Replies

The letter to the file does not state how it was determined that Obie was born in Hawaii. That is either sloppy work in not reporting the source and the source could have been an oral declaration by the mother. (either way the source should have been noted) I find it unusual that the letter is not signed but only typwritten name of officer.

It is possible the officer is still alive and might be located. It is easy in most INS offices to contact state vital statistics via telephone to a liaison who would input a request to verify birth and reply that they have a record or not. That is usually just a look up in the index by the state official and not a look at the original files or records. In case of suspected identity theft, however a long form would likely be requested by INS or at least the info off of it. That is why the long form is of such importance.

The value of this letter IMHO is very little, as even if Hawaii was called and they had a BC it could still have been manufactured by grandma or other non-hospital witnesses.

I offer this.

I was around before copy machines became common. When a Lieutenant in the 82d Airborne Division in 1969, we had one in the entire brigade. I was in charge of this machine and one could only make copies if the proper form was filled out and the proper authorities approved. It was used mostly for legal cases, but even then very sparingly.

This particular file looks like a classic case of how bureaucracies worked pre copy machine. A document need to be verified and that verification must be recorded. Some official would be launched to look at the document and to then certify what it said and whether the document was legit. Someone looks at the birth certificate, extracts the relevant info and reports back. In this case, the report is a clumsy memo on a typewriter with a malfunctioning “L” key. That’s the simple explanation. Another simple explanation is that a photocopy (a photograph) of the birth certificate of the birth certificate was in the file but was redacted before the FOIA release because it referred to a living person.

Of course, there are other possibilities and I’m sure that we will soon read about all permutations. I’m not in a position to judge which one will be correct, but lots of others will insist that their particular version be accepted without challenge.