Reporting a forgery divulges nothing about the genuine record. There is no LEGAL reason for them to commit misprision of forgery and fraud.
And if Fuddy said in the letter that she gave to Obama’s representative a certified copy of the birth certificate - copied directly from the bound volume where birth certificates are stored - when in fact she gave him some intermediate step in the process to create his records back in either 1961, 1968, or whenever the adoption or unadoption took place (either one before there was such a thing as PDF or photoshop so any intermediate step would be scraps of paper taped to other scraps of paper - you seriously believe they kept those scraps of paper for 40 years?), then she is directly guilty of fraud at the least and possibly perjury, herself, for deliberately lying in an official communication.
If they want to claim that they did it in self-defense, then let them come forward and say who threatened them and with what.
I suggested to Janice Okubo at one point that she enroll in a witness protection program and get out of this before she became criminally liable. It shook her up to the point that she responded to that e-mail as if it was a different e-mail and the embedded history of the communications got all screwed up.
What you’ve said for why they are doing what they’re doing may very well be accurate. But I don’t see any way that it is legal.
Now this is indeed a hole in my theory. I do recall the mention of a bound volume. If Fuddy did indeed say that the document we are seeing comes from the bound volume, then it seemingly does not allow any wiggle room. If the document was created by photoshop, yet she says it came from that bound volume, then both things cannot be true. Either she is lying, or the document wasn't photoshopped.
I find it hard to believe (What with all the errors and oddities in it) that the document wasn't photoshopped, so therefore it leaves the conclusion that she must be lying.
One of the two outs I can think of is the possibility that the newly created document was PLACED into the bound Volume, and she let people THINK it has always been there. The Other possibility is that she LIED about it, but doesn't believe that any consequence can befall her for having lied about it.
I suggested to Janice Okubo at one point that she enroll in a witness protection program and get out of this before she became criminally liable. It shook her up to the point that she responded to that e-mail as if it was a different e-mail and the embedded history of the communications got all screwed up.
If the stories about Hawaii industrially selling birth certificates to foreign children are true, then she may well have more than one aspect of this issue to worry about.
What you’ve said for why they are doing what they’re doing may very well be accurate. But I don’t see any way that it is legal.
It is just my best guess in an attempt to understand what is going on. When faced with multiple possibilities, it is sometimes difficult to make sense of them. My theory may be completely wrong, but it should at least be kept in mind as one of the possible alternatives. Your point about the bound volume is a good one. It frames the question as "either/or".
I guess we just need to wait for more evidence, or perhaps some insight into interpreting the evidence we already have. I find the information about the missing flight records VERY INTERESTING.