Neither a copy nor the original are considered prima facie regarding the factS that are claimed on the document itself, though, if the document is altered, as it says in big bold letters at the very bottom. I always thought that meant if the document had been tampered with – such as the cert number being blacked out. But I actually wonder if that statement is their way of saying that AMENDED certificates – actually altered by the DOH – are invalidated for prima facie evidentiary purposes. We don’t think of “altered” as meaning the same thing as “amended” but in the legal language of the rules they are used the same way.

Of course, if the DOH prints something that has an amendment on the original but fails to note the amendment on the copy, then they have falsified the record. If someone else does that they commit forgery.

I should take a look at the COLB which has an amended name on it and see if it has the big, bold “Any alterations” statement at the bottom. If the DOH relies on that statement to show that amendments alter the evidentiary value, then they would have to take that statement off when the amendment DOESN’T invalidate the cert – such as in the case of a legal name change.

Secondly, how could this colb be considered prima facie evidence when there is a number marked out on the form and the form itself says that any changes void the form.

——————-

Mr. Charlton replies: The electronic image without the seal showing (later with the seal showing) is an obvious forgery…such an image is prima facie evidency not of a birth, but of a forgery.

http://unitedcivilrights.org/uscode-v-obama.html

It discusses ways to obtain presidential records. It states that USC Title 44, Chapter 22 Presidential Records, makes all presidential records public. There is alot of other good info there also. Worth looking at. Someone may have already. If so, what do you think?

If a late or altered registration is not considered prima facie evidence, how can it possibly be printed on the same form as a registration that meets all of the evidentiary requirements? How would a judicial or administrative authority know an amended or late registration is not considered prima facie evidence when the COLB contains the above statement? Is it possible there are two COLB forms?

Just thinking out loud.

—————

Mr. Charlton replies: Epi, I think that your IF statement which leads your second paragraph is false. The statement about prima facie evidence is for what appears on that form. It means the the State of Hawaii attests that what is on that form (and I am speaking of a real COLB, not what Obama puts out as his real colb) has been put there in accord with DoH rules and proceedures, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, it is presumed true. Of course if there is an orgiinal filing which differs, the criteria a court might use to determine authenticity of information and that by the DoH could differ. So the statement is merely saying that one does not take this to be true, but to be a correct affirmation of what the DoH has on record. The DoH is not an investigatory authority, and probably spends little time ever checking the validity of information presented on any form. I am sure that if you bribed someone in the information chain, you could get even a long form to have information it ought not. We’re not dealing with reality here, but with documentation. They are too different things.

The DOH has denied that it has any information regarding the EVVE “void flag” or how it gets entered into the system. But I find it hard to believe that a birth record which can’t even count as prima facie evidence would get by without some kind of flag.

You may remember the stories of cops who tried to do a check of Obama and were denied access and got into trouble. I seriously wonder whether they tried to access the EVVE record for Obama and were refused because that EVVE record says he’s only as well-documented as the nearest illegal alien.

But – again – Hawaii refuses to answer any questions or provide any documents concerning how their system works. They would have us believe they do this all off their heads as the Spirit moves. I have seen the data entry manual for the CDC’s recommended vital statistics software posted online. Specific instructions so the data is standardized all over the country. That is what Onaka received awards for, and Hawaii law specifically states that Hawaii is supposed to conform to the standards for vital statistics reporting set by the federal government. But Onaka and Okubo both say they have no data entry manuals, no software bids, nothing to document anything they did when they converted paper files to electronic OR when they initiated the EVVE system in Hawaii.

This is what Hawaii’s “open government” looks like.