This is a LEGALLY meaningless claim. Again, the FRE requires that the record be certified as CORRECT. Second the law in Hawaii says the existence of a record shall be verified through a letter of verification or any other facts, as stated by the applicant. Asking if information "matches" doesn't amount to stating specific FACTS for verifiation. It's a good dog and pony show, but it is NOT a legal verification in accordance with either the Federal Rules of Evidence or Hawaii's own statute on letters of verification. Having a record on file with matching information doesn't say whether the information on file is CORRECT. That's what a certified birth certificate is designed to do, but a letter of verification falls way short of certifying birth facts when they are not specifically stated. Let this sink in to your head.
Irrational? Let's see, Obama is the first president to produce both his Certificate of Live Birth and his Long Form Birth Certificate.
Actually, this simply isn't true. Eisenhower obtained a birth certificate prior to running for president. Yes, Obama is the first to have jpgs and PDFs posted on a website, but this doesn't say anything about whether he will actually present these alleged documents in a court of law, especially when he's already refused to do so in dozens of previous opportunites. So AGAIN, why this irrational belief??
No, you’re wrong about the authority of a verification letter. As I said, I am not a lawyer, so I will instead quote from the lawyers who requested the verification (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz):
The Hawaii Verification, which (a) contains the seal of the Hawaii State Department of Health (an agency of a state of the United States), and (b) was executed via signature and initials by Dr. Onaka, is self-authenticating pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 902. Moreover, the Hawaii DOH Verification is not subject to the hearsay rule pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803 (9). That Dr. Onaka is the Hawaii State Registrar with authority to provide information regarding vital records on file with the Hawaii Department of Health is an undisputed fact.
The Hawaii verification provides official confirmation that the “information” – i.e., each and every vital fact of President Obama’s birth stated in the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov – is the same information contained in his original LFBC on file with the department. As such, the Hawaii Verification – with under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-14.3 (b) “shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and the facts of the event are as stated by the application” – clearly establishes the veracity of the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov and confirms that no fraud occurred either in the posting of the document on whitehouse.gov or in MDEC Counsel’s submission of a copy of the LFBC as an exhibit in these proceedings. See, e.g., In re Doe, 981 P.2d 723 (Haw. Ct. App. 1999) (”to verify includes to confirm or establish the truth or truthfulness of; to confirm or establish the authenticity of; to authenticate.”) (internal quotations omitted); Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 839 P.2d 10 (Haw. 1992) (”Verification” is defined as “evidence that establishes or confirms... accuracy or truth...” or “the process... required to prove or establish authenticity or validity.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 1587 (1989). To “verify” means “[t]o prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or truthfulness of; to check or test the accuracy or exactness of; to confirm or establish the authenticity of; to authenticate... Black’s Law Dictionary 1561 (6th ed. 1990).”).