It's not the matter of a "fake" birth certificate, as you call it. It's a matter of how Hawaii issues new birth certificates.
The word "fake" is mis-applied. If Hawaii legally entered new data into their computer systems and then printed a new document on approved security paper and had it certified and embossed, that would not be "fake."
If Hawaii took digital images from several independent documents and "copy and pasted" a new document outside of their legal system of record, then that document is a forgery.
The document would be a forgery because: 1) it contains information that is not reflected in legal systems of record, 2) it implies that the parties to the document legally participated in the transaction (i.e., if doctor signs document A and then that signature is pasted into an image of document B, the doctor did not sign document B and would have to testify to that fact).
No government would make this their legally binding practice of issuing certified documents.
-PJ
The word "fake" is mis-applied. If Hawaii legally entered new data into their computer systems and then printed a new document on approved security paper and had it certified and embossed, that would not be "fake."
If it is not a "true and correct copy of the original record" then yes, it's a "fake." But it's not worth arguing about. I use the term "fake" to indicate "non original." We can use any term you like, as long as one is distinguishable from the other.
If Hawaii took digital images from several independent documents and "copy and pasted" a new document outside of their legal system of record, then that document is a forgery.
"Forgery", "Fake", Potato Potahto. It's NOT an original, it's a legal fake. Obviously when a birth certificate is created for an adopted child, the information of who the New Parents are is not *IN* their legal system of record until it has been PUT into their legal system of record.
The document would be a forgery because: 1) it contains information that is not reflected in legal systems of record, 2) it implies that the parties to the document legally participated in the transaction (i.e., if doctor signs document A and then that signature is pasted into an image of document B, the doctor did not sign document B and would have to testify to that fact).
My current legal birth certificate was created six years after I was born. It has the signature of my birth doctor upon it. Do you think they went to him and asked him to sign the new document, or just copied and pasted his signature onto it without his knowledge?
No government would make this their legally binding practice of issuing certified documents.
I am telling you that not only WOULD they do so, they DO SO ROUTINELY.