[null and void]

Yep. The rule adopted in 1981 says that the adoptive parents are listed as the birth parents, doesn't explicitly say that the place of birth is the real location, or only as accurate as the genetics, and there is no indication that

(3) The statement "This certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child or the parents named above." [Eff. FEB 19 1981] (Auth: HRS Secs. 321-9, 338-2) (Imp: HRS Secs. 338-17.7(c), 338-20.5)

is retroactive to adoptions decades earlier, indeed it isn't clear that Hawaii even knows which 1960's vintage records reflect true or fictional places of birth or parentage, without going to the original vault copies, rather than the "official" working records.

[Brown Deer]

the lawsuit was frivilous and the judge agreed. ONE judge agreed.

Are you sure the democRat judge said that the lawsuit was frivilous?

"This certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child or the parents named above."

Nice find.

[Reverend Wright]

“there is no indication that
(3) The statement “This certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child or the parents named above.” [Eff. FEB 19 1981] (Auth: HRS Secs. 321-9, 338-2) (Imp: HRS Secs. 338-17.7(c), 338-20.5)

is retroactive to adoptions decades earlier...”

Conceded, it was the only documentation I could find.

One thing i’m not clear on, if Obama had to get a current copy of his birth certificate today, and he really was born abroad, would he be forced to apply for one for foreign born adopted in Hawaii?