ouch. of course. That's what I get for being cheeky. Cheers. D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10112230317090.18818-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org... > Correct. Of course, since they have one, you only have to present the other... > > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, John Seymour wrote: > >Which could easily be proven with copies of your's and your brother's birth > >certificates. > > > >D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message > >news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10112230049090.18576-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org... > >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Dennis P. Harris wrote: > >> >On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:21:29 GMT in soc.genealogy.misc, Paul > >> >Havemann <paul@havemann.com> wrote: > >> >> The prevailing question is whether the need for public > >> >> availability of certain information overrides the need for > >> >> privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. > >> >> As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of > >> >> identity theft based on them? > >> >> > >> >That's exactly how the purported murderer of Martin Luther King > >> >got a passport to get out of the country. He used the birth > >> >certificate for someone who was born about the same time he was, > >> >but who died when he was 3 or 4 years old, from a search of birth > >> >& death records in a state that had open access. > >> > > >> >Sixty Minutes or 20/20 or a similar program reported numerous > >> >cases with hidden camera examples several years ago. Using one > >> >birth cert of someone who died before getting a SSN, the show was > >> >able to create several false IDs and obtain drivers licenses and > >> >passports. > >> > > >> >My state now sells fancy limited edition birth certificates > >> >designed by local artists, with the extra fee going to subisidize > >> >childrens' programs, but I couldn't order one for my brother to > >> >give him for his 50th birthday. My mother could, because he was > >> >her child, and my brother could (as could his children), but they > >> >wouldn't sell one to me, his brother. Under state law, they > >> >can't even confirm his birth information for me. IMHO that's the > >> >way it should be. > >> > >> I disagree. As an immediate family member, you should have been entitled, > >>upon proof of relationship. > ========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======: Message-ID: <cancel.OrSW7.137032$RP1.26897406@typhoon.kc.rr.com> Control: cancel <OrSW7.137032$RP1.26897406@typhoon.kc.rr.com> Subject: cmsg cancel <OrSW7.137032$RP1.26897406@typhoon.kc.rr.com> From: "John Seymour" <jseymour@mn.rr.com> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 02:20:33 GMT X-No-Archive: yes Newsgroups: microsoft.test,comp.lang.c,soc.genealogy.misc NNTP-Posting-Host: wonenara.ozemail.com.au 203.108.164.177 Lines: 1 Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!dfw-peer.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp05!u.n.a.c.a.n.c.e.l.l.e.r This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.