Obama himself can competently testify as to the facts concerning his own birth even though he had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of those facts. See Rule 804(b)(4). That evidence alone will beat you unless you can identify a witness who can testify that he/she witnessed the birth at some other location.
The birth records are admissible as well. See Rules 803(9)(19)and/or(24). See also Rules 901(1)(2)and/or(4). Those records, too, all by themselves, will be more than enough to beat you.
I know that there are other records from the newspaper, etc. but there really shouldn't be any need for them. There might also be some people who remember (but did not actually witness) the Hawaiian birth.
And, I suppose you could call any witness who actually saw him born in some other location. Unfortunately, there are no such people. So, what do you have other than doubts that you have nurtured about this or that?
The birth records would not be submitted because they contradict the alleged LFBC.
As for known liar Obama, are you saying that if he swears he was born in HI, that makes it true? What if he’s willing to lie in court? Does that make his lie a fact?
‘There might also be some people who remember (but did not actually witness) the Hawaiian birth.’
That’s the problem. No one—as in NO ONE—remembers Stanley Ann even being present in HI during the entire period of her pregnancy. No one. From the end of her fall term in 1960 until she magically materializes pin Seattle in August of 1961, she disappears. Off the map, a big black hole.