[Non-Sequitur]

Why would it be necessary to provide any evidence at all if the claim of legitimacy is paramount to concerns of criminality?

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

[Gene Eric]

You said:

He’s provided what he claims is evidence he was born in Hawaii, you call it a forgery. No law requires he do any more than he’s done so far.

which suggests the claim alone is sufficient to block any inquiries of criminality. It is therefore pointless to provide evidence that could not be challenged let's say in the case of an alleged forgery.

Maybe I'm interpreting your statement out of context, but you seem to be saying the law doesn't care about the legitimacy of the claim.