As expected, Orly has filed a lawsuit in Kansas.
Using the same old overruled evidence, of course. Most of the evidentiary claims, as the OP notes, belong in the now-moderated thread. I'll discuss the legal issue here.
Her legal theory for why Full Faith and Credit should not apply is that the official state witness (i.e., Onaka) is a "person of interest" in an ongoing criminal investigation for forgery (false, and legally irrelevant) and that he did not honor subpoenas to "produce ... original documents" (legally incorrect and factually false) and relevant "demands from law enforcement" (false).
"Ongoing criminal investigation" is simply Sheriff Joe's ongoing semi-legal circus. No charges filed, no charges likely to be filed, no resolution of jurisdictional issues. While Arpaio provides an affidavit "concluding forgery," he has not lifted a figure to resolve any of the accusations speedily -- he simply engages in a broad enough abuse of power to cause him to be enjoined from further spending public funds to continue the fiasco.
Being a "person of interest" in an investigation does not affect Onaka's authority under Hawaii law and under the U.S. Constitution to bind the other states. He is the official recognized under Full Faith and Credit as the designated inspector and authenticator for vital records in Hawaii, until such time as the
Hawaiian government, by its own due process, shall revoke that authority.
Evidentiary accusations of forgery, of the documents in question, are legally irrelevant when the
issuing authority has certified them. You rely on a trial of evidence when certification cannot be had. No Birther lawyer yet seems to appreciate the rulings to that effect that abruptly terminate their court cases. Further the argument seems to be circular: We do not accept the certification of Onaka because he's a person of interest in our accusations of forgery. That's like trying to tell a cop he doesn't have the authority to write you a ticket because you're going to accuse him of misconduct. Even without Full Faith and Credit, that's a legal non-starter.
There was no "demand from law enforcement." There was an untimely, improper, and unlawful demand from ordinary citizens acting on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio briefly under color of law, but not with LEO authority. Hawaii officials rightly refused the demand. It was untimely because the Hawaiian government had already issued its certification. It was improper because it was an in-person request made without the proper production of credentials and standing, and it was unlawful because it attempted to compel something that is forbidden by Hawaii law.
Ditto the subpoeanas. You cannot just subpoena any old thing you want. A subpoena to examine original paper records is not
per se valid when there is a compelling interest to limit access to those records, and when a well-established method is provided by statute to serve the purpose for which examination of the records would otherwise serve. Just as it has in thousands upon thousands of other cases, a certified abstract and/or facsimile copy serves to attest to the record and for any legal requirement to produce documentary proof.
Further, one has to have standing to make the subpoena valid. We discussed this above. And finally, just because a judge grants a subpoena doesn't mean the subject of it is contemptuous of the court when he cites violation of relevant state law as the reason why he cannot comply as ordered. "Show me the original!" "Um, no, state law forbids me from doing that, and in fact further forbids me from giving you a copy unless you fall into one of these categories." If subpoenas worked the way Birthers think they do, I could just subpoena a million dollars in cash from my bank.
