[edge919]

Far from being what you mistakenly call "third-party letters of verification," the letters are official state documents with all the evidentiary force of a birth certificate regarding the data they contain.

Except that these letters of verification do not contain compelling birth data. Again, re-read the rule I just posted. The self-authentication rule does NOT guarantee genuineness or authenticity. A letter of verification cannot substitute for a certified birth certificate when it fails to include the specific birth data and/or the required certification elements. The Arizona letter is lacking in both departments. Again, this is why the Alabama Democrat Party is walking back any notion that either of these documents comply with the rules of evidence.

[Mr Rogers]

In a trial court, the attorney for either side can challenge evidence. In an appeal, the court can review the trial judge’s ruling. I’ve got an 800 page book on my shelf discussing the federal rules of evidence, so it isn’t quite as easy as just reading a sentence off of the Internet and becoming an expert.

However, there is no indication the trial judge considered ANY birth certificate in deciding the case. The reports I’ve seen indicated the ruling was made on lack of jurisdiction, so the case was dismissed with prejudice.

[BigGuy22]

"A letter of verification cannot substitute for a certified birth certificate when it fails to include the specific birth data and/or the required certification elements."

__
Your argument completely misses the point. The LoV is not intended to substitute for a birth certificate or anything else. It is in itself an official state document attesting to certain facts, like date and place of birth. It is not there for the purpose of guaranteeing the genuineness or authenticity of any other document.