I believe it was recently done. Certainly after Obama took office, and possibly as recently as just before he released it. Prior to the time he started running for President, there was no need for him to do anything whatsoever with his birth certificate. He certainly had no need to petition a court in Hawaii for any changes to it. It is only as a result of his running for President that he had any reason to bother with it at all. I would guess it was the publicity created by Trump that caused him to get a long form from Hawaii.
And there appears to be a number of difficulties that don’t jibe with your theory (as others have already mentioned previously). Such as:
1. Why didn’t the HDOH just use a real seal instead of constructing a seal out of PDF layers since the seal and date stamp are contemporary (dated April 25, 2011)?
My answer is only speculation, but I have suggested that the attorney was given a "proof" copy to approve so as to insure that it complied with what he requested from the Hawaiian Judge.
I will also point out that my own "official" birth certificate (Obtained in 2000) is completely printed. It has no separate "stamped" seal. This may be the way States are handling birth certificates nowadays. They may not be using "stamped" seals any more. I asked Danae for comment (She has a Hawaiian birth certificate obtained last year or so.) regarding whether her birth certificate is completely printed like mine, or if it had a separate stamped seal. I have so far heard no response. If her's is completely printed, then that will bolster my theory, if it has a separate "stamped" seal, then it will weaken my theory.
2. If the intent of the constructed, fake COLB is to fool the subject and other governing bodies, whey wouldn’t they be better at constructing the forgery? You would think that they had done this on numerous occasions since adoption is a pretty regular occurrence. Since it is a government entity, you would even think there would be some sort of form or guideline defined on how to generate a fake COLB instead of every single one just an arbitrary mish-mash.
The creation of a replacement birth certificate for an adopted child is only intended to pass a cursory inspection. The original intent of such a document (other than to identify the child under the new name) is to conceal the fact of adoption to the child. The process used to accomplish this concealment is straightforward and consistent. They simply erase the original parents and their information from the original document, and paste in text with the new information on it. In this case, it looks like they had to actually create certain words and names by combining pieces of text which were stored in different file formats in their large data base. That is why you get different pixel resolutions and bit depths, as in this example.
The fact that they had to paste together different pieces of text to get the words they wanted indicates that they had no original source document from which to copy these words in their database. It is a cobbled together Frankenstein monster document because they couldn't produce one in any other way.
If you keep this in mind, you can see why Hawaii would prefer to just issue "COLBs" which are simply saved as data in a computer file. It can be changed with absolutely no way of telling what was in the file originally. Unfortunately for Obama, no one was going to accept anything which did not resemble a 1961 document, so Hawaii DOH had to go back and use the "Old" system. Cut and paste.
3. Wouldn’t the manufactured COLB be kept on file in Obama’s records as an “original” instead of a manufactured PDF?
Yes, after it is created, but I am postulating that it was only created at the request of Obama's lawyer, most likely some time last year. (After Trump made it a public issue.) If Obama went to court to get his adoption annulled or amended, they would have to create a new document "on demand" and it would have to follow the court order detailing what is to be in it.
Surely they don’t generate these things only on-demand?
They create NEW ones on Demand. (Normally by order of a court.) Nowadays, they are trying to make the process much simpler. Hawaii, having been deluged with requests for long form birth certificates and other inquirys into their birth certificate records, decided to only issue COLBs. (Printed out computer records.) Most of the time, people are satisfied with these. It is only the occasional request for a "long form" that would have them going back to their files to make a copy, and it is ONLY when they are told by a court to create a new document for an old birth certificate will they go to the trouble of actually searching through their database for images they need to paste together. Under the new system, they only have to type in some new text and print it. You can see why they would like the COLBs better. Much less work/trouble.
4. And isn’t copying someone’s signature (such as the attending Physician) illegal no matter who does it? Even if it is intended to satisfy an adopted child? Unless, of course, you believe that the doctor on the COLB was actually his attending physician...
Apparently not. On my birth certificate is a copy of the signature of the Attending Physician, though my replacement birth certificate was created six years after I was born. Here is an excerpt from *MY* official birth certificate. I will repeat, this document was created six years after I was born.
Now I don't know if they got him to sign the new document six years later, or if they simply pasted his name on it from the original. I would suggest that if a physician died or was otherwise unavailable, they would have no choice but to copy his name from the original.
And there are many other questions that just don’t seeem to coordinate your theory. Seems you may be attempting to give the Hawaiian DOH some credibility where it doesn’t have merit?
In what manner am I giving them more credibility than they merit? They are being cagey, and they continue to be cagey. As a matter of fact, they are required by law to be cagey.
But I think we can both agree that Hawaii must be somehow complicit with the generation of the document no matter how it was fabricated because they have failed to dismiss its legitimacy
Oh absolutely. Where I differ from most people is I do not believe that Hawaiian officials are involved in a provable criminal conspiracy. I think they value their own skins too much to take such a risk, especially with the possibility of their complicity being discovered in the near future.
No, I think they bent every rule and gave Obama every consideration that they possibly could, but I think they kept within the boundaries of what can be proved as legal.