Replies

"Come off it. Okubo said the “date filed” field on the COLB’s is the date they give the certificate a number at the state registrar’s office."

Sure she did. She also said a bunch of other stuff in that same paragraph that makes no sense and cannot be reconciled with the actual COLBs and long forms that we are all familiar with. You can't just pick out one phrase from a garbled response and pretend that the response is not garbled.

You yourself interpreted her as meaning that COLBs once had two different dates on them, one for accepted and one for filed. We both know that no such COLB version ever existed... certainly you have never seen one. See? Her response was so garbled that she even confused you!!

She clearly does not have any idea of what the process was in 1961, and neither do you. Therefore your elaborate theory of a coded admission of forgery based on this response from her is absurd on its face.

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time responding to you.

But....

We know that Accepted, Received, and Filed are all terms that have been used on COLB’s because COLB’s having them have been posted online. The question Okubo was asked was what the terms mean.

Okubo explained that Accepted had previously been used to say when a BC was received in a DOH office anywhere in the state. Filed previously meaned that the number was given in the state registrar’s office and the BC was filed.

Now, she explains, they rolled it all into the word “Filed” because when BC’s are filed electronically it all happens on the same day - as it also had happened with most births even before that, because the local registrar and state registrar almost always got the BC on the same day anyway, unless it was a birth outside of Oahu.

So the terminology may be different on different COLB’s out there today, depending on whether the COLB was printed before, or after, the time they rolled it all into the word “filed”.

Where the problem comes in for myself, BP2, and others is in the procedures for BC’s that are incomplete - where the state registrar has received the BC in their office but the BC doesn’t meet the standards to be given a certificate number. Okubo has not clarified what happens in that instance, and that is what we are discussing.

What she has said matches what several posters here have seen on their own COLB’s - COLB’s which they know are valid. So Okubo is most probably correct in what she has said regarding BC’s that qualify as valid. So stop with the baloney about Okubo’s statement not matching what we see on COLB’s.

What Okubo said clearly, though, was that they assign the certificate numbers in the state office on the “Date filed”. She said that after consulting with Alvin Onaka, the state registrar - the last e-mail of that communication being accidentally left in Okubo’s UIPA response.

If you want to call Okubo and Onaka unreliable sources I won’t argue. If you want to call them unreliable sources and still say we are crazy for therefore wanting an investigation, I will argue and for good reason.

It is foolish of you to make stuff up about their procedures because that will be found out by looking at the certificates themselves. Liars can cheat for a while but eventually the truth comes out.

I’ve figured out why communists and Islamists make such good bedfellows with each other: they both believe in lying for the cause, without batting an eyelash. Both believe in hiding under disguises right up to they point they detonate the bomb. It will be really interesting when we reach the point where they devour each other though.