How could the Arizona Letter of Verification have probative value when it has never been introduced as evidence in a court of law? Both the Arizona and Kansas Letters from Dr. Onaka were in response to requests for information from Kansas’ and Arizona’s Chief Elections Officials.
Only the Mississippi Letter of Verification has been introduced as an exhibit in a response to a plaintiffs’ motion for a Trier of Fact, US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate; with its probative value or lack thereof yet to be ruled on.
The Arizona Letter has two definitive statements: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
And the certification statement over the Registrar’s signature says: “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”
The letter to Kansas wasn't actually used within the legal proceeding.
The Arizona Letter has two definitive statements: “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Good point. Why does it say a "birth certificate" is on file and not a "certificate of live birth"?? Later in that same letter, it switches the terminology.
Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.
Also, why does item No. 1 say "indicating" that Obama was born in Hawaii?? That's not verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii; it's a verification that a birth certificate of no known legal value (not a certificate of live birth) claims that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's a nice play on words, but it's NOT a legal verification of a birth fact, plus the DOH refused to verify the additional facts requested by Bennnett in their own standard request form.
And, the bottom line is that NONE of this complies with the legal standard in the Federal Rules of Evidence (which is the same as most states' rules of evidence) in certifying that the alleged LFBC is a correct copy of the original record. Having information that "matches" doesn't make it legally correct. p