Again, Idiot. The usage of the word "original" is not in the proper context, as in "This is the original document."
That they have an "original record" or that the information "matches " an "original record" is immaterial to the point.
Until an official says "That is the ORIGINAL" document, everything else is a dodge.
Let me say it for you again. An Official has to certify:
that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
Here's an example, because I know you need one.
Anything less allows for a replacement birth certificate, (created by adoption, etc.) or a birth certificate created by an unattended birth affidavit.
If they won't certify it as *THE* original document, then it is meaningless.
The usage of the word "original" is not in the proper context, as in "This is the original document." There is no material distinction between "this is the original document" and "this is the information shown on the original document."
Let me say it for you again. An Official has to certify: . . . that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
Says who? NOT the State of Hawaii, which says that verification of a fact is the same as certification! And your attempt to nominate yourself as the Standards Czar is rendered all the sillier when one looks at the language used in other states. For example, my childrens' certificates say merely:
"I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the essential facts recorded on the birth record on file in this office for the individual named hereon."
"Essential facts on the birth record" is another way of saying "this is an abstract." And that language (and the form as a whole) has been sufficient proof of birth for passport and other purposes. It would be legally admissible in a court of law as a "self-proving" attestation of the birth fact.
There is no meaningful distinction between that formulation and:
"I certify this is a true copy or abstract thereof of the record on file in the Hawaii Department of Health."
Neither purports to state the document is a complete copy of the original, simply that such information as is reproduced is "true" ("matches") the information as reflected on the original.
Anything less allows for a replacement birth certificate (created by adoption, etc.)
I'd have to see an example of a replacement being explicitly referred to as the "original" for that argument to get an inch off the ground.
In any event, the adoption scenario as a theory to cast doubt on the information shown on the WH image makes absolutely no sense. You're suggesting what? That the African student and Stanley Ann weren't Obama's biological parents? That the WH image might reflect a later adoption and that the "original" would then show different parent information and possible different birth location? Seriously??????
a birth certificate created by an unattended birth affidavit.
A theory precluded by the WH image showing a hospital birth attended by Dr. Sinclair and Hawaii verifying that that information is contained on the original birth certificate.
And your hauling out some document as certified in 1979 is meaningless given that Hawaii in 2001 stated it was no longer issuing and certifying birth records in that form.
Ok, I’m only getting half of this conversation, but I think I see what you’re saying. Namely, at no time does an HI official say, ‘This is a certified copy of the original BC,’ while putting forth a copy that has an absolute seal of certification—as opposed to a seal that allows for the document to be an abstract.
Actually, I must not have it after all. That is too simple, and would not admit of years and years of obot screaming and table pounding, nor could it justify innumerable, staggering walls of words.
It’s got to be more complicated than what I expressed above, no?