“In a court processing the individual presenting said certification to the court/judge must testify and/or have others testify that said certificate matches record on file and comes directly from that record on file. That is the “proving” of the birth.”
IANAL, but my understanding is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) a BC certified by a US state DOH is “self-authenticating” and as such it is entitled to an exception to the hearsay rules so that no official must show up in court to attest to the authenticity of the document as would be the case when a subpoena duces tecum is issued for the custodian of a document to come to court with the document and be subjected to cross-examination.
But Barry’s legal team has fought tooth-and-nail NOT to ever present a self-authenticating actual certified copy of Barry’s HI LFBC in any court. This displays consciousness of LACK of said document, IMO.
Note that a BC NOT issued by a US state, such as a claimed certified Kenyan BC, is NOT self-authenticating in US court under the FRE and WOULD require authentication by authorities of the other country, IIRC.
It all depends on the case
But you are correct in most situations. It’s only if the case is questioning the authenticity of the document or material on the document that all the proving must be done. It would apply to O. But you are right his lawyers are trying not to jeopardize themselves