> Here’s what HRS 338-17 says:
>
>§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]
>
>First, you’re assuming that Obama’s birth certificate has been altered. Second, the statement at the bottom of Obama’s ColB says that it is prima facie evidence
Concerning the statement at the bottom; do you think that intrinsically makes the document accurate? That is to say, which has more legal authority/power, an official document or a state statute?
To illustrate, let me show a conflict in two legal documents; my state Constitution and a State Statute. The Constitution says:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
One, of several violating State Statutes is:
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) “university premises” means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
As you can see, this is obviously a law abridging the tight of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense.
Has the Constitutionality of that law been challenged? It certainly should be.
But it’s one more example where we can have what is supposedly a binding law (state Constitution) and in plain sight of everybody it can be broken by the legislature.
The Hawaii HDOH is not even pretending to follow their laws at this point - nor is the OIP, ombudsman, HI legislature, governor, attorney general, US attorney, or the department of public safety.
That should be problematic to everybody but a strict anarchist.