I did answer your question. No court is concerned about a web page photo of a birth certificate. That is not acceptable evidence. If that is all you have, your case has no merit and will be thrown out. It isn’t a crime to post a false birth certificate on a website, so the courts do not care. Not as long as Hawaii maintains that Obama was born there.
No court will give you any right to discovery based on something that has no value as evidence to begin with. Nor does ‘discovery’ mean, “Give me access so I can discover is there is wrong doing”.
The courts HAVE heard the merits of cases. They have thrown out those based on internet pictures, for lack of evidence. They have rejected those based on Obama Sr not being a US citizen, because the ruling of WKA in 1898 convinced them that was the right interpretation of the law.
In most of the hundreds of cases, the court has ruled they either lack jurisdiction (it doesn’t fall under their authority) or that they have no means to provide relief (there is nothing they can do about it under the law).
That is the way courts work. They will also reject cases where the plaintiff has suffered no damage unique to him.
When a court rejects your case, it is making a ruling on the case’s merits. It is saying it HAS NO MERIT.
I do not think you are correct.