Congress’ codification of “full faith and credit” involves states recognizing other states’ official records WHEN THEY ARE PROPERLY CERTIFIED. That’s why it is so damning that Onaka wouldn’t certify the verifications. Those documents are totally worthless with mismatched signature and seal (Onaka’s signature and Fuddy’s seal).
That is, they would be worthless except for their negative value. Because they are NOT legal verifications of the submitted birth facts and legal verification is required when claims submitted for verification match the information found on a VALID vital record, they are verification that the submitted birth facts do NOT match the claims on a valid birth certificate.
And in a court of law, evidence of bad faith on the part of government officials OVERTURNS the presumption of regularity. Full faith and credit is NOT given to records that are found to be fraudulent.
That’s why the sheathing on the wiring on my husband’s van was removed the day after I was put into contact with Lakin’s team. My evidence of HDOH tampering with their records would have overcome the presumption of regularity; the HDOH records would no longer be presumed to be in good faith. The original records themselves would have to be inspected to find out what information from the HDOH is credible.
And that is why Arpaio says the microfilms need to be inspected. The HDOH itself has proven its non-credibility.
No one has ever challenged the Hawaii Registrar’s Letters of Verification for Obama’s birth certifcate in a court of law or in congressional testimony. Those letters were accepted as valid by two states’ Secretaries of State (Arizona and Kansas) and by U.S. District Court Judge Wingate in Mississippi. The two Secretaries of State waited until they received those letters before they approved Obama for their state’s ballots.
State issued copies of Obama’s birth certificate are sealed and stamped by the Registrar and copies were introduced into evidence in eligibility challenges in state administrative law court in Georgia (Powell, et al v Obama), in federal district court in Mississippi (Taitz et al v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, Obama, Pelosi, Fuddy, Onaka, et al) and in an amicus brief before the Alabama Supreme Court (McInnish v Secreatary of State Beth Chapman).
Congress established the Federal Rules of Evidence as the way to determine if a public record is accorded Full Faith and Credit.
Federal Rule of Evidence 902: “Evidence That Is SELF-Authenticating”
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require NO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY in order to be admitted:
(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.
4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth has an official seal and the Registrar’s Certification Stamp and Signature. Therefore the birth certificate shall be given (and HAS been given) “Full Faith and Credit.”
Federal Rule of Evidence 1005
“COPIES of Public Records to Prove Content”
The proponent may use a COPY to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — 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) or is TESTIFIED to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005