Wouldn’t the parents involved have to sign off on either an amendment or annulment of an adoption? Stanley Ann, Barack Sr, and Lolo Soetoro are all dead.
HI law says that when an adoption is set aside the original birth certificate replaces the supplemental (adoptive) BC in the file. If somebody adopted Obama as an adult and then in April 2011 that adoption was set aside, the BC Obama would use would be the original paper document that was created in 1961 (or, if he was adopted at other points in his life, whichever BC immediately preceded the adoption that is now being set aside).
So if Obama was adopted by Lolo in the mid-sixties and that adoption was set aside in 1971, the original BC would be in effect after that. If Obama was then adopted as an adult (for instance, by that Native American couple), a new BC would be created showing that couple as his parents. If that adoption was set aside the original BC would once again be in effect.
I just can’t think of any way that what you’re saying could work out.
No. An adult can have any of their previous adoptions set aside.
HI law says that when an adoption is set aside the original birth certificate replaces the supplemental (adoptive) BC in the file. If somebody adopted Obama as an adult and then in April 2011 that adoption was set aside, the BC Obama would use would be the original paper document that was created in 1961 (or, if he was adopted at other points in his life, whichever BC immediately preceded the adoption that is now being set aside).
This is how things would ordinarily work, but Judges have great leeway in interpreting and applying the law. If the Original document is an affidavit of "at home birth" then Obama's attorney can argue that revealing it will infringe the privacy of his client who does not wish such information to be made public. The attorney can further argue that releasing such a document will be very injurious to his client because we neanderthals won't understand that a "born at home" affidavit is just as good as a real birth certificate because Hawaii accepts it under Hawaiian law. I believe that with these arguments the attorney can ask the court to create a new replacement document designed to resemble a "normal" 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate.
All he has to do is get the judge to agree, and DOH will print him up anything the judge orders it to print.
So if Obama was adopted by Lolo in the mid-sixties and that adoption was set aside in 1971, the original BC would be in effect after that. If Obama was then adopted as an adult (for instance, by that Native American couple), a new BC would be created showing that couple as his parents. If that adoption was set aside the original BC would once again be in effect.
Again, that is how things would NORMALLY work. Has there been anything about this guy that works according to a "normal" process?
I just can’t think of any way that what you’re saying could work out.
Will you agree that if they (Obama and attorneys) can get a judge to order it, DOH will produce whatever the Judge says?