Replies

I have covered the “full faith and credit” argument with others. I point out that Hawaii HAS the document needed to establish legitimacy, but THEY refuse to produce it because of subjective Bureaucratic rules that they imposed on themselves. Other states are not refusing to accept the document, Hawaii is refusing to produce it.

The law of the state is not a “subjective bureaucratic rule.” It’s the law (Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b)(9).
The laws of the state of Hawaii say that a certified copy of a birth record can be produced for inspection or for the possession of: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
No judge has issued a court order for the state of Hawaii to produce a certified copy of the Obama birth record.
If such a court order were to be issued, Hawaii would produce a certified copy of the record.

The laws of the state of Hawaii say that a certified copy of a birth record can be produced for inspection or for the possession of: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

If you read deeper into Hawaii's laws you will discover that they are supposed to provide a document to any election official which requests it for the purpose of an election. However, if he is adopted, do they produce the REAL original, or do they produce the amended fake?

No judge has issued a court order for the state of Hawaii to produce a certified copy of the Obama birth record.

Exactly the problem.

If such a court order were to be issued, Hawaii would produce a certified copy of the record.

Unless the court order specifically demands a copy of the ORIGINAL record, it is useless, because an amended fake tells us nothing which can be accepted as true.