Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Think of a table as a drawer in a filecabinet or maybe a green hanging file folder in that drawer, where those green hanging file folders each contain several manilla file folders with lots of papers in each of those. A table stores data about like items. When designing the database, a DBA can organize the tables however he wants just like you can organize your file cabinet any way you want. Reorganizing later is much work.
My understanding of databases is that you can extract from it whatever you dang well please, sorted however you want it. Is that not the case?
Yes, that's mostly true. In the cases that it's not, the reasons why not would be low-level, technical details that matter only to we geeks.
As a DBA, what can you tell me about the format of records printouts? Can they print according to any parameter they so desire?
Think of it this way. If you can extract it with a query, you can print it.
However, as I understand the UIPA and OIP opinion letters, Hawaii doesn't have to manufacture (or assemble) the information for you. So while they may have the ability to easily query the database, they don't have to do so.
They've printed index data in five year increments to keep on-hand for public access in books/binders. I haven't seen those so I don't know what the data looks like. My guess is that they ran a query for all births between a five year date range and sorted the results (output) by year, then by last name. Then they assembled the data into book/binder format.
If I understand your summary, they're telling you that they refuse to run a separate query for you to extract only the 1961 birth index data because they consider that to be manufactering and assembling data, which they're not required to do. Do they have the ability to do so easily? Absolutely.
Think of a table as a drawer in a filecabinet or maybe a green hanging file folder in that drawer, where those green hanging file folders each contain several manilla file folders with lots of papers in each of those. A table stores data about like items. When designing the database, a DBA can organize the tables however he wants just like you can organize your file cabinet any way you want. Reorganizing later is much work.
My understanding of databases is that you can extract from it whatever you dang well please, sorted however you want it. Is that not the case?
Yes, that's mostly true. In the cases that it's not, the reasons why not would be low-level, technical details that matter only to we geeks.
As a DBA, what can you tell me about the format of records printouts? Can they print according to any parameter they so desire?
Think of it this way. If you can extract it with a query, you can print it.
However, as I understand the UIPA and OIP opinion letters, Hawaii doesn't have to manufacture (or assemble) the information for you. So while they may have the ability to easily query the database, they don't have to do so.
They've printed index data in five year increments to keep on-hand for public access in books/binders. I haven't seen those so I don't know what the data looks like. My guess is that they ran a query for all births between a five year date range and sorted the results (output) by year, then by last name. Then they assembled the data into book/binder format.
If I understand your summary, they're telling you that they refuse to run a separate query for you to extract only the 1961 birth index data because they consider that to be manufactering and assembling data, which they're not required to do. Do they have the ability to do so easily? Absolutely.
I admit I am lazy but that’s the guy in my on the one hand on the other these days I just don’t have time that I use to.
I take care of a friend, who is now 100yrs and 4 months old, from 6PM-6AM every night and the entire weekend.
She talks in her sleep and sometimes tries to get up and look for these imaginary babies she can hear and feel in her dream.
No alzheimers or anything but the dreams are very real to her and I have make sure she stays in that bed as she is dealing with a hip operation that went about as well as it could but left her with diminished motor skills.
She is perfectly fine mentally, emotionally and spiritual. Can tell you all kinds of stuff that she has experienced over her 100+years, she can read, write for hours on end with not shakes and beautiful handwriting and goes to the bank to do her business.
Just something happens at night and it’s blah, blah, blah all night long.
I use to listen to them and probably still do as she wakes me up when she is on a roll but can only telly you her dreams are 100% positive as she organizes life how she sees it and how she wants it be, which usually happens.
A very happy and positive person.
But, the talking all night long and getting up to look for non-existent babies to take care means I don’t get full sleep to the point I go to my office many days and fall back to sleep for a couple of hours.
which means instead of getting a full 12 waking hours to work on my business some days I only have 4 and I don’t what days those are as my body dictates when I absolutely need sleep and forces me to take some.
So yeah, I am way short on time and sleep but I said I would take care of her until God calls her home and if this what God wants for me, for her, then there is some important lesson in all this.
But there it is and I am taking shortcuts. I would prefer my soup from the stove top but it takes more time than a microwave and New England Clam Chowder tends to build up that skim on the bottom of a pot that makes it hard to clean.
Same with potato’s and popcorn. Prefer they are cooked in the oven or on the stove but, it takes time and you have to watch the popcorn so one doesn’t burn it.
I do cook on the stove and the oven most of the time like with fish or vegetables and potato’s.
just take your potato’s put them 15-20 minutes ahead of time, then pop your favorite fish or chicken and vegetable recipe in the oven and Voila’! 15 minutes later it’s dinner.
I will say though that 2 minutes rice in a bag for the the microwave is way easier and is actually more nutritious for you than rice cooked on the stove. It comes in whatever flavor you want.
For the most part, only shortcut I don’t take is eating packaged food. Can’t stand it. I hate spaghetti sauce out of a can or jar. I don’t know what that chemical is but I can taste it in every one of them.
So there it is and in about two hours, I’m going back to sleep.
Morning all, erh, night night.
james777:
You are a crackpot. Vattel was relied on heavily for Virginia and the U.S. Constitution.
I suspect you know this but you want to marginalize the inspiration for our laws to draw people to your side.
It may work for lazy people but our documents and laws all have extant at their creation an influence or evolution of prior knowledge or work.
Vattel is one of them.
You can ask me whatever questions you want too.
The laws allow them to not segregate records only if doing so would be very cumbersome. And all records - electronic or not - are supposed to be disclosed in whatever format is available. The 1961 birth index requires no compiling; it only requires segregation, which the computer does for them.
That’s why they initially said they could do it - including the very day that my money and order was sitting in their office. I’ve asked them what changed since that day and they refuse to answer.
I’ve also asked them for an electronic file of the 1960-64 birth index. They won’t disclose that either. Any list they can print out they should be able to save to disk and it would save them all the trouble and expense of using the printer. Why would they refuse to do that?
“The child born to an alien father is an inhabitant, not a citizen”
I totally dig that line.
Wow. You’re fun AND kind. God triply bless you!
“Dreams” is definitely fiction, since anything factual it tried to claim is pretty much refuted by what few actual records we can see.
Beyond the factual is the emotional, which is where loyalty fits in. And that is where his hatred of Winston Churchill, his communism, and his million dollars contributed to his communist relative, Raila Odinga, come in - Odinga who has aligned himself with the Muslims in Kenya who have opposed America’s “war on terror” there (funny - so does George Soros, Obama’s owner.)
Whether his dad was there for him or not, he chose his loyalties according to the agenda of his father - whether it be Frank Davis, who loved Russia above America, whether it be Malcolm X who loved Africa and hated America, or whether it be Barack Obama, who never even pretended to love or be loyal to America.
According to his own statements about the US Constitution, the only way he could take an oath to defend and protect it is if he lied. His intention all along was to run roughshod over the top of it, because it is too “limiting” to the government. IIRC, his stated strategy was to use regulations to undo the Constitutional limits on government. And that definitely matches what he’s done.
The Founding Fathers were smart to recognize that loyalty is something that grows from the roots, and Obama’s roots were never loyal to America or her Constitution.
Why would they refuse? Because you’ve earned the title of “vexatious requestor” in their opinion. They aren’t going to help you or offer up anything.
But to your point about electronic data ... just because it’s electronic doesn’t mean it’s a record. You might have the required information written on various pieces of paper spread out in multiple file folders in multiple hanging file folders in multiple drawers in multiple filecabinets in multiple rooms in multiple buildings. (Just going to extreme a little bit there.) Just because you have it doesn’t mean it’s easy to go dig it out. It might be. I might not.
To extract only the 1961 index data would require a DBA to run a query. Is that easy easy? Sure. Is it “assembling” data? Absolutely. That data exists in electronic format, but may not be “all in one place.”
lol. I wish guys could have a chance to deal with hormones in constant flux, kinda like the baby packs that guys can wear so they know what their pregnant wives go through. Last week my daughter and I hit the cranky time on the same day, and my younger daughter who is about to go through puberty was just as bad. Too much estrogen in our house that day, for sure. I spent a lot of time listening to them vent and then made them go shopping with me. We all came out of it feeling better. lol.
Guys, if a lady is being emotional your best bet is to just back off and listen. Anything else could be dangerous to your health. lol
“I have to give you credit for one time actually documenting one of your beliefs. “
Nice, but I cite my sources more than anyone else I’ve seen posting on these threads. However, I really do appreciate the civil tone of your response. It makes it easier to respond without emotion.
“The Exchange v. McFadden certainly establishes temporary allegiance as a basis for expecting aliens to follow local laws while in another country, but it says nothing about citizenship of their children.”
It does, if one accepts the WKA decision. Their argument that WKA is a NBC is based on the idea that natural born subject and NBC are two ways of saying the same thing, and an alien owes local obedience and allegiance, and thus a child born to him becomes a NBS/NBC.
This is followed by their argument from the 14th, which requires the alien to be under the jurisdiction of the US. This is where WKA cites The Exchange, “Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it.” And if an alien is under the jurisdiction of the US, then the child is, per the Constitution, a citizen.
I understand birthers argue this doesn’t mean a NBC. I disagree, but I at least understand that there is an argument that can be made. I do NOT see how any argument can be made that Obama Jr is not a US citizen IAW the 14th Amendment.
Also - if I have time today I’ll try to look it up - but I think an alien can be charged with treason if he acts in a harmful manner to the country he is in, even if it would help his real country, because while visiting the US under our permission, he owes the same allegiance that a native citizen would.
Now look at the quote you provided on Snug Harbor. I believe I cited a concurring opinion, but here is the one you cite:
“If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.”
The dates are important because it deals with the case of someone born during the Revolution, when the British Army took and held land for some time. The larger quote is:
“What are the rights of the individuals composing a society and living under the protection of the government when a revolution occurs, a dismemberment takes place, and when new governments are formed and new relations between the government and the people are established? A person born in New York before 4 July, 1776, and who remained an infant with his father in the City of New York during the period it was occupied by the British troops, his father being a loyalist and having adhered to the British government and left New York with the British troops, taking his son with him, who never returned to the United States, but afterwards became a bishop of the Episcopal Church in Nova Scotia; such a person was born a British subject, and continued an alien, and is disabled from taking land by inheritance in the State of New York.
If such a person had been born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, when the British troops took possession of the City of New York and the adjacent places, his infancy incapacitated him from making an election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remained a British subject, and disabled from inheriting land in the State of New York.
The rule as to the point of time at which the American ante nati ceased to be British subjects differs in this country and in England, as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the declaration of independence.
The settled doctrine in this country is that a person born here, but who left the country before the declaration of independence and never returned here, became an alien and incapable of taking lands subsequently by descent. The right to inherit depends upon the existing state of allegiance at the time of the descent cast.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/99/case.html
During the dates discussed - 4 July 1776 thru 15 Sep 1776, he was basically born a dual citizen, and “his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject”. Brought up by his father in British territory, he was a British subject - BUT! with “the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority”.
IOW, had he, when he became an adult, claimed US citizenship, he could have done so. He never did so. But he had the right to reject Britain and take the US, based not on his fathers wishes, but his birthplace. Had his birthplace been irrelevant to his citizenship, he would have had no “right of disaffirmance”.
Treaties are part of the Supreme law of the land, but not if they conflict with the Constitution. They are supreme over state law and constitutions, and over acts of Congress, but they cannot usurp the Constitution. The STATES formed our government by accepting the Constitution, and the federal government - the President and the US Senate making a treaty - cannot override the will of the states.
“However, Gray still had to justify the child of aliens as falling under the 14th amendment, which is why he inserted permanent domicil and permanent residence as factors of being under the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Disagree. What he wrote was:
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.”
Please notice that he ASSUMES the resident alien is not here forever: “His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory...” He then cites the SecState: “independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be” (there it is, an alien CAN be punished for treason).
To repeat for emphasis: “”independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation”. According to the Supreme Court, there is no requirement that the person have the intent of staying in the US forever. In fact, it specifically assumes the alien will NOT stay here forever. That may or may not be a good idea, but it is settled law since WKA.
“but yet there is still a distinction between this type of citizen and one who is natural born.”
Not according to the Supreme Court. “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle” - as much a citizen means he has as many rights and responsibilities as “the natural-born child of a citizen” - which would include running for the Presidency.
As I’ve written before, I don’t like the way the WKA decision came down. Although the Founders used the term NBC, I think their thought was more complex than that. However, courts are not mind readers. They are to read text, not minds, and the text uses a term that makes WKA a valid decision.
And in any case, it is the dominant decision involving citizenship, and is not going to be tossed out after 120 years so the Supreme Court can throw out an elected President holding office.
What’s the difference between assembling and segregating records? UIPA specifically defines electronic records as government records. The database includes all those electronic records. If you take out the 1960-64 births and print only those records you are segregating records. If you take out the 1961 births and print only those records you are segregating records.
So why is it OK for them to refuse to do one of those instances of segregating records? Segregating records is required.
“...not beliving [sic] in the First Amendment’s right of free speech???”
FreeRepublic has no constitutional requirement to post anything you choose to write. And if you check with the owner of the site, he has no desire to let people post anything they want.
In your case, I have complained about posts made disrespecting my wife, and the Admin Moderator has chosen to remove your posts. Most posters - including the vast majority of birthers - understand that family members who don’t post on FR are NOT fair game for derogatory comments. I am fair game, but my family is not.
If you think that violates your First Amendment rights...you are wrong. Again.
As I said, just because the data is stored electronically doesn’t mean it’s a “record.” Think of electronic data collectively as all of the handwritten or typed information on all of the pieces of paper in all of the file folders, hanging file folders, drawers, and filecabinets in an office. Think of a record as one sheet of paper in a file folder. The handwritten data on one sheet of paper is already assembled together.
Now lets say someone asks for information that would require you to gather information written on multiple pieces of paper in different files and drawers. Just because it’s stored in your filecabinets doesn’t mean it’s on one piece of paper (a record) or even in the same file folder or drawer (a table.) So while you may have papers segregated in logical order in file folders and drawers and can easily go get one record or one group of records, you can’t easily assemble bits and pieces of information from different pieces of paper in multiple file folders in multiple drawers. You could but why do so if it isn’t part of the natural order of your filing system?
A record is assembled data that is stored all together in one nice little package like a piece of paper. Records can be segregated like papers in a file folder. If electronic data is not a record that means it’s all spread out in multiple locations and has to be assembled and gathered in order to access and view it.
Its looking more and more like the true nature of Lucas Smith is being revealed.
Now I guess he is a Truther as he posted this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
InspectorSmith (1 day ago) Spam NEW BOOK! NEW BOOK! NEW BOOK! "Extreme Prejudice", by Susan Lindauer.
The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq
Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging, EXTREME PREJUDICE reveals one Asset's desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
anyone still posting on his site should be ashamed
The language of UIPA:
“”Government record” means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.”
From page 13 of the UIPA Manual:
“An agency should make the information available in the form
requested if it is readily retrievable in that form. An agency is not required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records unless it is readily able to do so.”
As you said, the HDOH could easily print out a 1961 birth index. According to the UIPA Manual that means they are required to do so, since they are “readily able to do so”.
Would the 1960-64 birth index be readily retrievable in electronic form?
Another issue regarding how they come up with the 1960-64 birth index. You said they would query all records with a birth date of 1960-64. But if - as they told me - the computerized index book is the current form of the handwritten 1961 index, then what it should contain is the births that were ACCEPTED by the state registrar in those years. The date reference should be the date the record was given a number by the HDOH - not the date of birth. Is there a way a person could tell what query was made that resulted in the printout itself?
May God bless you for your service to the old lady.
I’ll ask you both this, since you both so kindly offered. =)
The “For Office Use” portion of the request for a birth certificate lists different indices where the office worker is apparently is supposed to check off once they’ve checked that index. COHB, DBC, Pending, etc. When the P&E researcher was at the HDOH and asked about different indices - also including the index of foreign births, which existed in 1981 and was required to be kept permanently - they were told those indices didn’t exist.
How would that data likely be stored in a database? How would they keep the records separate in the database for the different categories of legal status? How would they likely flag amended or late BC’s? What index would those show up in?
Could a record be added today for a birth in 1961? Are there protections to keep manipulation from being possible?
Can reports be printed that would include several categories? For instance, could a report be printed that had just the 1960 and 1963 births? If such a report was printed, would there be anything on the report itself which would say what the query results were that were actually printed?
Would the whole database be likely to take queries by string variables - so you could query anybody with a last name starting with Ob, or could query anybody having the first name of Barack? Could you query anybody who was a Jr or Sr?
How might multiple records under a single certificate number be noted or kept straight - as, for instance, after an adoption when the original BC is sealed? Could two different names have the same BC#? If there was an adoption and the BC with the original name was sealed, do you think that original name would still show up on the index list?
WOW! It sounds like you sure have your hands full.
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.