Except for the pronouncements by the issuing authority, the state of Hawaii, you are correct. However those pronouncements have proven difficult hurdles to overcome. Triers of Fact have accepted them as valid.
In many if not most or all of these cases where the trier of fact has accepted or failed to rule out the Hawaii Record, the substance of Plaintiff's case was addressed to the argument that zero was not Natural Born for the reason that his father was BHO Sr. who was not a US Citizen.
Since the courts involved viewed that argument as being without merit, not much attention was given to the Hawaii record factual question--no one argued that Senior was not the father; so given that Senior was the father and Plaintiff's argument was that Senior as a non-citizen father made zero ineligible, where he was born was not the issue.
And to be fair, counsel has never done a particularly adequate job of contesting the validity of the Hawaii record. We see lots of loose information here on that topic but what has been in the record in these cases is really not well done.
The Georgia ballot ALJ hearing was a particular tradigy.
The Administrative Law Judge was prepared to give the Plaintiff's a fair hearing on the record and to permit them to make a complete record. Since Zero's counsel did not appear, the record could have been made a complete record which would stand virtually unimpeachable on appeal at any level.
What should have been done was introduce an extensive record of the deficiencies in the Hawaii record making it clear that nothing in any of the Hawaii documents represents evidence that Zero was born there.
Then, hard testimony and affidavit evidence should have been introduced that has zero having told a number of people over the years that he was born in Kenya; his official biography in the early state races says he was born in Kenya. Almost all of those statements are evidentiary--they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule as statement's against interest which are evidence that zero was born in Kenya.
At worst, in a cureative or supplemental hearing, zero would have the burden of proving where he was born. At best, you should have been able to obtain a decision based on a fact of having him born in Kenya and ineligible on the record; under circumstances where the record of his statements was birth to Stanley and Senior in Kenya, he was not even a U S Citizen at birth.
I doubt that he was in fact born in Kenya. But the point is to get a record legal proceeding on which the legal issue of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office would be before the Supreme Court on an appeal.
The seminal lawsuit making the “not born in Hawaii” argument was Barnett, Keyes, et.al. v Obama, et. al. That lawsuit went to the Supreme Court of the United States where it was denied a Writ of Certiorari.
Both the plaintiffs and the defense have submitted copies of the Hawaii long form in Taitz, et. al. v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, Obama, et. al.
It will be interesting to see how U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate ultimately rules in that case.
“Then, hard testimony and affidavit evidence should have been introduced that has zero having told a number of people over the years that he was born in Kenya; his official biography in the early state races says he was born in Kenya. Almost all of those statements are evidentiary—they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule as statement’s against interest which are evidence that zero was born in Kenya.”
Wouldn’t the defense respond with the various 1990 newspaper articles that say he was born in Hawaii? Or those published throughout the 1990s that say he was born in Hawaii? Or his 1995 book that says he was born in Hawaii? Or his official Illinois Senate webpage that says he was born in Hawaii? Or an affidiavit from the author of the bio, who admits she never received any information from Obama? If the defense throws in the three certified verifications from Hawaii and the fact that the Hawaii Department of Health website links directly to the White House pdf, would any judge rule in the favor of additional discovery?
I believe it was in the Grinols v. Electorial College that the judge said he considered the statements from the Hawaii DOH as credible testimony.