You are trying to make the argument that the state can issue a type of abstract document that would replicate the information on the original birth certificate. Possibly they can but I highly doubt that their laws, statues, protocols would allow them to create a digital image that was NEVER in paper form and to create this digital document they had to cut and paste information from other documents.
I am trying to make this argument because this is true. The States not only CAN do such a thing, they do it every single time an adoption occurs.
If it was NEVER an original paper document it had to have been made up of digitally scanned parts of other documents. Some parts created, some added, some imported. A Frankenstein abstract.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying it is! It is LEGAL for the state to produce such "Frankenstein" documents, and it is done routinely. According to this web page, the United States has 120,000 adoptions per year. That is 120,000 fake birth certificates created every year.
Are you saying the state has a right to take Verna Lee or the doctor’s signature off somebody else’s birth certificate and use it for an abstract document for Obama? That’s fraud. You can’t take someone’s signature off a different document and place it on an abstract even if they signed the original birth certificate (which I highly doubt).
I don't think they faked the doctor's signature. You are right, that's fraud and I don't think the state can go that far, but if you will consider what I am saying about Obama having an "at home birth" affidavit as his original record, then you will understand that Hawaiian law allows a parent up to a full year to have the child examined by a doctor. (I think butterdezillion can confirm this.) Stanley Ann Dunham was back in Hawaii in August of 1962.
I have been told, (though I haven't verified it myself) that if the child is examined by a physician within a year of it's birth, the physician will be regarded for legal purposes as the "birth physician."
I do understand your point about certificates for adopted children. But there are rules, protocols, standards, laws for how each state handles and produces those documents.
They don’t have a standard for all adopted children and ONE SPECIAL ONE FOR OBAMA where they use Sally Smith’s original birth certificate and take the letter “a” and hand paste it 50 times throughout and then take a square check box and paste it over half the other check boxes from Billy Jone’s original birth certificate and then take Verna Lee’s signature from Trayvon’s original birth certificate, then scan a copy of the hand stamp text block, import it and then print out a Frankenstein abstract and then call it “legal.”
Hawaii would need to hire 50 graphic artists just to issue handcrafted birth certificates for adopted children.
Hawaii gave parents and/or the local registrar (in cases where parents were not available) a month to get together all the information required for the birth certificate. If that information was not received within a month of that time period, the BC had to be stamped with “Delayed” and it would not be legally probative.
Lori Starfelt says she spoke with somebody at the HDOH who told her that they required a doctor’s examination to verify the information from at-home births. Whether that is true, I have no way of knowing for sure because Lori Starfelt is apparently the only person in the world who can get the HDOH to answer questions. What they are REQUIRED to do is to provide records and they claim no records that clarify what the procedures and requirements were for that time.
Aloha Ronnie has mentioned overhearing women talking about how they could register their foreign-born newborns as having been born in HI. Whether they had to be seen by a doctor he didn’t know. But there was a 2-month window in which they could have gotten a BC completed, with the doctor signing off on the details. And they must have done that, because the CDC’s statistics for attended and unattended births shows very few unattended births - but does clarify that an unattended birth would be one where the mother and baby were not examined by a doctor afterwards, regardless of the circumstances of the birth.
If Obama was born in HI there would be no reason at all for him to not have a HI birth certificate. If there was an adoption involved the only thing that would be different would be the names on the BC - his, and his parents. If his name is in the birth index as Barack Hussein Obama II then there is supposed to be a discloseable BC for him under that name, and adoption by Soetoro would have no bearing on that. However, we do know that the birth index has been manipulated to include birth names for at least some adoptive children. If there is not a Barry/Barack Soetoro in the birth index then it should be concluded that either he was never adopted by Soetoro or he was adopted and then unadopted - in which case the only discloseable BC they would have would be under the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
So if there is a Barry/Barack Soetoro in the birth index then there could be a BC for him under the adoptive name - in which case they could not disclose the BC under the Obama name unless they had a court order. I did request to see the court order allowing them to disclose an original birth certificate for Obama and they said there was no record responsive to my request.
It’s hard to know anything about the records when you know the HDOH is altering official records. But if anything about their records or what they’ve said in UIPA responses is true, then the adoption angle doesn’t fly.
In any event, what Candor7 said is very relevant. Even when BC’s are fabricated to cover for an adoption they are created as complete paper documents. If there was a supplemental BC created after an adoption that paper BC would be in the volume of BC’s and when somebody requests it there would be no way to tell it from any other BC. It wouldn’t have to be manipulated digitally like the Obama long-form was manipulated.
Nor would a COLB have to be forged.