Minuteman, I saw that image awhile ago and the one thing that made me question whether it was real or faked was the missing NUMBER that ought to appear at the top. Has anybody tried to decipher the name that appears under the grandmother's signature. Does it look like ERICSON to people?Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Another thing is its departure from what Hawaii has put out as far as its COLB and its Birth Index data. Neither of those claim that the birth data was "ACCEPTED" by the Vital Stats registrar; just that the data was received. That had Donofrio raising still more questions.
As far as whether the validity of a marriage could be overturned some 48 years later, and despite a "settled" divorce decree from 1964 ... who can say? With stakes so high (POTUS job) it's quite possible that a court might feel the issue was too important to let "sleeping dogs lie" and would reopen the matter to "test" what the law was at the time -- things like Hawaiian recognition of foreign "tribal marriages" and Kenyan recognition of "tribal marriages". Sticky wicket there. The statutes of Kenya didn't recognize tribal marrages, but court decisions by Kenyan courts did ... and did so all the time. So you've got codified law on the one hand, and "stare decisis" of a British colony where one can pre-suppose that notions of British common law (all built on case law) held sway.
It's such a CAN 'O WORMS that I figured some "greater expert" in matrimonial law than I'll ever be would need to sort it all out. :roll: