Believing that this woman was a total nutcase, I decided to look up the laws she referred to and this is what I found. These are the Hawaiian statutes that Orly Taitz refers to:
Hawaii State Legislature Hawaii Revised Statutes-->Vol06_Ch0321-0344
§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]
§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a "late" or "altered" certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]
For the sake of argument, lets assume that Taitz is correct in her assertions. Those Hawaiian statutes sure look strange, but they are the law. If Obama's Parents/Grand Parents fulfilled the requirements under these statutes to report his birth, it appears they did it legally according to the statutes. So under Hawaiian Law, Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate of some kind. The birth certificate they issued him obviously was enough to get him a U.S. passport and satisfy the legal requirements of birth for the Presidency.
But do they prove he was actually born in Hawaii? If Hawaiian Law says he's a Hawaiian born citizen, does that supersede any national requirement?
I'm not going to say another thing! I report, you decide.