And as has been pointed out ad nauseum is a meaningless statement when you have the capability of changing the "record on file" without telling anyone that it has been changed.
That certification has a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. The certification previously used by Hawaii does not. There is no wiggle room as to the facts being sworn.
"... a true and correct copy of the original record..."
And on the WHLFBC the wording above Onaka's signature states:
"I certify this is a true copy . . . of the record on file . . ."
And Onaka's verification to SoS Bennett states:
I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached matches the original record in our files."
So you are contending the difference between "true and correct copy of the original record" versus "true copy of the record on file" and "matches the original record" is what exactly?
Again, my point here is simply to highlight why Birther arguments have not -- and will not -- ever gain traction among the thinking crowd. To suggest there is some functional difference in the wording here is just silly.