As for changing a BC so it doesn’t reveal things that somebody doesn’t want revealed there are 3 instances where the law allows that: adoption (changing the relationship of child to parents), sex change/determination, and legitimation (changing the marital status of the parents at the time of birth, if the birth parents married sometime after the birth). The law does not allow laundering of place of birth or quality of documentation simply because those things are embarrassing to somebody.
There are three kinds of BC’s that exist in Hawaii: a standard BC, a delayed BC, and a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. There is no such thing as a simple affidavit that passes as a birth certificate. If there is an at-home birth the birth still has to be registered on a regular birth certificate, the difference being that the parents and/or registrar complete the form and sign as the witness(es). As long as the birth was registered within 30 days of the 30-day deadline, nothing is marked as late or anything else. If the child and mother are examined by a doctor within the first month the doctor signs the BC as if he/she was present at the birth and there would be no way to know it was an at-home birth.
Only if there is no witness to the birth or the birth was registered a year or more after the birth would there have to be affidavits to support any initial claims on the BC - in which case the BC would be either a COHB (which is a totally different form and which can only be converted to a standard BC (maked as late) by surrendering the COHB. And in that event there would STILL be a BC filled out, with a note describing the evidence submitted in support of the claims.
And Hawaii law says that such BC’s MUST be marked on their face as being “late” - because late and altered BC’s are not prima facie evidence. When a late or altered BC is presented as evidence HAWAII LAW says that it is up to the judicial or administrative person or body to determine how credible the claims on that BC are. That’s because HI won’t vouch for the accuracy of claims under those suspicious circumstances. They only collect the evidence offered and relay it to those who have to decide whether the claims are supported well enough to be considered accurate.
IOW, Hawaii law does not allow the State of Hawaii to pass off a late or altered BC as if it was prima facie evidence.
If Barack Obama was born at home in Hawaii the standard procedure would be to have mom and baby examined by a doctor (within the first month) who would then fill out and sign a standard BC. There would be no reason for affidavits, C&P, or anything else. The only reason there would need to be affidavits is if mom and baby weren’t around to be examined - but in that case, there would be reason to seriously question why they weren’t there to be examined if the birth happened in Hawaii as claimed.
So if Obama’s “birth/vital record” (as Fukino keeps calling it, rather than a “birth certificate”) was half-handwritten and half-typed that would indicate a birth certificate supported by an affidavit(s) - which is what former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama indirectly confirmed as existing. That would only be necessary if the BC was still incomplete after the 2-month window for a standard BC to be completed and thus had to be amended to add missing information. That would be a LATE BC and would show up as a standard BC with LATE stamped on it, a BC# with an L in front of it, and a note on the BC to say what amendment/addition was made, when, and on the basis of what documentation. Or it could be a DELAYED BC, which is actually a different form than the standard BC and is used for births registered a year or more after the birth. A delayed BC has to have additional documentation such as affidavits.
None of that would be necessary if mother and baby were examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month - regardless of where the birth took place. The birth could have taken place in Canada, Kenya, or Jupiter and as long as mother and baby were examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month of the claimed birth date, there would be a normal BC that qualifies as prima facie evidence (so that the burden of proof would fall on the person claiming the BC was NOT accurate).
Any adoption after that time would result in a supplemental BC being created that simply has the parents’ and child’s name altered to reflect the legal relationships. The rest of it would stay the same. That supplemental BC would take the place in the file. If an unadoption happened the original would be restored back to the file as the legally-binding document.
The only reason for Obama to have to ask a judge to launder his BC to make it appear that his wasn’t claimed as a home birth is if mom and baby were not examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month after the claimed birth. What Obama would be asking a judge to do is turn a LATE (legally non-probative BC) into a non-late BC - supposedly because it would be “embarrassing” to him to have a LATE BC.
If judges can create “1961” documents in 2011 for people simply because they are “embarrassed” because they don’t have anything that actually dates back to 1961, we may as well forget about keeping birth records at all. If you could have that, what would keep a judge from creating a 1980 draft registration for those who are “embarrassed” because they never registered for the draft in 1980? Or a US passport for a POTUS candidate who is “embarrassed” that he only had an Indonesian and/or Kenyan passport before he got a diplomatic US passport as Senator? Or create INS records, school records, etc all for the same reasons?
Heck, what would stop judges from creating identities out of nowhere and giving those identities to people who are “embarrassed” by their real identity?
But let's set that aside for a moment. Let us ask instead why his document looks "normal". (to a casual inspection.) I think there is very good circumstantial evidence to indicate that Obama was adopted by both Lolo Soetoro, AND his grandparents. *IF* this is indeed true, then he ought not have a "normal" looking birth certificate. (As you yourself pointed out.)
It is a fact that he does. I see two possibilities. He was never adopted and his document is completely legit, or he WAS adopted and they have managed to create him a document that resembles an original after he had his adoption(s) annulled.