The type of certificate he has released says that a medical professional registered his birth (had the registration been done by a family member, per the laws of Hawaii at the time of his birth, Obama wouldn't have received a "prima facie" certificate).
First of all, I'd like to see your source for this claim. Because I think you are lying again, ANTPogo. Here's what the 1955 Hawaiian Law that was in effect at the time Obama was supposedly born says regarding registration of births:
Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
That means a parent could have given birth to a baby outside the US, brought the baby to Hawaii, and then claim that she had an unattended birth (no witnesses).
The 1955 law next states
Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.
(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth an prepare and file the certificate.
That means a local registrar could prepare a birth certificate for a claimed unattended birth using information from anyone claiming to have knowledge of the birth. A parent could have a baby outside the US, bring the baby into the US, then have anyone supply false information to the local registrar. In fact, anyone could supply the information to the registrar while the birth mom and child were still outside the US.
The 1955 law also allowed for certificates of birth to be filed as much as a year after the birth. So a parent could have a baby outside the US, bring that child into the US within a year of his stated DOB and then file for the birth certificate using the above procedures.
For this reason, the prima facie value of a COLB is limited. A Hawaiian COLB is NOT evidence of a Hawaiian birth for a foreign national born in the year 1961, because under Hawaiian law, it was compulsory for the Department of Health to register a newborn child of a Hawaiian resident,
even if no documentation of place and time of birth was actually presented. It took only the *word* of one parent (or not even a parent) claiming the child was born in Hawaii on such and such a date to register the child. That's why seeing the name of the doctor and the hospital on the long form is so important.
As Joseph Farah notes in this article
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=285741
Hawaii had a long history of handing out those "short-form" certifications of live birth to parents and grandparents as registrations of births that actually took place elsewhere – including other countries.
Furthermore, "prima facie" is another phrase whose definition you don't seem to know, ANTPogo. "Prima facie" does not mean evidence that is conclusive or irrefutable. As Wikipedia notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Prima facie is often confused with res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), the common law doctrine that when the facts make it self-evident that negligence or other responsibility lies with a party, it is not necessary to provide extraneous details, since any reasonable person would immediately find the facts of the case. The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to answer. Res ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party need explain no more.
Also, from Wikipedia,
Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.
And how would one test it in this case? Easy. Ask for and see the long form birth certificate.
Prima Facie means "on the face of it"
until proven otherwise. With a long form copy in existance which shows more detail, things can be proven otherwise. In a court trial if one one side offers prima facie evidence and both sides stipulate to it, it is entered into evidence.
But if one side objects, it is not and the original has to be produced.
And here are some more legal sources with the same definition of "prima facie":
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie
Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence. It may also be used as an adverb meaning "on first appearance but subject to further evidence or information;" e.g., the agreement is prima facie valid.
A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption. It is generally understood as a flexible evidentiary standard that measures the effect of evidence as meeting, or tending to meet, the proponent's burden of proof on a given issue. In that sense, a prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prima-facie/
Prima facie is a Latin term meaning "at first look," or "on its face," and refers to evidence before trial which is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence shown at trial. … snip … If an applicant submits the evidence necessary to prove a prima facie case, absent a response (or evidence to the contrary), the applicant should prevail.
But we have made a response in this case.
Show us the long form, Obama.
