It wouldn't be quashed. He cited the relevant HI statute for you. I recommend you read it. Testimony would be allowed by FRCP Rule 44(1)(B) - Proving an Official Record. I suggest you familiarize yourself with that as well, lest you make yourself look silly. It requires that an official record be under seal andattested by the appropriate government officer, or their deputy. That may be done in person, or by sworn affidavit or statement.
Everyday, in courtrooms all across America, certified copies of official documents are entered and accepted into the record, because it would be impractical (and possibly against statutory law) to remove the original documents. What you say is nonsense, just gibberish.
Actually, your entire post is gibberish.
it’s funny how posters who support obozo’s decision to refuse to produce the BC do not have a clear understanding of the law.
There is no proceeding in hawaii pursuant to which teh DA would or could subpoena the document. He can not do it in a vacuum. I suggest YOU also familiarize yourself with the first Executive Order signed by Obozo as well as the law of evidence, before you put your silly agenda above the actual law.