I may be slightly confused, but is it possibly all pointless?
If his mother was a US citizen, then even if he was actually born somewhere else, he would still be a citizen.
It's fairly straightforward law and well accepted, as long as 1 of your parents is a US citizen, that has spent significant time in the USA, you are a Citizen from birth, (assuming you take the time to file the paperwork), you get a consular certificate of birth abroad and you are good to go, just as if you were born on US soil. This is also how citizenship works for the better part of first world countries.
(You can argue about that not being the way it should be but that's the law just as being born on US soil even if your parents are illegal currently makes you a citizen by birth according to current law.)
Apparently once upon a time it seems the presidential eligibility laws were interpreted to mean you had to be born IN the USA to be president... but it seems somewhere recently (possibly to protect Obama), it has been reinterpreted to being born a citizen, hence which for example Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to a USA citizen mother was eligible to run for president. (McCain's claim as I recall was that the panama zone was us territory etc.)
Now while somebody could argue the exact sequence of times that Obama's mother spent in the USA, it's highly unlikely that you'd get a court to toss his citizenship over it.
So even if it is proven that Obama was born in Kenya, unless you could also prove that his mother was not his mother, it's seeming like a bit of a pointless cause
So apart from having the fun of proving Obama's "history" is a lie, what would it actually change?
I wouldn't be surprised if his "missing" college paperwork shows him registered as an Indonesian born Muslim getting a disadvantaged refugee scholarship or such..