New Analysis: Five days before the election, Obama’s “original birth certificate” was NOT “valid” or in the custody of the ‘State Registrar...’

What follows is the story of a most amazing revelation. THE revelation.

Let’s Recount What We Know

• We know the official HDOH seal does not appear on Obama’s alleged ‘Certification of Live Birth.’

• We know that Hawaii confirmed that much through the press.

• We know that Obama has some kind of irregular “vital records” on file with the HDOH.

• We even know the Kapi’olani Letter is bogus and bears a bogus White House seal.

But, what follows tops it all. What follows should be the story of the century, in my opinion. What follows is the proof from the former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, M.D, that Obama did NOT have a valid or official “original birth certificate” just days before the election.

And, it was right in front of our faces all along.

“Date Filed by Registrar” vs. “Date Accepted by State Registrar”

Not to rehash things, but the story really does begin here. These two terms have plagued the Obama birth certificate issue from the beginning and have fueled many questions about Obama’s posted alleged ‘certified copy’ of a ‘Certification of Live Birth.’ For example, what do they mean in terms of the legal veracity behind a copy of a birth certificate? What is the difference between the “Registrar” and the “State Registrar?” When would it be important that a record states whether or not it has been accepted by the State Registrar? Obama’s alleged ‘Certification of Live Birth’ shows only the ‘Date Filed by Registrar’ as opposed to the ‘Date Accepted by State Registrar,’ that’s why many people, including myself, have been curious whether that matters. By now, I am sure most of us are aware that Alvin T. Onaka is the ‘State Registrar’ in Hawaii, but who is the ‘Registrar’ to which Obama’s alleged COLB refers?

Other people have tried to get some of these answers. Janice Okubo, HDOH Communications Director, was asked by other researchers for information on these terms. Specifically, she was sent the following:

In accordance with the UIPA, I am requesting all records that document, or show the Rules, Regulations and Policies regarding the criteria or methods used to determine whether a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) will show either or both of the following, and the difference between the criteria and where the information used to determine the statement (1 or 2) comes from such as where on a long form Birth Certificate that criteria is derived from:


1) Date Accepted by State Registrar


2) Date filed by Registrar

Unfortunately, her answer wasn’t very enlightening nor thorough because she provided only a generic “historical” response that addressed the following, instead:

Aloha Mr. (redacted),


It has been brought to my attention that although the department does not have any records responsive to your UIPA records request, a further explanation may be helpful.


Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of Oahu or on the neighbor islands of Kauai, Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, or Lanai), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of Oahu) respectively.

(You can read the entire exchange, here, at Butterdezillion’s Blog.)

But, Obama’s alleged COLB does not contain a field that mentions the “State Registrar’s” acceptance nor filing of the record – it only mentions the “Registrar” who filed it.

In all fairness, I should state that it has become apparent that the meaning and difference between “Date Filed by Registrar” and “Date Accepted by State Registrar” is not particularly relevant to a certified copy of a birth certificate that has been accepted by and is on file with the State Registrar. If the State Registrar has statutory authority to maintain and oversee the record, then the State Registrar will have signed any ‘certified copy’ as the custodian of the record, regardless of whether or not the ‘Date Accepted by State Registrar’ appears. Therefore, any person presented with that certified copy will have evidence of the State Registrar’s acceptance through the certification statement, signature, issue date and raised seal.

However, we know that Obama’s alleged ‘certified’ “Certification of Live Birth” bears a seal other than the official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health. And, while some online ‘advertised’ Hawaii “Certificates of Live Birth” and “Certifications of Live Birth” show the “Date Accepted by State Registrar” Obama’s alleged COLB only shows the “Date Filed by Registrar.” It would make sense that there should be some consistency, no? Furthermore, a fresh look at some important evidence reveals that the difference in these terms is crucial and my familiarity with this controversy-within-a-controversy led me to make my recent revelation.

A Late Birth Certificate is Born

To continue, what follows is a brief primer on how a ‘Late Birth Certificate’ is generated in Hawaii using the Office of Health Status Monitoring’s (OHSM) ‘Late Birth Certificate’ form as a visual guide. This document was collected through the diligence of ‘Butterdezillion‘ and serves as a great example of the difference between a ‘Registrar’ and a ‘State Registrar’ and the importance of whether or not both have accepted and filed a birth certificate.

Below is the ‘Late Birth Certificate’ used by the Hawaii Department of Health:

As you can see the ‘Registrar’ initially handles the form and collects the information and supplementary evidence needed. The Registrar itemizes that evidence as a list on the form. The ‘Registrar’ also acquires the appropriate affidavit and notary certification or administers an oath if they are so authorized:

They then file the record pending review and acceptance for filing by the ‘State Registrar:’

As the form states on ‘Line 18,’ it is not a “valid” record until it has been accepted and filed by the ‘State Registrar.’ Furthermore, the ‘State Registrar’s’ certification attests to the evidentiary value of ‘Date of Birth,’ ‘Parentage’ and ‘Place of Birth.’ So, until the ‘State Registrar’ accepts and takes custody of the record, it is only a non-valid ‘application’ for a ‘Late Birth Certificate’ in procedural limbo, so to speak, and in the custody of the ‘Registrar.’

But, But…FactCheck.org said…

…Continued here; http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/proof-it-was-in-front-of-our-faces

Read more at Birther Report