[butterdezillion]

Hawaii is actually forbidden from even saying what is on Obama’s birth certificate unless they disclose the actual birth certificate itself, a verification, or index data, as authorized by HRS 338-18 and by DOH rules.

And even if they revealed the birth certificate itself, no legal conclusion regarding the accuracy of what’s on the BC can be made unless and until the actual birth certificate is presented to a judicial or administrative person or body as evidence - and Hawaii law requires that the document NOT be treated as prima facie evidence (which means that the burden of proof falls to Obama to prove his claims accurate, rather than on someone else to prove his claims inaccurate). That’s what HRS 338-17 says.

There is a reason for a forgery. The real BC almost certainly has a 2006 certificate number and it also has note of the amendment made in 2006, which is most likely an addition to the medical portion of the BC in order to complete the BC.

The only reason the BC wouldn’t have been completed in 1961 is if Obama was not available to be examined by a Hawaii doctor who would then have completed the BC. Obama has a real COLB; the reason he won’t show it is because the COLB itself raises serious questions about where Obama was born even though the BC claims he was born in Hawaii.

Cooper had no answer as to why Obama won’t show his real COLB. I’ve put in many, many hours researching this and compiling information from Hawaii laws, rules, and officials. This is the answer I am almost positive is correct. It is about the only answer that makes sense - and that matches the data we have.

[Always Right]

THanks for you insight.

[sometime lurker]

Hawaii law requires that the document NOT be treated as prima facie evidence

Sorry for coming in late, but I only have limited times to check in on this. I'm confused - how does this square with what's on Hawaii COLBs: "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding"?

[lucysmom]

...Hawaii law requires that the document NOT be treated as prima facie evidence (which means that the burden of proof falls to Obama to prove his claims accurate, rather than on someone else to prove his claims inaccurate). That’s what HRS 338-17 says.

Here's what HRS 338-17 says:

§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

First, you're assuming that Obama's birth certificate has been altered. Second, the statement at the bottom of Obama's ColB says that it is prima facie evidence