Person A posts on internet a picture of their LFBC.
Person A refuses to present the underlying document to any election official.
Why? It’s certainly not “private” any longer.
Person A refuses to give permission to Dept of Health persons B.
Why?
Persons B delay for months requests for routine documents by Scty of State person C.
Persons B question C’s need.
Persons B question C’s manner of performing their job.
Persons B consult lawyers.
Persons B make Person C submit a request for verification of any purported fact Person C can provide.
Person C receives phone call from Persons B notifying C that a verification has been emailed.
Person B announces “he has what he needs” (or to that effect) without ever reading emailed verification.
What has happened is a carefully orchestrated sleight of hand where incomplete information has been presented, and cowardly officials desperate for a fig leaf grasp at any pretense for cover.
Person S - that’s you (collectively) - is a sucker to believe that the WH BC PDF is without problem.
“What has happened is a carefully orchestrated sleight of hand where incomplete information has been presented...”
__
Well, it’s certainly an entertaining set of hypotheticals, but I think you’re making it more complicated than it needs to be.
One of the letters, for example, says: “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statues §338-14.3, I verify the following: // 1: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
It’s got a stamp and a seal, and so it’s self-authenticating evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The only remaining question is whether you can somehow invalidate the document or the information by making a contrary showing in court. Until you do, the document is presumed to be authentic and the information is presumed to be correct.