My siblings and I were all adopted at different ages. Although not in Hawaii, each of us has birth certificates that look exactly the same as those of others in the State who were not adopted. The only telltale signs that our BC's are different is the "Hospital" is blank and the issue date on the bottom next to the raised seal is at least a year after the birth. Now, I realize that Obama's would have included the hospital (but his has the incorrect name) and would have been updated after Soetero's adoption but again, it should reflect a date appropriate to the time it takes the court to approve the adoption and if "readopted" by Obama Sr., the same dateline would apply. He would have needed it to go to school in Hawaii, after all.
It is good to discover other freepers who were also adopted and can confirm my point about the state's issuing documents (replacement birth certificates) which are in fact fake, but legally valid. Myself and two of my sisters were also adopted, and one of my sisters possesses both her original birth certificate and her replacement birth certificate.
Now, I realize that Obama's would have included the hospital (but his has the incorrect name) and would have been updated after Soetero's adoption but again, it should reflect a date appropriate to the time it takes the court to approve the adoption and if "readopted" by Obama Sr., the same dateline would apply. He would have needed it to go to school in Hawaii, after all.
Yes. A lot of people speculate that his school records are sealed, unavailable or missing because they contain a copy of his original birth certificate. (Same thing with his passport file.)
As for the notation of the date of the adoption event, one would think such information ought to be on a birth certificate, but one would also think that a state would not issue birth certificates to people not actually born in the state.
Since it has been established that Hawaii doesn't follow what would be considered the "normal" rules regarding birth certificates, I am willing to accept the notion that they may not follow what would seemingly be obvious requirements regarding adoptions either. I realize that this is entirely speculation, but I think it is plausible that a Hawaiian judge could order the creation of a replacement document with the stipulation that no information on it can be allowed to reveal the occurrence of a previous adoption or the nullification of such.
I think that if an attorney argues that it will be detrimental to the privacy needs of his client, a judge might order that any information divulging previous personal information be kept off the document. I do not KNOW that this is true, but I surmise that it could be. Especially in Hawaii.