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.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."
That is so clear and simple. A child could grasp it. Makes absolutely perfect sense also. No words walls required, just a bare minimum of intelligence.
Yet still you believe that not all obots are IQ challenged. You grade on a mighty generous curve.
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* And no one who understands our system for recording and certifying births in this Nation (being it a State Secretary or U.S. Congressman) questions the sufficiency of Hawaii's certification or sees anything unusual about it. Compare this, oh brain-less one:
Notice the certification form at the bottom?
"This is to certify that this is a true and correct reproduction or abstract of the official record filed in this office."
Wow. I guess the state of North Carolina is another of those "weasel word" states that just won't say what it *IS.* Right?
But in your goofy view of the world, the Secretary of State of North Carolina in 2012 should have rejected the Hawaii form which was produced because the "or abstract thereof" language made it legally insufficent. What a load of B.S. you shovel out.
Take off the "tunnel vision" glasses you wear and see things in their broader context for once. You might actually learn something and sound intelligent.