When you deny the obvious it becomes quite clear you have been sent here to obfuscate and disrupt.
I would suggest that a birth certificate which looks like any other birth certificate, would not draw sufficient distinction between what she saw and what is usual enough to warrant commentary. Had she seen a birth certificate that looks EXACTLY like any other, she would not have described it as "Half written, Half typed." Couple that with what Governor Abercrombie said "There is actually something written down in the record." And it implies that what we are seeing is NOT what they have seen.
When you deny the obvious it becomes quite clear you have been sent here to obfuscate and disrupt.
Ooohhh... Looks like I struck a nerve with THAT comment. I assume you are aware that during an adoption, original birth certificates are sealed? Even those that were based on "born at home" affidavits from grandmothers. The Judge orders the creation of the new birth certificate, and somehow they put all the amended data in the correct fields, (including the Doctor's signature. I know, because I have a Doctor's signature on mine, even though it was created 5 years after I was born.) All evidence of the original is kept sealed, and yes, the state officials WILL LIE (actually mislead) about the veracity of the data contained on the new birth certificate.
That is why they won't say it is a "true and correct copy of the original..." but instead say "a copy or abstract of the record on file."
Weasel words that prevent them from perjuring themselves.