“Right now Obama’s HI BC has NO probative/legal value. It is not prima facie evidence. If it were prima facia evidence, it would be presumed to be accurate unless there was evidence to refute the claims (IOW, the burden of proof would be on those who say Obama was NOT born in Hawaii). But because the record is not legally valid, the burden of proof falls on OBAMA to prove that those are his real birth facts, not on somebody who would prove otherwise.”
The only problems I see with this are:
Every court and every state that has looked into this issue believes that the BC and Hawaii’s verifications DO have both probative and legal value.
They ALL treat them as prima facie evidence.
Because they treat it as prima facie evidence, it IS presumed to be accurate in the absence of contrary evidence.
IOW, legally the burden of proof IS on those who say Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Your analysis of Hawaii’s verifications is marginal (and that’s being generous). Virtually everyone else, especially those in the legislative and judicial branches across the country, see it completely differently.
Most people that you reference don’t even know that TPM Muckraker left out half of Bennett’s request. They haven’t looked at the law nor the complete request. One of the Republican Presidential primary candidates said nobody will look into it because it goes WAY deeper than anybody wants to delve. IOW, they know there is treachery that goes far deeper than just Obama’s eligibility - and Obama’s eligibility problem is just the tip of a deadly iceberg.
It wasn’t until Onaka’s verification to Ken Bennett that we had an official document from Hawaii which contradicted what the HDOH Directors had previously said - which is why the legal presumption was that the HDOH Directors were acting in good faith. But as I’ve said repeatedly - and to this day nobody in opposition to me has mentioned, addressed, or even acknowledged this fact that I’ve proven - the HDOH deliberately falsified their 1960-64 birth index so that it includes individual names that are from non-valid BC’s. They inserted names that should not have been on that list. That is proof that the HDOH is deliberately deceiving the public, and falsifying official records to do so.
None of that was known before, and even now that the state SOS’s and AG’s have all been informed, the responses all claim that they don’t have to care about it one bit.
My analysis about Onaka’s verification - that he effectively confirmed that Obama’s BC is non-valid - has been affirmed (through words to me or by actions) by 6 hostile attorneys, including the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee’s lawyers, who were very careful NOT to ask for any birth facts to be verified or for the validity of the record itself to be confirmed, even though they said those were the 2 critical issues in the lawsuit in question.
The counsel for my own SOS first (immediately) noted that the copy of Klayman’s letter that he received was not specifically addressed to him. Then he wrongly claimed that Bennett had not asked for date of birth, gender, etc to be verified. Finally he settled on Nebraska not having to care what HI said to AZ, and said that since NE law doesn’t require the nominating papers to be LAWFUL (non-fraudulent and non-perjurious) Obama’s name would go on the ballot even if Bob Bauer was sitting in jail convicted of fraud for the fraudulent nominating affidavit.
IOW, the people you refer to are either ignorant or wilfully ignoring the substance of the issue because they say it is not their concern.
And that is pathetic.