Matter of fact, I think you could get a judge to conclude that the fact he prepared and published a fraudulent Birth Certificate alleging birth in Hawaii results in the inference that he was not actually born in Hawaii where the legal issue is birth in the several states of the United States.
Having written on the subject at least once, if he was born in the US, he is eligible to hold the office no matter who his parents were or what their citizenship was--if he was not born in the United States, he is not eligible under Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
So the falsehood that he was born in Hawaii leads to the fair inference that he was not born in Hawaii.
As a lawyer you know very well that a prosecutor must prove to the trier of fact (judge or jury) beyond a resonable doubt that a specific crime has been committed BY or at the direction of the person charged. The trier of fact can only rule on the charges and evidence before the court. Prosecutors roll up lower level actors one by one in sequence to get from the person to did the deed (the forger) threatening prison and offering immunity to eventually get to the person or conspirators to ordered the crime to take place.
IMO, Arpaio has proof that the crime of forgery has been committed, but there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the public showing that Barry or his agents personally forged the pdf LFBC or directed it to be forged.
What IS on the record is that multiple layers of "plausible deniability" of involvement in the apparent forgery have been meticulously established to protect Barry from being connected to the forger (if not Barry, himself).
Proof that a HI BC was forged would in no way cause a judge to conclude that the person on the BC was NOT born in HI. That legal "conclusion of law" could only be based on "finding of facts" that specifically supported such a conclusing with evidence...such as an authenticated BC from outside HI.
There are at least three obvious altermative narratives for Barry that could cause him or other conspirators to forge an HI BC and awareness of these possibilities would preclude a judge from concluding a non-HI birth just based on a forgery: 1. The father field on the BC did not have BHO Sr. but another person or was blank. 2. There was evidence on the BC that a late registration of an HI birth was reported leaving open a possibility of a non-HI birth. 3. An adoption has been recorded in some way, perhaps reversed, disfiguring (legally) the original 1961 LFBC.