[Myrddin]

The reference to the "son" being a U.S. citizen is an assumption not proved in this document. The clerk who typed the letter assumes it is so, but offers no supporting evidence. We still need the birth certificate.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

The reference to the "son" being a U.S. citizen is an assumption not proved in this document. The clerk who typed the letter assumes it is so, but offers no supporting evidence.

I think this is important and worth noting.

If you read the entire file of documents to understand how they were going about things, one would conclude that most likely the information in this memo was obtained by calling Ann and asking her, and then looking at the INA statute and typing out the memo to file.

There is no reason to think anyone contacted the State of Hawaii vital statistics department to actually see any original documents.

And doing that would have been beyond the scope of what they were trying to figure out. They were trying to determine whether Lolo should be granted a waiver or extension of his visa. Part of that is trying to understand his family situation.

As one can see in the file, most of the relevant information they got from talking to Lolo or to Ann or communicating with the people at the center running the foreign exchange student program.

[Irish Eyes]

The reference to the "son" being a U.S. citizen is an assumption not proved in this document. The clerk who typed the letter assumes it is so, but offers no supporting evidence. We still need the birth certificate.

Yes , you are right, this document means absolutely nothing as far as proving obama's citizenship. One lie on top of another.