You're quoting from the same article that I questioned. I've read elsewhere that they wouldn't say either way. And using the word "represented" instead of a more affirmative word like "said" seems a little suspect.
You are missing the BIG PICTURE here. Not one, single, solitary Hawaiian birth certificate can be taken at face value any longer. NOT ONE.
There is documentation that (1955 letter, etc.) states that they (Hawaii) willingly and knowingly gives out birth certificates to ANYONE regardless of whether they were born here or not.
That means, if we actually had a non-corrupt judiciary, ANY Hawaiian birth certificate submitted to ANY court would have to be questioned. Supporting documents would have to be assessed,and witness testimony would HAVE to be heard which could then be cross-examined to determine what was actually true.
Do you understand the magnitude of what Hawaii has done? Nothing coming from them has any legitimacy AT ALL.
Even if they didn’t give Obama the PDF what records they have on file are SUSPECT RIGHT NOW.
Any Hawaiian verification means absolutely NOTHING until it can be cross-examined.
With regards to Obama, if there were a court that would actually do their jobs and he submitted what he believed to be an accurate copy it still would not hold water in a real court since Hawaii themselves says they routinely issue birth certificates to foreigner and thumb their noses at the rest of the USA while doing it.
Obama could have applied in his 40’s for a late birth certificate and Hawaii would issue it to him. He then references Hawaii who references the false birth certificate. It’s circular. The fake verifies the fake.
There is no validity to ANY Hawaiian birth certificate.
The PDF is a forgery and somebody made that forgery up. They most likely used part of the fake birth certificate given to him by Hawaii to make the PDF forgery.