Well, of course.
And, of course again, the TRO was denied for obvious reasons.
What I’m referring to is down the road at trial, if the case ever gets to trial, when Obama submits his computer generated certification of live birth, when there is more compelling evidence (ie a birth certificate stashed away in Hawaii) that he could produce, to support his claim of being a natural born citizen, but refuses to produce it-—then his evidence should be viewed with distruct—
according to the jury instructions.
I understand what you're saying. But, that "computer generated" Certification of Live Birth has already been legally tested in another case - case name escapes me, and I don't have access to a library right now, but I believe it was a child custody case in HI - and it was affirmed in a HI Supreme Court as well.
Essentially, a mother was trying to deny parental custody rights to a father who was not the biological father, and was not the father of record on the original birth certificate. The Father, however, did posses an amended "Certification of Live Birth" that reflected he was the father. The court favored the "Certification of Live Birth" over the original birth certificate, setting the precedent for future cases that a subsequently issued "Certification of Live Birth" will have just as much evidentiary weight as an original birth certificate, and in that particular case, even more weight than the original.
I believe the name was "Inoye", like the HI Senator - but perhaps spelled a little different.