What's the definition of "exact copy"? If you were to scan the original paper at 1200 dpi, the result would look perfectly fine — you'd be able to see detail not visible to the naked eye — but it would still not be an exact copy.
He simply says the information is the same as is on the Original Certificate of Live Birth.
That's all he needs to say. He's saying the material facts asserted by the document Obama put out match those asserted by the document in Hawaii's possession. That's what a court would be looking for, if the question came before it.
Again, if the "original" certificate is based on an affidavit of at home birth, it is still not proof of actual birth in Hawaii.
If that were the case, then the released document would mismatch the on-file document on a material fact. Dr. Onaka would be a liar. And a court would take a dim view.
My very own birth certificate plays the very same game that is being played with those words above. I am absolutely adopted, (I even have my original Hospital issued birth certificate to prove it)
This is not an adoption. If it were, he'd be named Soetoro, wouldn't he?
They say in number 2 that the INFORMATION matches what they have on file, but they they do not say it is an exact copy of the original. They do not say if any information is omitted, such that the document has been amended or modified by court order.
But the information on the certificate is what it would have been amended from, if it had been amended, not what it would have been amended to.
If there is something wrong with the document, either the fraud must have taken place way back in 1961 or some Hawaiian officials have partaken in a monumental conspiracy. To uncover it, you'd have to start at the source. Pixels, color depths, and layers won't get anywhere. You'd need some compelling new external evidence to motivate a court to look into it.
In the legal system there is a concept called the "reasonable man" standard. Within the constraints of that commonly invoked legal standard, the meaning of the words "exact copy" need no further hair splitting such as you are suggesting.
That's all he needs to say. He's saying the material facts asserted by the document Obama put out match those asserted by the document in Hawaii's possession. That's what a court would be looking for, if the question came before it.
No it is not. Saying that the information on one certificate matches the information on the other certificate allows lying by omission. There may be some OTHER piece of information on the original. (Such as the writting "Born at Home at 2994 Kalihili" or some such.) The only way to get at the whole truth is to see a certified exact copy (within the reasonable man standard) of the ORIGINAL document. It is not in the best interest of the nation to tolerate ANY attempts to deceive or coverup the truth.
If that were the case, then the released document would mismatch the on-file document on a material fact. Dr. Onaka would be a liar. And a court would take a dim view.
I am not sure I have made this sufficiently clear. It is the LEGAL DUTY of Dr. Onaka to be a liar. Anyone in charge of birth documents is REQUIRED to lie, mislead, and create false documents regarding the birth information of an adopted child. It is axiomatic that the staff of every Department of Health in the United States, are required to lie as part of their job. There are 100,000 adoptions per year in this nation. That means there are 100,000 lies told on birth documents every year.
Now do you understand?
This is not an adoption. If it were, he'd be named Soetoro, wouldn't he?
One never knows when adoption law is involved. The Administrators of such documents are required by law to lie and mislead.
But the information on the certificate is what it would have been amended from, if it had been amended, not what it would have been amended to.
You would think that was the case only because you are relying on a layman's understanding of how the legal system works in this area. For an adopted child, the legal system may have a very different meaning for the term "Original document." They may very well regard any birth certificate which was subsequently created as an "original document". You simply cannot trust that the meanings of things are not flexible. My "original document" has been sealed by the court. It can not be accessed except by the order of another court. Without such an order, they will always steer you right back to my current document, and they will claim that is all there is, and that is all anyone is entitled to see.
If there is something wrong with the document, either the fraud must have taken place way back in 1961 or some Hawaiian officials have partaken in a monumental conspiracy.
Now see, this is another one of those things that you can't quite nail down because they depend on what the definition of "is" is. (To paraphrase Bill Clinton.) Depending on how you look at it, it could be regarded as a fraud, or as not a fraud, a "conspiracy" or as NOT a conspiracy.
Much has been written about Hawaii having been used as a backdoor to American citizenship for people of foreign birth because Hawaii's laws on allowing the issuance of a Hawaiian birth certificate are very lax. If the state legislature of Hawaii had been allowing very loose standards for granting someone a Hawaiian birth certificate, ought we call it a "conspiracy" if people get such a certificate without any real proof of having been born there? Are the officials in charge of administrating these very lax laws guilty of fraud or conspiracy? Again, it depends on what you mean.
I personally think that if there was any fraud or conspiracy it was on the part of Madelyn Dunham who may have filed for an "at home birth" birth certificate. I do not suspect any fraud or conspiracy on the part of Hawaiian officials in 1961, I simply regard them as having been tasked with administering services under very lax laws. Madelyn Dunham, on the other hand, had a very important reason for insuring that her grandson obtained American Citizenship, even if he was born in Canada, which at this point is my strongest suspicion. (Her Husband's sister was living in Canada in 1959.I think Stanley Ann got sent off to stay with her.)
To uncover it, you'd have to start at the source. Pixels, color depths, and layers won't get anywhere. You'd need some compelling new external evidence to motivate a court to look into it.
The courts have been the problem all along. Somehow we've allowed ourselves to be placed in the position of allowing a state privacy law to trump the Constitutional requirement that the President be a "natural citizen." Every court in the land should have said "You don't have a right to privacy regarding your birth documents if you are going to be elected as President."