A majority of states and the federal government follow the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence with regard to vital records such as birth certificates.
Federal Rule of Evidence 902 specifies the requirements for a public record being “self-authenticating,” meaning HDOH or anyone introducing a birth certificate into evidence need not provide any additional authentification information other than the document itself.
Rule 902. “Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating”
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above...
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation...
(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
And Federal Rule of Evidence 1005 covers the requirements for the use of copies of public records in order to prove their content:
Rule 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
Best Evidence Rule
The best evidence rule applies when a party wants to admit as evidence the contents of a document at trial, but the original document is not available. In this case, the party must provide an acceptable excuse for its absence. If the document itself is not available, and the court finds the excuse provided acceptable, then the party is allowed to use secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document and have it as admissible evidence. The best evidence rule only applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of the document sought to be admitted as evidence.
The best evidence rule would be a perfectly acceptable reason for a judge to issue a court order for inspection of the vault edition Certificate of Live Birth.
Don't give a crap. This is an example where there has been an oversight. Apparently the people who think up this sort of lawyer crap didn't think of everything.
We have a situation where the "evidence" doesn't actually prove the thing needing to be proven. Ergo, the methodology for accepting unproven claims as "proven", are faulty.
‘The best evidence rule would be a perfectly acceptable reason for a judge to issue a court order for inspection of the vault edition Certificate of Live Birth.’
The Chihuahua of obot trolls is yammering again.