The letter to Kansas wasn't actually used within the legal proceeding.
The Arizona Letter has two definitive statements: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Good point. Why does it say a "birth certificate" is on file and not a "certificate of live birth"?? Later in that same letter, it switches the terminology.
Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.
Also, why does item No. 1 say "indicating" that Obama was born in Hawaii?? That's not verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii; it's a verification that a birth certificate of no known legal value (not a certificate of live birth) claims that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's a nice play on words, but it's NOT a legal verification of a birth fact, plus the DOH refused to verify the additional facts requested by Bennnett in their own standard request form.
And, the bottom line is that NONE of this complies with the legal standard in the Federal Rules of Evidence (which is the same as most states' rules of evidence) in certifying that the alleged LFBC is a correct copy of the original record. Having information that "matches" doesn't make it legally correct. p
Both of the Chief Election Officials (Secretaries of State) in Arizona and Kansas used the letters from the Hawaii Registrar to approve Obama for the ballot in those states. Since Governor Romney won the electors in those states, the issue is moot.
Any further civil action would result in a ruling of failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
We’ll have to continue to wait and see whether the Hawaii Letter of Verification complies with FRE or not when Judge Wingate rules in Mississippi.