[butterdezillion]

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.

[EnderWiggins]

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

Sure you do. You respond to me because you know that your wild speculation regarding the certificate numbers depends on you knowing what you do not actually know, and it unsettles you that I keep pointing that out.

"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."

How strange then that she actually did not answer that question in what you posted.

For starters, can you show us a COLB that has "received" on it? Speaking only for myself, I have only seen "filed" and "accepted," but never "received." On the long forms I've seen as well, all of them say "accepted" (by either the "Local Reg" or "Reg. General"). Apparently Okubo has never seen one either, because she never even mentioned it

Now... you asserted that she was saying that COLBs used to have both "accepted" and "filed" dates on them. But we both know this is not true, so even you are unclear on what Okuba was actually saying. Your later certainly seems a tad forced as a reult.

Her explanation appears to be an effort to explain the different labels on COLBs by associating them with the two different "accepted" dates on the long forms. But of course the long forms are date stamped when the forms were "accepted" by two different registrars, the Local and the General. Why would they both say "accepted" if one of them was the date that a document was physically received, and the other was something completely different, i.e. the date a number was assigned?

That hardly makes sense.

If instead that date is (as in the local registrar) the date the document was received in Honolulu, you still have no genuine way of knowing that the number was assigned that same day. Okubo might have assumed so, but not because she actually talked to somebody who would really know. Because anybody with a shred of experience in a batch process for documents will tell you that would be highly unlikely. Even if the numbers were assigned in Honolulu, the documents would be placed in a pile as they came in and were stamped "accepted," thus creating a "batch" that eventually would get to the part of the process where numbers were assigned. That could be later in the day, or week, or month.

And the numbers would be assigned based on the order the documents came up in the stack.

The image of a poor clerk doing those two tasks at the same time (stamping the date "accepted" and then assigning a certificate number with a different before moving onto the next) is absurd in its inefficiency.

The bottom line here, butter, is that you still have no foundation for the claim that the number sequence provides a scintilla of evidence that the COLB is forged