“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
IIRC, the HHS inspector general’s report said that states can decide what documents are considered enough to establish certain claims. Birth certificates, for instance, were never intended to establish citizenship or identity, according to that report. A state could require other documentation and/or an audit of documentation before accepting the documents of another state as sufficient proof for any given purpose.
Another question is whether Full Faith and Credit even applies to the documents of a state - or whether it applies to the court records. This came up in regards to same-gender marriage certificates - in a Kansas case, IIRC. Does every other state have to accept and treat same-sex marriages as if they fit the definition of marriage in that particular state? If some state defined a human-horse union as marriage, would every other state have to accept that a man and his horse are married, when presented with the marriage certificate from that state?