from the bureau of [/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2865235/posts?q=1&;page=1#38]"where's the beef?"
I will once again offer my possible solution to this conundrum. The "forger" was an employee of the Department of Health in Hawaii.
Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in 1965 and his original birth certificate was sealed. He was later adopted again by his Grandparents when he was 10 years old in 1971 (With whom he lived for the next 8 years) which resulted in the Previous Soetoro birth certificate being sealed.
[highlight]What we are seeing now, is a document which was produced by the Department of Health in Hawaii as a REPLACEMENT birth certificate for an adopted child.[/highlight] Obama's lawyers went to court and had his adoptions annulled or amended, and the court ordered the DOH to produce him a new one.
The failure to flatten the layers or just make a scan of a print-out were the result of the DOH employee not knowing that a PDF contained all that extra information. (Neither did his lawyer, or he would have prevented it from being released. )
[highlight]To sum it up, the document *IS* a forgery, but it is a "LEGAL" forgery created by the State of Hawaii.[/highlight] No other explanation makes any sense.
ok, i'll grant, arguendo, that everything happened as diogenesRump describes. so when exactly does a court-ordered replacement birth certificate from the department that issues them become no longer legal?
[sekrit]when diogenesRump uses all caps and quotation marks -- that's when![/sekrit]