Posted on 10/02/2009 11:46:39 AM PDT by crosstimbers
The Hawaii Department of Health has reversed course. They now admit that they do - in fact make some vital records information available to the public. This admission reverses their prior response pattern indicating that no information could be released.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Two things:
Was common law marriage a valid construct during their time together?
If so, common law generally requires more than co-habitation from time to time.
Thanks.
LOL
Get em Chick!
If so, common law generally requires more than co-habitation from time to time.
I usually think of co-habitations for certain period of time being together as common in law marriages ...set by state statutes. What went for marriages in Kenya in 1960 I have no idea. Could a previous Kenyan common in law marriage be recognized in US courts which could overturn a marriage sanctioned by a US state?
Where is your esteemed pile of refutation?
placemark.
It is odd only that is not a mistake. It is a clue.
Whooosh! Freight train running over a curious cat.
She works in the White House?
Really?
Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health. In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18). Yeah, I've been looking at that, too ;) Either the DOH just broke the law, or they gave us a big bread crumb.
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as delayed or altered. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6] |
Remember the "Date Accepted by State Register" vs "Date Filed by [Local] Registrar" issue? |
I'm not sure what there is to refute. Someone asked for Bambi's index record. DOH complied with the request, and as a bonus provided the index record of his parents.
Leo "Black Helicopter" Donofrio seems to think this is a big deal for reasons that escape me.
Wouldn’t UK citizenship be conferred by his father. Sorry, I am sure you answered this before and I believe it had to do with proof by way of a BC.
Thanks.
You know what. I know someone who used to work on the Burroughs machines and I have some questions for him.
Thanks.
I think they are clues.
I can’ listen to this mindless palaver with flowery quotes and apologies galore.
Thanks for taking one for the team and pointing to the mark on the video.
Tell me what you know regarding the 2510 and any other pertinent info. I know someone who was very familiar with IBM and Burroughs of the 50’s and 60’s.
I would like to ask a few questions but may need some help by way of prompting.
thanks
That is what I thought. It was developed in the 70’s.
Oh, okay.
It's a much older legal phrase. Most states abolished common law marriage in the 1920s or 30s.
Daschle, Soetoro-Ng to serve on White House commission
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.