Your rules of evidence contradict that the issuing authority has presented legal evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Under the law you cited, it says, “if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4)”. Further, under the rules of evidence, if such documentary evidence is not provided to the adverse party for inspecting prior to a trial or hearing, the claims in the documents is considered to be hearsay.
Both the plaintiffs and the defense have submitted copies of the Obama long form as exhibits for pre-trial motions in Taitz, et. al. v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, et. al.. The defense also has submitted a Certified Letter of Verification from the Hawaii Registrar.
See pages 11and 12 of the Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz
The Judge has dismissed Taitz’s motion for a default judgement but he has not acted yet on the defense’s dispositive motion for judgement on the pleadings.
I know of only two other ineligibility suits where a copy of an Obama birth certificate was provided as an exhibit, the Georgia ballot challenge and again it was used as an exhibit by the plaintiff without objection from the defense and in Ankeny v Daniels, the plaintiffs provided the courts (original and appellate) with a copy of the factcheck.org image of a short form as evidence of Obama’s father’s birth in Kenya. Again there was no objection from the defense, Governor Daniels.