and here
from link at forty two.
Posted on 07/26/2012 5:42:58 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
Sheesh. That first line made no sense. Sorry. I meant to say that the full-page Advertiser image at whatreallyhappened came from somebody at the Advertiser office, supposedly from their microfilms, yet when they printed Hoover’s story showing the image (supposedly from their microfilms) it no longer had what I call C&P lines right under the announcement for Norman Asing’s son.
No sense...understood you perfectly....type like my sister talks....BtW send you a frmail to keep you in the loop...an second defense to take down if the BC issue doesn’t
If the BC was accepted by the local registrar on Aug 8, 1961 as Onaka claimed their record says, it could not be a delayed birth certificate. A delayed birth certificate was on a different form and was for births that were reported a year or more after the birth. If somebody reported that birth by Aug 8, 1961 the local registrar would have put the information on a birth certificate form and tried to gather any missing items within the 30 days allowable by statute. If all the REQUIRED items were gathered within that 30-day window, there was no consequence for the extra time (Note: information about the father was not REQUIRED, so a BC would not be considered incomplete just because the father’s info was missing). If the BC was not completed by the end of that time, it would remain unnumbered and “pending”. If the HDOH collected BC’s for a month before numbering them it could have been an attempt to accommodate the 30-day window for BC’s to be completed.
An incomplete BC could be completed any time after that but would have to be marked as “LATE” once it was complete. And whatever was missing had to be significant because it was required, so it would probably be a major administrative amendment and thus require the “ALTERED” stamp as well. And all amendments other than legitimations had to be noted in the last item of the BC, even if “ALTERED” didn’t have to be stamped on the BC.
I’ve seen a BC which notes that a first name was added to the BC within the first 6 months after the birth - an acceptable amendment that doesn’t alter the validity of the BC and thus doesn’t require the ALTERED stamp but does require the amendment to be noted in the blank supplied for that.
I’m basing these comments on the actual Hawaii statutes and HDOH Administrative Rules.
See post 42
Thank you. I'll bet someone has come up with a 1961 newspaper original by now that shows just that.
and here
from link at forty two.
read Butter’s post and thread comments.
sO WHAT DOES IT SAY ON THE COVER PAGE?
Thanks, Hoosiermama.
.
Oops.
Second try.
.
That is definitely a small pencilled question mark below 7d and to the left in the margin. No question about it. The question is why is it there next to where the street address is?
But you didn't stop there.
However, attention should also be focused on one of the other coded items: namely, whether the original COLB listed a hospital birth or a home birth.
You went on as if the revised manual was the one used before it's effective date and you based all of your conclusions based on that.
And you pushed it even further later on!
@ The purpose of this thread is to invite comment on the apparent evidence, based on this source document, that Obama’s COLB was originally coded as a “home birth.”
Your whole argument is completely based on the revised manual being the one used despite your noted objections and you have been fighting for that revised manual to be the only basis for any comments offered.
It says Revised August 14, 1961.
I agree with your assessment. What I want to know is what are your thoughts on that drawn in question mark in the left margin below and to the left of 7d? It’s outside the bracket where the parents street address it. A clearer picture of it is here.
what else does it say?
Well why don't you go read it for yourself and find out?
Or you could just make whatever point it is you're trying to make instead of playing this stupid game.
What are your thoughts on Hawaii being misspelled as Huwaii on Savannah Guthrie's photograph?
for births occuring in 1961
IMO if there is a change in middle of year there should be a notation of such on the page of the change and effective date of the change...
Ebonics 101?
IMO if there is a change in middle of year there should be a notation of such on the page of the change and effective date of the change...
Well if the whole thing was new there wouldn't be any page notices.
Here's a thought...maybe it got changed due to some newfangled equipment being installed!
IBM 1401
That might be an interesting trail to follow.
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.