The padding of 61 to 1961 could easily have occurred due to Y2K issues. The document O released was printed off the computer record. Not so clear is why the twins' cert. is numbered 37 vs. 41 for O (when O was born a day earlier), but these things are probably printed in stacks, and I'd doubt that there was much concern about numbering people sequentially, just giving each a unique number.
Frankly, all my birth certificate questions are now answered except one:
Why has the government and the Obama campaign spent millions of dollars defending against lawsuits asking for the release of the long-form certificate?
If Obama’s certificate is supposed to be an accurate reflection of what is on his long-form birth certificate, why would it be necessary to make a change to his certificate number.
The original document, if there is indeed one, would have been numbered using the established system in place in 1961; meaning it should read 61 if it’s an correct and un-doctored duplicate of his vault certificate.
I worked for years for my local government and we often had to go back to case files that were made well before Y2k.
We did NOT change the numbers to reflect the new dating system for our older files as doing so would have changed the original of the document, making it impossible for us to state that copies of the files were correct and unchanged when they were printed out.
My question to Hawaii is simple. Did you change the certificate number for Obama’s COLB and if so, how can you claim it is an accurate and exact representation of his vault birth certificate?
If you did not change the number, why does the certificate presented by Mr. Obama have a dating system that was not in place in 1961 and why are you validating the document as a correct and unchanged copy of his vault certificate?