curiosity:”It doesn’t matter, however, since the short form version Obama released has all the information necessary to prove he was born in the USA.”
The primary difference between the long form and the short form birth certificate of course is verifiability. The long form has much more information allowing greater scrutiny of the evidence (attending physician, exact location of birth, time of birth). There has been no hard evidence of Obama’s birth in HI except for this short form birth certificate (announcements in local newspapers would not be admissable in a court). Almost all leagal cases would require at least a few pieces of corroborating evidence to confirm a fact.
All documents - to have any value whatsoever - must somehow be identified as authentic. By the way, why do you think that Hawaii requires the vault copy to be kept as “confirmation” of the short form? Why would they not just throw away the vault copy and keep the short form on record. Obviously even the state of Hawaii understands the distinction between these two documents and the importance of maintaining the “paper trail”.
To request the vault copy as evidence so that Obama’s claims can be corroborated seems to be a very common and reasonable request - one that most all US citizens would (and normally do) provide when asked. Why not Obama?
Many people have stated that using an exact type of certificate that Obama claims is sufficient is totally inadequate for almost any security clearance or means of root identification such as for passports and insufficient in most states to get a drivers license.
It is sufficient for an usurper obviously and will be prime evidence for such.
It is a fine point but before the obots raise it as mis-information let me hasten to say that the newspaper reports of bo’s birth would be admissible.
If I were arguing the case, I would admit them because they show nothing but intent on the grandparents to cover up.
The newspaper announcement does not help bo’s case, it hurts it.
The short form version is legal proof in itself. When it says it is prima facie proof of birth, it means that it should be taken at face value unless someone can prove otherwise.
Not in this case. The COLB clearly states at the bottom:
"This document serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."