Evidence is required - positive evidence of disqualification, not implication thereof. As the State of Hawaii has officially stated that BHO was born therein, the case is closed absent concrete proof to the contrary. Not finding records (ex.: the “certificate” vs. “certification” semantic controversy) is not enough, as legitimate US births are not always recorded, documentation does not always survive, and documented non-hospital births are valid. What we need is government-certified proof (whatever the government) that BHO was born at location X, with X being clearly outside the USA.
Unfortunately, money and influence can locate and destroy such fragile evidence. Consider that Kenya is about to name an AIRPORT after him: surely contravining evidence can be ... eliminated.
Yes, circumstantial evidence abounds. It’s not proof, and the photos above will stand as proof until superceded by something stronger.
Consider:
A judge asks BHO for proof of eligibility. BHO hands over the above-photographed certified document (obviously it exists, and it looks a lot like mine). As that is official, on what grounds can a judge deny that as proof, and demand “the original”? Should BHO say “I can’t find the original, the hospital doesn’t have it”, and considering that not all legitimate natural-born Americans have such proof, on what grounds can the judge disqualify him? BHO’s only point of hesitation is that he knows otherwise, and knows contrary proof exists, and he fears being found out.
Hospitals may retain copies, but the document in question is a state document, filed by the hospital/doctor/midwife. It would also have anotated upon it, any name changes, official adoptions, etc, and changes back as well. Barak O to Barry S and back to Barak O for example.
Since the state has the document, they can produce it, or a certified copy of it. Not an extract, which is what the CLB amounts to.