What evidence effectively refutes the prima facie evidence of a state certified birth certificate? That is one large hurdle! And, like a said, allegations and speculation don’t count. You need credible records and witnesses.
Think of it like this: You put a candy bar in your bedroom at 1:00. When you got back at 1:30, you discover the candy bar is gone. You go to your mother and tell her than your brother Timmy ate your candy bar. Your mother says, Nonsense, your father tells me that Timmy has been with him from 11:00 until now. He couldn’t have eaten your candy bar. Well, the state record is like your father’s word. It is authoritative and credible. Your mother WILL believe your father. One state, as mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, WILL believe another state. Think about what you would have to do to get your mother to believe something other than what your father says. High hurdle, right? Pointing out that your brother is a known liar and thief isn’t credible proof. You need to prove that the information your father has is incorrect. The same applies when challenging state records. State records are presumed correct. That’s part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
so what do you need to challenge a computerized copy of a document, does it have full faith and credit? When has the supposed actual document been presented in court?
Where is this "prima facie evidence" - a paper document with requisite seals?
NOWHERE
There are only websites with JPEGs, PDF files, and print copies of JPEGs from websites.
We want to see the "prima facie evidence" IN COURT.
You are a lousy skeptic. Illogical and nonsensical.
And as Butterdezillion has shown, Onaka's verification letters are anything BUT verifications. They are completely the opposite. Like double negatives.
For a ConstantSkeptic you use the words I BELIEVE a lot. Where’s your proof of a real, certified, paper document?
And your analogy is stupid.
You and Mom have never seen the candy bar. You’ve been told there is/was a candy bar. ONLY Dad has said he’s seen the candy bar. The candy bar is supposed to still be someplace WITH Dad. Are you sayin that Obama’s birth certificate was stolen or eaten?
So the other states have to trust Onaka when he certified and swore that his letter of verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3 which requires him to verify any submitted claim that he can certify as “presumed correct”, right?
On that letter of verification Onaka refused to verify these birth facts for Obama: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.
As you say, Full Faith and Credit means that every state has to accept that those facts CANNOT legally be presumed as true based on Hawaii’s records.
Right?
Please don’t ignore what I’m saying, as you’ve repeatedly done in the past. I’ve told you several times now, that Onaka indirectly confirmed the legal non-validity of Obama’s HI BC. At this point Full Faith and CRedit works AGAINST Obama, because the HI official responsible for making a sworn statement (certification, which in Hawaii is the same thing) has sworn that his verification refusing to verify the above birth facts for Obama is in compliance with the law.