No, you're just having a meltdown. One doesn't address points by pretending to be stupid or by falsely accusing the other person of lying.
Letters of verification do not claim to be standard birth documents; no one said they were.
No one said that Letters of verificatoion "claim to be standard birth documents." I explained why they don't have the same legal value, while you have equated these types of documents several times with these exact words:
Both rely solely on exactly the same vital records. Both are official certifications of the specific birth data of which they speak.
And here:
Everything you say about letters of verification applies identically to birth certificates.
And here:
From a logical and legal point of view, a COLB and a LoV are treated identically.
And here:
Both certify "correctness" in exactly the same sense, namely, that the information matches the state's vital records. Both are stand-alone documents certifying the facts of a vital event. And both are admissible not only as evidence, but as prima facie evidence.
Hence the reason I said,"Nobody is questioning the general authenticity of the letters of verification. I never said the letters of verification were fake."
You are misrepresenting the law.
Nonsense. This is you being a drama queen.
Your reference to the FRE is also clearly deceptive, as the section you quote that speaks of a document "recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law" is "Rule 902, (4): Certified Copies of Public Records." That's the wrong section, because we are not talking about a copy of a public record.
Dude, you're arguing against yourself now, because what you cited also refers to "public" documents: "Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed," which you followed up by saying, "You'll notice that no distinction whatsoever is made between birth certificates and any other form of sealed and signed documents." IOW, YOU called a birth certificate a public document.
There the FRE conclusively shows that the letter of verification is itself a self-authenticating document, not a copy of one.
Again, I said specifically: "Nobody is questioning the general authenticity of the letters of verification. I never said the letters of verification were fake." Such letters are only self-authenticating to ACTUAL facts that are attested, but in these documents NO RELEVANT BIRTH FACTS are being attested. Let this SINK IN. NO RELEVANT BIRTH FACTS are being attested. A claim that a birth certificate (NOT a Certificate of Live Birth) "indicates" Obama was born in Hawaii is NOT an actual verification of fact and it is NOT an attestation of fact, but an attestation of a CLAIM. It's problematic because the DoH doesn't officially maintain birth certificates, but instead, certificates of live birth. Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. is playing word games to avoid potential perjury charges. There would be no such amibiguity or word games with an acutal CERTIFIED copy of a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certification of Live Birth were one of these documents actually presented in a court of law. Obama has refused. Hawaii has refused. They only started giving out letters of verification after the April 2011 LFBC was fabricated and the AG figured out the ambiguous wording to provide to the SOS in AZ.
I could go on, but what's the point? You are still lying and dancing in circles, so it is time for me to bow out.
You already pretended you were going to stop posting earlier. Nobody forced you to reply or to accuse me of lying. Thanks for defeating your own arguments. It was fun and way too easy for me.