And it is a fraudulent certification at that, according to this author’s analysis
No. My wife used a City of New York ‘Certification of Birth’ to get a passport and its only ‘raised seal’ was intaglio printing used in the border, and the signature was printed as part of the background, and it was most assuredly not a certified photocopy of the document issued at the time of her birth. My daughter used a ‘Copy of Record of Birth’ from Massachusetts, a rather ratty document typed on a form that was printed (in the 1980’s) on an ordinary printing press, with a raised seal generated by clamping the paper, to get a passport.
Unless you are aware of a distinction *under Hawaiian law* between a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ and a ‘Certification of Live Birth’, the difference in terminology is irrelevant, as for that matter how it was printed. Massachusetts used an ordinary printer, New York City a big fancy intaglio printer. If Hawaii wants to print the background with a fancy color printer, then print the text on with a laser printer, rather than type it on, or even print the whole lot together on a color laser printer, the different custom is within the rights of the several states. If Hawaii wants to call them ‘Certifications’ rather than ‘Certificates’ (after all Massachusetts calls them ‘Records’) that also is irrelevant.
Okay, Hawaiian FReepers, does Hawaii really have two different classes of documents, one of which is called a ‘Certification’ and is somehow less valid for purposes of proof of citizenship than the other, as NathanR avers, or does Hawaii simply call what Masschusetts calls a ‘Record of Birth’, or even a ‘Copy of Record of Birth’ a ‘Certification of Live Birth’?