Curiosity and Parsifal, it’s explained at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
The short version: The DOH has confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is amended. Amended birth certificates lose their prima facie evidentiary value as per HRS 338-17, which can be seen here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017.htm .
Amendments are required to be shown on birth certificates, as per HRS 338-16, which can be seen here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm. The Administrative Rules provide for 2 kinds of certificates: the standard (long-form) and abbreviated (COLB). Both are described as birth certificates and both are thus required to have note of amendments. Factcheck’s COLB for Obama doesn’t have that note. Thus, the Factcheck COLB is known to be a forgery.
In addition, as this thread is supposed to be about, the DOH indicated that the certificate numbers were given at the state DOH office, and observation of BC’s posted online shows that they were given in ascending order. The Factcheck COLB shows a cert# supposedly given 3 days earlier receiving a later number than a cert# given 3 days later. This reveals that the Factcheck combination of “Date filed” (which Okubo says is the date the cert was given a number at the state registrar’s office) and the certificate number is impossible, given the date and number on the Nordyke certificates. This is additional confirmation that Factcheck is a forgery.
So we know that Factcheck is a forgery. Period.
And we know that even if Obama had the DOH print out an authentic COLB for him right now, it would have note of an amendment that would rule out the COLB being prima facie evidence.
IOW, the best Hawaii has is the legal equivalent of hearsay - which is what the Kenyan BC is. Only the Kenyan BC could still be authenticated by the Kenyan government if these cases were allowed to go forward. Hawaii has already revealed that they can’t necessarily consider Obama’s Hawaiian documents to be proof of anything.
The only way anybody can know which BC’s claims have more legal credibility is by investigating the actual certificates themselves, together with whatever supporting documentation there is. That is precisely what “birthers” have been asking for all along.
Now, curiosity, we don’t know if Obama’s birth was fraudulently registered or not. We can’t know that until we see what actually happened - which can only be done by seeing all the records - from Hawaii, from Kenya, and any other place he might have records.
BUT we know that Hawaii statutes don’t consider his birth record there to be up to legal snuff because it was amended 40+ years after the birth.
Yes, I've seen birthers claim this. Unfortunately, the claim is just not true.