[BigGuy22]

"No, they don't simply take "assertions" to be truthful. They have procedures for checking on the assertions prior to signing off on such documentation."
__

Fine, I'll take your description as accurate. My point is, they only do it once, in the days following the event. They do not repeat the procedures each time a birth certificate is requested, whether for a driver's license, passport, or any other purpose. In all cases, they create a new document based on what was originally entered into the vital records, and that is uniformly considered valid certification for the DMV to issue licenses, and for the State Department to issue passports, etc., etc.

Hawaii is ONLY saying they have an original birth certificate with information that matches what Obama's PDF says, but they are NOT saying that the birth record is correct, accurate, authentic, identical, a true copy, etc.

Huh? They're not saying that the birth record is identical to what? Is a true copy of what? The birth record is precisely what subsequent documents are compared to, whether you're talking about COLBs or LoVs. There is nothing with which to compare the official state birth record.

I truly don't understand what you are talking about. Everything you say about letters of verification applies identically to birth certificates. Both documents rely entirely on the official vital records. Neither utilizes independent corroboration.

You still haven't told me what distinguishes them, and why a judge would prefer one over the other.

[edge919]

Fine, I'll take your description as accurate. My point is, they only do it once, in the days following the event. They do not repeat the procedures each time a birth certificate is requested, whether for a driver's license, passport, or any other purpose. In all cases, they create a new document based on what was originally entered into the vital records, and that is uniformly considered valid certification for the DMV to issue licenses, and for the State Department to issue passports, etc., etc.

Again, you're making my argument for me. There's no evidence that Obama ever used the 2008 COLB or the 2011 LFBC to obtain a drivers license, passport or anything else that would legally require a birth certificate. He obtained a new passport in 2005 when he became a senator. Why didn't he already have a copy of a birth certificate available and why did he never present it??

You still haven't told me what distinguishes them, and why a judge would prefer one over the other.

I said that a certified copy of a birth certificate is self-authenticating and that a letter of verification has no legal value when it doesn't list relevant birth facts. What part of that is so hard to understand and acknowledge?? A letter of verification may only be proof of an incomplete birth record on file, rather than certifiable birth record. One has probative value and the other does not.