how what you post actually argues against you.

You are both pathetic followers.

Learn to be a leader...it builds character.....

but nah...not for you two....nope...if you step out of line you are a lying dranged jerk in your eyes....so it is best to be a follower.

Whatever....

You were wrong, we were right, and we're pathetic sheep followers. I think I get how that works.

It's apparent that your driving motivation was not, you know, the truth.....

It was that you hate Obama.

If you were arguing from a valid standpoint and calling us names it's one thing,

But by Hawaiian law itself you've been proven wrong, and we're the sheep.

Nope...not worng at all.

I am 100% correect...I proved it and you could not prove otherwsie.

I will say it again....go to the i-9 form and show me where a CoLB is on it.

You wont be able to.

So now I am done with the two of you.....you did your best to prove me wrong and you couldnt do the simplest thing...show me oin th i_9...the federal form...where a CoLB is in compliance.

So with that...I am done with yas...

 

[G.T.]

I can say one thing: I'll never trust your intentions as genuine again. You're clearly giving credence to Birthers, who are proven ridiculous over and over and over and over, and arguing from an incorrect, not factual position while doing so....then havingn the nerve to point fingers and say who's a follower.

You're right, someone DOES need to grow up.

 

[G.T.]

**** off...you and GT are both such ******* sheep you cant even see the how what you post actually argues against you.

You are both pathetic followers.

Learn to be a leader...it builds character.....

but nah...not for you two....nope...if you step out of line you are a lying dranged jerk in your eyes....so it is best to be a follower.

Whatever....

You were wrong, we were right, and we're pathetic sheep followers. I think I get how that works.

It's apparent that your driving motivation was not, you know, the truth.....

It was that you hate Obama.

If you were arguing from a valid standpoint and calling us names it's one thing,

But by Hawaiian law itself you've been proven wrong, and we're the sheep.

Nope...not worng at all.

I am 100% correect...I proved it and you could not prove otherwsie.

I will say it again....go to the i-9 form and show me where a CoLB is on it.

You wont be able to.

So now I am done with the two of you.....you did your best to prove me wrong and you couldnt do the simplest thing...show me oin th i_9...the federal form...where a CoLB is in compliance.

So with that...I am done with yas...

you said only hospitals issue colb's.

it is stated right in hawaiian law that the doh issues them. (you know, a state department, you know.....you're wrong). you've been given a link the the very law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only "proof" that Donald Chump has is what he's sent his "teams" in to cherry pick, so they can spin it around and sell it to the brain dead rednecks who represent the birthers.

The Chump isn't running, he's just trying to generate publicity by staking out a claim on the crazy territory.

Like when obama hounds of hell the media and dcug through Sarah Palin garbage and cherry picked what they found.

 

[idb]

Well...this thread has developed nicely from a less then promising start...

 

[Ravi]

This is really funny. At this link on page 30 there are examples of what a birth certificate is in order to comply with the I9 requirements. One example is a Certificate of Live Birth.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/epub/wageindex.download?p_file=F6844/I9_Handbook.pdf

It also says on another page that the only exception to the original documents rule is that a certified copy of a birth certificate is fine.

Double win!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is really funny. At this link on page 30 there are examples of what a birth certificate is in order to comply with the I9 requirements. One example is a Certificate of Live Birth.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/epub/wageindex.download?p_file=F6844/I9_Handbook.pdf

It also says on another page that the only exception to the original documents rule is that a certified copy of a birth certificate is fine.

Double win!

And if you also notice in that same post the last link which was in 2007 states only original documents, not certified copiues.
Theother one changed in 2010 the first link wouldn't apply for obama but the second one would

 

[gekaap]

So -- when read for what it actually says, and means, there is still no evidence of ANY law on the books in Hawaii that would prohibit President Obama from obtaining his OWN birth Certificate and using it in whatever damn fashion he jolly well pleases.

Nobody is saying that Obama can't get his birth certificate. On the contrary, it's been stated over and over again that obviously he has gotten it. But as a matter of record keeping, surely it is obvious that they will not release the ORIGINAL of any record they keep. If they did that, they would not be a record KEEPING agency, they would be a record distributing agency. How are they supposed to keep records if they simply hand them over? What records would they then have? What you are suggesting would mean that once they give Obama the original document that was created when he was born, there would cease to be any record of his birth. That's pretty bad record keeping, dontchathink?

What instead happens, as does all over the place, is that the record keeper retains the initial documentation, and when a person such as Obama requests their birth certificate they are given a certified copy of the records on file with that given entity. This certified copy is what Obama has, it's what I have, it's what you have whether you realize it or not.

An intermediate level Court agreed with MY analysis by the way in a suit filed by a guy you'd label a "birther." ROBERT v. JUSTICE (Haw. App., 2011) . The prohibition applies to the GOVERNMENT and to anybody EXCEPT those who have the requisite interest in the birth certificate, such as the person named ON the damn thing.

Defendants argued that Plaintiff's complaint to compel Defendants to grant Plaintiff access to President Obama's birth record failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because: (1) HRS §§ 338-18(b) prohibits Defendants from disclosing public health statistics records, which include birth records, unless the applicant is a person with a "direct and tangible interest" in the records;

excerpted from: ROBERT v. JUSTICE (Haw. App., 2011).

You are trying to allege that state law allows the state of HI to relinquish records that it holds, and cease to hold those records any longer. However, nothing you've provided so establishes that. In the Justice case, Dr. Justice sued in order to have Obama's birth records released. His suit was dismissed on the grounds for relief under the "compelling circumstances" argument which he presented. That dismissal was upheld by the Intermediate Court, whose full decision is here.

Nothing in the case addressed whether state law authorized or allowed the record keeping entity to cease keeping records, even upon the request of the person to whom the records pertain.

 

[gekaap]

Whats missing from that BC that you used that the other two have? AN ACCEPTED BY REGISTRAR STAMP.

You seem to think that you are some kind of expert on Hawaiian procedures to keep and maintain records. What makes you think that any such act of stamping documents occurs? Don't you think that a document PRODUCED by the record keeper kinda implies that it was ACCEPTED by the record keeper at some point in history?

 

[gekaap]

Wouldn't witnesses be something like those at a wedding? Say a couple elopes wouldn't they need witnesses? I don't the the offical of the wedding would count.

Actually, in many states the officiant IS sufficient.

 

[Liability]

So -- when read for what it actually says, and means, there is still no evidence of ANY law on the books in Hawaii that would prohibit President Obama from obtaining his OWN birth Certificate and using it in whatever damn fashion he jolly well pleases.

Nobody is saying that Obama can't get his birth certificate. On the contrary, it's been stated over and over again that obviously he has gotten it. But as a matter of record keeping, surely it is obvious that they will not release the ORIGINAL of any record they keep. If they did that, they would not be a record KEEPING agency, they would be a record distributing agency. How are they supposed to keep records if they simply hand them over? What records would they then have? What you are suggesting would mean that once they give Obama the original document that was created when he was born, there would cease to be any record of his birth. That's pretty bad record keeping, dontchathink?

What instead happens, as does all over the place, is that the record keeper retains the initial documentation, and when a person such as Obama requests their birth certificate they are given a certified copy of the records on file with that given entity. This certified copy is what Obama has, it's what I have, it's what you have whether you realize it or not.

An intermediate level Court agreed with MY analysis by the way in a suit filed by a guy you'd label a "birther." ROBERT v. JUSTICE (Haw. App., 2011) . The prohibition applies to the GOVERNMENT and to anybody EXCEPT those who have the requisite interest in the birth certificate, such as the person named ON the damn thing.

Defendants argued that Plaintiff's complaint to compel Defendants to grant Plaintiff access to President Obama's birth record failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because: (1) HRS §§ 338-18(b) prohibits Defendants from disclosing public health statistics records, which include birth records, unless the applicant is a person with a "direct and tangible interest" in the records;

excerpted from: ROBERT v. JUSTICE (Haw. App., 2011).

You are trying to allege that state law allows the state of HI to relinquish records that it holds, and cease to hold those records any longer. However, nothing you've provided so establishes that. In the Justice case, Dr. Justice sued in order to have Obama's birth records released. His suit was dismissed on the grounds for relief under the "compelling circumstances" argument which he presented. That dismissal was upheld by the Intermediate Court, whose full decision is here.

Nothing in the case addressed whether state law authorized or allowed the record keeping entity to cease keeping records, even upon the request of the person to whom the records pertain.[/QUOTE]

Hey dirt-brain. Don't tell me what I'm saying, you moron.

I AM stating that Hawaii has NO law that prohibits giving the birth certificate belonging to Joe Blow, to Joe Blow, you ******* imbecile.

There is no conceivable legitimate State interest in telling me that I am not permitted to have my own ******* birth certificate.

And likewise, the law does not forbid me (once I come into possession of my own ******* birth certificate) from copying it and sharing it with anyone and everyone I wish.

I cannot help the fact that YOU lack the ability to understand what the law actually says.

Your claim is wrong. As is often the case you gas-bag blow-hard, you were simply wrong.

I cited the Hawaiian Birther litigation decision to support my point. The law prohibiting copying and dissemination is directed at anybody who has no legitimateinterest in the document. I cannot get yours. You cannot get mine. Neither of us can get President Obamas. You can get yours. I can get mine.

President Obama can get his. You may proceed to spin it any way you wish, but your abject ignorance will not change that immutable fact.

 

[Liability]

So -- when read for what it actually says, and means, there is still no evidence of ANY law on the books in Hawaii that would prohibit President Obama from obtaining his OWN birth Certificate and using it in whatever damn fashion he jolly well pleases.

Nobody is saying that Obama can't get his birth certificate. On the contrary, it's been stated over and over again that obviously he has gotten it. But as a matter of record keeping, surely it is obvious that they will not release the ORIGINAL of any record they keep. If they did that, they would not be a record KEEPING agency, they would be a record distributing agency. How are they supposed to keep records if they simply hand them over? What records would they then have? What you are suggesting would mean that once they give Obama the original document that was created when he was born, there would cease to be any record of his birth. That's pretty bad record keeping, dontchathink?

What instead happens, as does all over the place, is that the record keeper retains the initial documentation, and when a person such as Obama requests their birth certificate they are given a certified copy of the records on file with that given entity. This certified copy is what Obama has, it's what I have, it's what you have whether you realize it or not.

An intermediate level Court agreed with MY analysis by the way in a suit filed by a guy you'd label a "birther." ROBERT v. JUSTICE (Haw. App., 2011) . The prohibition applies to the GOVERNMENT and to anybody EXCEPT those who have the requisite interest in the birth certificate, such as the person named ON the damn thing.

Defendants argued that Plaintiff's complaint to compel Defendants to grant Plaintiff access to President Obama's birth record failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because: (1) HRS §§ 338-18(b) prohibits Defendants from disclosing public health statistics records, which include birth records, unless the applicant is a person with a "direct and tangible interest" in the records;

excerpted from: ROBERT v. JUSTICE (Haw. App., 2011).

You are trying to allege that state law allows the state of HI to relinquish records that it holds, and cease to hold those records any longer. However, nothing you've provided so establishes that. In the Justice case, Dr. Justice sued in order to have Obama's birth records released. His suit was dismissed on the grounds for relief under the "compelling circumstances" argument which he presented. That dismissal was upheld by the Intermediate Court, whose full decision is here.

Nothing in the case addressed whether state law authorized or allowed the record keeping entity to cease keeping records, even upon the request of the person to whom the records pertain.

Hey dirt-brain. Don't tell me what I'm saying, you moron.

I AM stating that Hawaii has NO law that prohibits giving the birth certificate belonging to Joe Blow, to Joe Blow, you ******* imbecile.

There is no conceivable legitimate State interest in telling me that I am not permitted to have my own ******* birth certificate.

And likewise, the law does not forbid me (once I come into possession of my own ******* birth certificate) from copying it and sharing it with anyone and everyone I wish.

I cannot help the fact that YOU lack the ability to understand what the law actually says.

Your claim is wrong. As is often the case you gas-bag blow-hard, you were simply wrong.

I cited the Hawaiian Birther litigation decision to support my point. The law prohibiting copying and dissemination is directed at anybody who has no legitimate interest in the document. I cannot get yours. You cannot get mine. Neither of us can get President Obama's.

You can get yours. I can get mine.

President Obama can get his. You may proceed to spin it any way you wish, but your abject ignorance will not change that immutable fact.

 

[gekaap]

I rarely gve the whole birther thing a second thought...

But last Wednesday, during the DoL audit, I was told by the auditor that a CoLB is useless as it pertains to employment eligibility and I-9 compliance UNLESS it is accompanied by a letter from the department of state asserting that there is a correlating Birth Certificate.

Let me guess, he was a birther.

And when I couple that with the Admins statement that the CoLB holds the exact amount of wieight as the BC.....I started to wonder why the admin was less than truthful about it...and it raised my eyebrows.

It does. The Administration isn't being less than truthful. Best case scenario, you live in a state that uses different verbage than the state of HI, and you both were fallaciously equivocating the differences in verbage your state uses with what HI uses.

And GT...stop with the asshole comments...a CoLB is ISSUED by the hospital....IN ALL STATES...

WRONG!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!

You dont believe it, prove me wrong.

What kind of stupid ******* comment is that? It's your job to prove your bullshit claims, not ours to prove them wrong. If you want to contend that every state uses distinct "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificates" then YOU have the responsibility to prove that. You have the responsibility to prove the procedures employed by every state.

 

[gekaap]

You were so easily fooled GT..

Read the bottom of the one from Virginia.

It asserts it is a valid copy of a document SUBMITTED TO the department......or something like that.

It was not issued by the state...it was submitted to.

Geekap did what he could...and he made an ass of you.

Well done.

Seriously? Listen, you don't know what you are talking about. You're desperately trying to find a way to twist the facts into supporting the delusion you have created. You've created fabricated procedures for government agencies and fictitious after the fact explanations all in an attempt to continue avoiding the very clear and plain answers that have been laid in front of you. I like how you fabricated the word "submitted" into the picture now. Actually, what the documents say is something along the lines of this:

This is a true certification of the name and birth facts as recorded in the Office of Vital Statistics. (Ohio)

This is to certify that this is a true and correct reproduction or abstract of the official record filed with the Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, Virginia. (Virginia, obviously)

This is a true certified copy of the record filed in the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services if it bears the Registrar's signature in purple ink. (California)

Those were all the ones that I was able to read from the pictures. Your "submitted" argument is nothing but a fabrication. It's one thing to disagree about subjects, but you're simply being outright dishonest and you're too chickenshit to admit it. Quite dishonorable.

 

[gekaap]

exact words..

...."reproduction or abstract filed WITH the Virginia Department of Health"

A CoBL is issued by the hospital and registered with the DoS or the DOH....

I have been sayiung that all long.

A BC is issued by the state.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE...


LMAO...and Geekap didnt give a **** that he was making an ass of you with his spin......

WHAT THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SAYING???? Of course we're talking about records FILED with state departments. How do you think they are going to keep records if they never file any records?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Whats missing from that BC that you used that the other two have? AN ACCEPTED BY REGISTRAR STAMP.

You seem to think that you are some kind of expert on Hawaiian procedures to keep and maintain records. What makes you think that any such act of stamping documents occurs? Don't you think that a document PRODUCED by the record keeper kinda implies that it was ACCEPTED by the record keeper at some point in history?

Well there were two other BC's to varify that it does.

What might have happen was the document was filed but not accepted by the state registrar. You know how those racist white peope were back in the 60's, not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gekaap]

Listen carefully....

"this is to certify this is a true and correct reproduction or abstract OF the offical record filed WITH the department of health"

Now read it again...and again...and apply your knowledge of the English language.

Yes, that REPRO was issue by the Dept of health.
Yes it is a certified repo.....

A repo of what?

A document that was filed WITH the department of health.

Who filed it with the department of health?

The hospital.

If the department of health filed it...it would say "of the record filed BY the department of health"

But it didnt...it said WITH...not BY...

But yes, the REPO was issued by the DoH....THE REPO WAS....and the DOH cerified it as legit

With. OHMYFUCKINGGOD, WITH!!!

All you've done this entire thread is play semantics games. You're trying to make mountains over the fact that you don't like the way some state or another words their paperwork. Even if we accept all your BS arguments, and believe that Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" was created by a hospital, we STILL are left with the inescapable conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii!! The state of Hawaii is who gave him WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. Tomato/tomahto.

But this isn't good enough for you, and you have to continue by claiming that this insignificant alleged discrepency is indicative of a massive OHMYFUCKINGODMARTIANSAREEATINGOURBRAINS conspiracy that first started way back when Obama's birth was published in the Honolulu local newspapers.

So we're left with two possibilities. We can believe that there is this massive OHMYFUCKINGODMARTIANSAREEATINGOURBRAINS conspiracy going on. Or, we can write you off as a flaming idiot. Since Occam's razor applies, and a massive OHMYFUCKINGODMARTIANSAREEATINGOURBRAINS conspiracy is quite a complex explanation....

Well, I think you get the idea.

 

[Toro]

By the way........a COLB filed with the state of Montana was good enough to get me in the Navy and keep me there for 20 years.

Yabut ...

... they'll take anybody.

 

[gekaap]

whatever GT...

you are more interested in trying to disprove than you are in trying to prove..

You are a ******* tool......go for it....

Wait a second, you've failed to produce a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE for anything you've said, including the claims you've made about how all the various states keep vital records, you've sat here and illogically demanded that everyone else prove you wrong instead of providing any proof for your claims.....

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ******* SHIT FILLED GUTS to ***** that anyone is too busy trying to disprove?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Are you schizophrenic? You're detached from reality, whatever the reason why.