The certified copy of Obama’s BC would not be the same thing as Obama’s lawyers tried to get the judge to take note of (the Factcheck online image). The certified copy would have note of Obama’s amendment - AND the certified copy would require (according to Hawaii law) any judicial or administrative person or body to actually examine the evidence file in order to determine the validity of the claim. Obama’s BC in Hawaii does not qualify as prima facie evidence. If Obama ever presented the certified copy that would immediately be seen - which is probably why he has never done so.
True, but it still appears to this non-lawyer to be admissible under a hearsay exception.
My take on the FRE 803 (below) is that an HI COLB is _presumed_ to be "self-authenticating" so no subpoena desus tecum is required if actually placed in evidence in court.
This means no HI official need appear in court to testify as to the COLB authenticity under an explicit exception to the "hearsay rule" which means that an HI COLB placed in evidence (not with Factcheck) is basically the equivalent of prima facie evidence, but still can be challenged, just as prima facie evidence can be challenged.
(Again, this exception to the hearsay rule does not apply to foreign certified vital records, such as a Kenya BC.)
Excerpts below from FRE on hearsay taken from link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803
Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.