Does full faith and credit extend to official documents which don’t adhere to the issuing state’s laws regarding the method of certification? IOW, if a document is not officially certified according to the requirements of that state, is it still considered an official certified document - either in that state or in any other state?
It seems to me that if those who “certify” a document cannot be held liable for perjury if it is fraudulent, it wouldn’t qualify as being certified, because the threat of a perjury charge is the only legal difference between an oath and any other free speech which is legally protected by the First Amendment. If a person is not under oath they can say whatever they darn well please and face no criminal charges. Without a legally-binding oath, anything in a “certification” is just free speech which could be true or false without committing a crime.
“Does full faith and credit extend to official documents which don’t adhere to the issuing state’s laws regarding the method of certification? IOW, if a document is not officially certified according to the requirements of that state, is it still considered an official certified document - either in that state or in any other state?”
If all three branches of the Hawaii government are corruptly committed to upholding concealment of the true nature of Barry’s original 1961 vital records then there is not check and balance that the separation of powers is supposed to provide in Hawaii.
Unless the veil of corruption if pierced by a superior federal investigation force, then HI gets away with it and all states and the federal branches of government must honor whatever HI says is an official document, IMO. IANAL