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?
It’s got to be more complicated than what I expressed above, no?
No, you pretty much summed it up. Nothing they ever put forth attests to it being an "original" document. They say it has the same information as the original, they say that they have the original in their files, they say it is a copy or an abstract of a record that they have in their files, but they never acknowledge that what is being show is "original."
You see, they can get in legal trouble if they certify that document is a "true and correct copy of the original record" if it is in fact not an original.
They would give away the game if they refused to "certify" it at all.
So what they do is certify that it could be an original, or it could be an abstract of a record in their files, which means they won't tell us exactly what it *IS*
They imply that it is an original, but they simply won't come out and say so. Instead they just dodge the question. Call it "certification theater."