. . . to article and #66.
.
On that 1978 document the form field corresponding to the 1961 document field containing “378-18.8” has been used to make a typed entry six months after the birth was recorded proving that this field is used by officials to type in updating information long after the birth.
This raises the possibility that “378-18.8” may have been typed onto the 1961 document long after the birth, even years after the birth to note reclassification of the document under updated statutes. A new 378-18.8 statute might have required a review and reclassification that would have been typed onto the document on review.
Note how the line of type with “378-18.8” doesn't align with the typing at the beginning the field indicating that the document was reinserted into a typewriter before the statute was typed indicating a different time frame for that typing, and “per grandmother” doesn't align either indicating a third insertion and a possible third time frame for that comment.
At a minimum, an image of this document was obtained after passage of 378-18.8, but who knows what alterations could have been made based on further testimony to amend this document to reflect a Honolulu birth. (Wild aside: maybe Stanley Ann “confessed” to her mother that she only “pretended” to go to Kenya, called in the birth and Grandma reports it to HI vital statistics, but she had “actually” never left Honolulu? Then new BC is put in vital records that we don't have that corrects the improperly reported Kenya birth?)
There are two signatures in addition to Dunham's that could be tied to actual persons and validated if it came to that.
It looks like the signatures were from the same hand. Even the dates are from the same hand. They made the “8’s” look different but the slashes are identical IMHO
. . . to article and #66.
.
It’s a fake, trying to heat up the issue while they pass health care. Don’t fall for it.