“A CERTIFIED copy of birth certificate is self-authenticating, but a letter of verification that does NOT list relevant birth facts is NOT.”
__
Lord, Joe, you are still being dishonest. Why do you lie and say that I am talking about a “letter of verification that does NOT list relevant birth facts”?
You yourself provided the link to the Arizona letter. You can lie all you want about how it doesn’t list facts, but anyone who follows your link and looks at it will see that you are simply not telling the truth.
You keep responding by tap-dancing around in circles. When I quote the FRE to prove that the LoV is indeed a self-authenticating document, you change the subject and tell me that it doesn’t prove that the underlying vital records are “correct.” When I point out to you that neither does the COLB prove that the underlying vital records are correct, you change the subject and tell me that it is a self-authenticating document, ignoring the fact that so is a LoV. When pushed to the wall, you lie about whether the LoV contains specific information.
Both the COLB and the LoV are self-authenticating documents. Both rely solely on exactly the same vital records. Both are official certifications of the specific birth data of which they speak.
Unless you can break out of your lying, tap-dancing circle, I don’t see the point in continuing,
Why do you lie and say that I attributed this to you??? I've addressed the problems and inconsistencies with the letters of verification and explained why they do NOT list birth facts. You pretended to be stupid ... or maybe it's not pretend.
You yourself provided the link to the Arizona letter.
AND in the same post I addressed the problems with that letter. You pretended to be stupid. Go back and read it.
When I quote the FRE to prove that the LoV is indeed a self-authenticating document, you change the subject and tell me that it doesn’t prove that the underlying vital records are “correct.”
Your citation is irrelevant. Nobody is questioning the general authenticity of the letters of verification. I never said the letters of verification were fake. Those letters however are NOT standard birth documents and they do not have the same legal value in veifying birth information because the language in the letters contain few specific RELEVANT facts. This is a conditional statement, and you're ignoring that I gave these conditions. This is MUCH different than an actual birth certificate which fits the part of the FRE I already quoted pertaining to documents that are "recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law." Further, you seem to be ignoring that I said the letters are NOT immune from being challenged, precisely because of the ambiguity in those letters.
Both the COLB and the LoV are self-authenticating documents.
Obama's COLB is NOT self-authenticating. It has never been presented in any court of law. Probably for good reason. The LoV are only self-authenticating in showing that Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. gave inconclusive information in the letters.
Both rely solely on exactly the same vital records.
Sorry, but there's absolutely no evidence that this is the case for any of the documents pertaining to Obama. No original vital records have ever been released ... and probably for good reason.
Both are official certifications of the specific birth data of which they speak.
No, actually they aren't. BTW, thanks for making my argument for me yet again here. The letters of verification do NOT give "specific birth data of which they speak." "The information matches" is NOT specific birth data. A claim that a birth certificate (NOTE: it does NOT say this is from an "original Certificate of Live Birth") "indicates" Obama was born in Hawaii is NOT the same thing as an official verification that he WAS born in Hawaii. It's good sleight of hand, but it's NOT an official certification of birth data.