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?
I think you are right. The padding of “61” to “1961” is suspicious; and it may not be a real certification number.
Apparently the Hawaii Health Department had no such compunction. The way to prove this definitively would be for someone else with a 2-digit number on their long form to request a short form copy. Worth checking out, for thoroughness, but I'm much >99% certain there's nothing there. Because the numbering question a) should be easy enough to figure out, and more especially b) is a matter of state policy, I don't think anyone in the Obama camp owes we the people an answer.
They do owe us an answer regarding how much public and campaign money they've spent to protect the confidentiality of his long-form cert, and why.