What *IS* Hawaii doing? They are doing NOTHING about it. What would they Do if the thing was forged by someone else and yet claimed to be produced by them? Are you familiar with Sherlock Holmes? This is "the curious incident of the dog in the night" all over again!
If caught, I’m sure the “legal” forgery will be their play but that will only work if he was born in Kapolani Hospital in Hawaii.
On what basis do you claim this? What makes you think that is a requirement? As near as I can tell, he only needed to be examined by a doctor working out of Kapiolani (up to a year later) to get that put on the document. I would also go so far as to say, if a Judge decided having a Hospital listed on the document was necessary to prevent the child from becoming aware that he was adopted, I think a Judge would order it be placed on the document even if it were not true. You must understand that the administration of most adoption law is geared to PREVENT the child from realizing he was adopted.
For your document, the base of your original birth certificate is the same. All they changed was the parental information. The doctor’s signature, the registrar’s signature, the seals, the stamps, the time of birth, the weight, the location, etc. are still the same. Meaning it’s not a butchered certificate. Only the areas that you would expect to be changed for an adopted child are changed.
My state does not have Hawaii's laws. I don't know of ANY other state that allows the creation of a birth certificate for someone born elsewhere, but Hawaii allows this. I would not be so certain about what can be placed on their documents.
I don’t see how you get around the doctor and the registrar’s signatures.
I have explained how they can get around the Doctor's signature.
From what I remember reading, a child which is born at home can be examined anytime for up to a year after birth, and the doctor which examines him is designated as the "birth doctor" and signs the birth certificate. As for the registrar, once a record is created (even by the grandmother) the registrar need only designate that it is in the system.
What if this specific doctor only delivered two babies in the state of Hawaii. If they can’t use his signature from the original (sealed) certificate can they take (copy) it from the other baby’s birth certificate?
I don't know how that works. My birth certificate contains the signature of the doctor who delivered me, but My current birth certificate was created 6 years after I was born. Whether they simply copied his name from the original, or hunted him down and had him sign the new papers, I don't know, but his signature is ON the new document.
Also, if no original was available, how would they know who the doctor or the registrar were? Can’t imagine a doctor would like his signature being used for babies he/she didn’t deliver.
As mentioned above, the "birth doctor" can be whomever examined the baby and certified it as healthy within a year after it was born. The registrar can be whomever signed the original birth "record" when it was first created. They did not need to see an actual baby to create the original record, and as long as they got the baby examined by a doctor within a year, (Stanley Ann attended Hawaii University in the Fall of 1962.) they could get a birth doctor's signature on the document.
Hawaii's laws are screwy. You keep getting off track with this because you, like most people, cannot believe that they are really this screwy.
Hawaiian birth certificate laws REALLY ARE THIS SCREWY.
The story is that Obama’s lawyer flew to Hawaii to pick up two paper copies.
The PDF file belies the fact that the “supposed paper document” that Obama’s people showed at the press conference was not hand-stamped by a person.That is a security feature.
It should have been that Hawaii printed a hard copy of the document, then a human being hand stamps the date and signature blocks. No way that hand-stamp text block came off a scan of the document Obama released. It was imported into the PDF file.
That means Hawaii (or the forger) gave him a PDF file not a hard copy. Why would Hawaii not just hand-stamp it when the lawyer came to pick them up.
So is Hawaii allowed to issue “alterable” PDF files in the place of paper documents that have been hand-stamped by a human being? That seems absurd on the face of it.
Ultimately, I will have to go with the Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse with regards to the “probable cause for forgery.” They know the laws better than I do.
How did they do this before Photoshop? Before commercial databases?
I don't know when you were born, but I doubt it was after the advent of these technologies.
It's most likely that somebody took a photocopy of the original document (or the original itself), and used correction tape to blank out the original data and overtype with new data onto the new document. That's not the same and creating a Frankenstein document out of parts of completely independent original documents.
-PJ