That’s a good point. It looks like the statute was either adopted or amended in 1982. That could mean a slight word change or it could mean that Berg’s recitation of the law in effect is correct. Either situation is troubling for Obama.
The vital point is that a “certificaton” of live birth is NOT the same as a “certificate” of live birth. A certification is based on the information included in the underlying “certificate” but does not include ALL of the information included in the “certificate.”
If Obama’s mother registered his birth after coming home from Africa, all she would have had to provide to obtain a “certificate” under HRS § 338-17.8 is proof of her status as a resident of Hawaii. The statute does not require any evidence regarding WHERE the baby was born. Therefore, it is possible that a certificate for Obama was issued based on his mother’s attestation of “residence” - Oahu, Hawaii - and thus, a “certification” of live birth would list “Oahu, Hawaii” as the place of birth. The underlying certificate is the only document that would show if his mother requested the certificate pursuant to her status as resident of Hawaii or whether the certificate was issued pursuant to the usual process (hospital submission of birth record). That is why the certificate is vital to the determination of WHERE Obama was born.
The fact that the MSM has not properly reported on this story (as if they don’t have any lawyers on staff to properly research this issue) makes it seem like we are living in an Orwellian society.
.