Posted on 04/07/2013 2:47:34 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
LOL. Is that your way of surrendering a point?
If you understood the definition of hearsay then you wouldn’t had made the earlier ridiculous comment about contemporaneous newspaper records, especially when they don’t list a place of birth.
And, if as you say, the notices provide no information concerning location of birth, you should even assert an objection based on relevance.
So, your point is well taken. I'm not sure if a judge would admit those notices.
I think the more important problem, though, is proving that Obama was born somewhere outside the United States without any witnesses to that fact.
I’m not debating the admissibility of newspaper articles. I’m pointing out that it’s ridiculous to claim that newspaper articles mean anything when they don’t list the place of birth. You brought up the “public record” and this is worthless too when the public record is inconsistent. What you’re not wanting to admit is that these out-of-court statements made in Obama’s own bio and by his own family members carries enough credibility to cause doubt about any other accounts. This is exactly how the burden of proof was shifted in the Kansas ballot challenge. The Kansas objections board was supposed to make a ruling the same day as the ballot hearing but they had no evidence and no public record to dispute whether Obama was born in Kenya or not. Obama wasn’t dumb enough to submit the kind of evidence you think is so persuasive.
What i know is that Obama himself cannot remember where he was born. However, there is an exception to the hearsay rule that permits him to testify about the facts relating to his birth. So, his testimony is admissible. I also know that public birth records are also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. There will be a horse race as to the admissibility of the newspaper clippings, if they are even relevant at all.
So, what I know is that if there were to be a trial, there would be admissible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Opponents might attempt to impeach that evidence by accusing the state government of manufacturing phony evidence, etc., but there would be evidence admitted that he was born in Hawaii.
I have never been made aware of any witness who will testify that they saw Obama born outside the country, whether in Kenya or Katmandu. Not one. It's easy to find people who are willing to just say that he was born in Kenya or Katmandu, but it is apparently impossible to find anyone who can say that their claim is based upon personal knowledge (i.e,. that they witnessed it).
By the way, even if you could somehow prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, that would not be the same as proving that he was born in another country. I recognize it's difficult and I recognize that the rules of evidence may sometimes seem to be unfair, but there are good reasons for most of them.
The reality is that, where the parents are dead, proving fifty year old birth facts about anyone can be difficult without using records (government, medical) and without using the person's own testimony. You need witnesses.
“I also know that public birth records are also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.”
Barry has spent $ millions on legal fees defeating any attempt to obtain discovery of his original vital and hospital birth records and has criminally conspired with HI officials to “release” (NOT legal release) a forged BC if Arpiao’s Posse is correct.
No honest person would engage committed to transparency, good government, and upholding the Constitution would behave as Barry has behaved. Only Alinsky-style ridicule of “birthers” and charges of “racism” protect this emperor with no clothes.
Obviously, Barry has something to hide which, IMO, can only be something that threatens his eligibility.
Given that ONLY birth outside HI can reasonably be expected to threaten his eligibility, it is likely that a foreign birth is what he is hiding.
Given the circumstantial and witness evidence accumulated in Kenya and his own claims to have been born in Kenya prior to the worldwide orchestrated internet scrubbing, Kenya is the obvious likely location for his birth.
TF, If you can’t even admit to changing the subject, or if you genuinely didn’t know that’s what you did, it inspires no confidence in anything else you say. That’s either v muddled or v dishonest thinking, & in neither case warrants further time or attention.
Here is your post that I originally responded to:
“Well, first, I want you to consider the following political fact: during his two presidential campaigns, Obama was the primary political beneficiary of the birther “investigations.”
Obama didn’t want the birther activists to go away for the same reason that, in 1972, Nixon didn’t want the long-haired, pot-smoking, hippie war protestors to go away.
At the time, I really had no idea whether the birthers were on to something serious or not, but as time went by it became increasingly clear that Obama was using the issue to paint his opponents as nuts and kooks. Like Nixon wanted to create associations between hippie war protestors and Democrat candidates, Obama wanted to create associations between birthers and Republican candidates. Most Republican politicians avoided the bait.”
This is pure, one-hundred-percent your personal opinion, w zero facts to back it up. I challenged this assertions & provided FACTS to show that in fact the exact opposite was true. You responded w this:
“Try to picture yourself in a courtroom, standing before a judge. He’s asking you to prove your case, to put on your evidence that Obama was born outside of the United States.
What do you do?”
I said you changed the subject, & you are either too dysfunctional in your thinking to realize that’s what you did or else you intentionally misrepresented it.
Now first admit you changed the subject. That is step one. Next, provide at least a shred of evidence to back your original assertion. Stay away from polls. They prove the exact opposite of what you said. Find your evidence elsewhere. Just be aware that if you can’t do better than simply stating your opinion while pretending it is fact, You Lose.
Wow, there's a couple of copout excuses, but it shows so how unreliable the public record is. If he's going to claim a U.S. birth, now the burden is on him. Thanks! That was easy.
However, there is an exception to the hearsay rule that permits him to testify about the facts relating to his birth. So, his testimony is admissible.
This guy won't set foot near a court of law. And second, he'd have to explain why he hasn't been consistent about his place of birth.
I also know that public birth records are also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. There will be a horse race as to the admissibility of the newspaper clippings, if they are even relevant at all.
That's where his step-grandmother's statements and his wife's statements start to weigh heavily, shifting the burden of proof.
So, what I know is that if there were to be a trial, there would be admissible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Good luck with that. He's never been brave enought to enter such evidence before.
I have never been made aware of any witness who will testify that they saw Obama born outside the country, whether in Kenya or Katmandu.
They don't have to testify. One of those exceptions to the hearsay rule hinges on the reputation of people who should know where their husband/stepgrandson was born. It's pretty damn compelling short of any legal documentary proof. And again, I already know it's strong enough to shift the burden of proof, because it's already worked before.
I was under the impression that newspaper articles are admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 902) as self-authenticating documents. Take a look at point 6:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
The birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser for August 13, 1961 clearly states that it is in the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspaper. It is one small piece of corroborating evidence. The second announcement in the August 14, 1961 Honolulu Star-Bulliten corroborates the first announcement.
Good point, Nero germanicus.
That means the Kenyan newspaper articles about “Kenyan born Barack Obama” running for us senate should also be admissible.
“To: Tau Food
I was under the impression that newspaper articles are admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 902) as self-authenticating documents. Take a look at point 6: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
The birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser for August 13,1961 clearly states that it is in the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspaper. It is one small piece of corroborating evidence. The second announcement in the August 14,1961 Honolulu Star-Bulliten corroborates the first announcement.
149 posted on Wed Apr 10 2013 13:33:17 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Nero Germanicus [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies | Report Abuse]”
Per
Yes indeed! I’m pretty sure that all that information has been heard in various state Elections Commission ballot challenges, also in briefs prepared for judges and in court testimony.
I believe that the Kenyan birth certificate was introduced as evidence by Orly Taitz back in 2009.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/obama-195778-birth-document.html
“I was under the impression that newspaper articles are admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 902) as self-authenticating documents.”
Here is the text of “point 6” of Rule 902:
“(6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.”
So far NO PRINTED copies of the newspaper announcements have been found, IIRC, but only microfilm images in multiple locations (at least three, IIRC).
All “self-authenticating evidence” is entitled to hearsay exception on a “prima facie” basis which means that it can still be challenged on a motion if there is reason to question to authenticity.
There are claims that there is evidence that Barry’s birth announcements have been spliced into microfilm image and the corrupted microfilm distributed to multiple repositories anticipating that they would be found there, for example. Evidence and expert testimony could be taken in depositions that could lead to a discovery hearing.
In any case if Stanley delivered Barry in Kenya and the grandparents reported to Hawaii vital records the birth to their claimed Hawaii resident daughter whose permanent address was their home, the newspaper announcements would look identical with no birth location reported, just the address of the mother (cross-confirmed by the INS FOIA docs).
“I believe that the Kenyan birth certificate was introduced as evidence by Orly Taitz back in 2009.”
No. It was FILED with an affidavit from the person who claimed to have acquired the CPGH, NOT entered into evidence. Big difference.
“According to Taitz’s Friday filing, a U.S. citizen named Lucas Daniel Smith, a 29-year-old Iowan, went to Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya on Feb. 19 and paid ‘a cash consideration to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while I obtained the copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.’”
If Judge Carter had ordered discovery then a deposition of Smith could have been taken by Taitz and Barry’s legal team and both sides could have examined the certified document and efforts to obtain international authentication from Kenya (subsequently denied) could have been ordered/permitted by the court.
That is what happens in a trial on the merits, which Judge Carter denied when he dismissed the case. Judge Carter wrote in dicta (without evidence)that even if Smith’s BC was authenticated in Kenya then under the FRE he would be required to defer to an authenticated Hawaiian BC if that were entered into evidence (none has ever been legally released and entered into evidence to any court).
The absence of evidence of a foreign birth led some of the birthers to shift their focus from the "foreign born" claim (for which there exists no evidence ) to the claim that a natural born citizen status requires that both of a person's parents be citizens at the time of the person's birth. This claim, which might be known as the Vattel hoax, appears to be every bit as kooky and nutty as the foreign birth claim.
There are folks out there who have benefited financially from both branches of birtherism through fundraising, book sales, etc. However, when it comes to political benefits, no one (no one in the world) has benefited from birtherism more than Obama himself.
Thus, it was a win-win proposition for the birthers (at least some of them) and for Obama. Unfortunately, the losers were the American people.
I suppose the losers would also include those gullible souls who got sucked into becoming emotionally invested in the Birthermania craze. To this day, some of them still wonder why, why, why hasn't the Supreme Court intervened to correct this monstrous constitutional crime??? Why does the Chief Justice keep administering the oath to Obama when it's not required of him to do so? Why do the Justices keep showing up at Obama inaugurations?? Why do the courts punish the brave lawyers who so clearly demonstrate that the Constitution has been trashed like never before?? Why do people think we're crackpots???
Like I said, it will all fade away by 2016.
Who are you responding to? You breezed right by everything I wrote like it wasn’t there. Is it a reading comprehension issue...or worse?
I’ve talked in the past to people who were blind ideologues. No matter what was said to them, they heard only things that played into their preconceptions. I.e.: they never process what the other person is actually saying; they simply conveniently ‘hear’ something they can use as a springboard onto their favorite hobbyhorse. I hope you’re not like that.
He DID write his bio saying he was born in Kenya. Breitbart broke that story. That bio was in place until 2007, IIRC.
The only public birth record presented to the public thus far has been a falsified 1960-64 birth index.
There are 2 letters of verification effectively confirming that Obama’s Hawaii BC is legally non-valid.
The library microfilms have been altered and the copies that are there now cannot possibly be the same ones that were there in 1961. There’s a lot of evidence of that but it’s too much to say here right now.
Why couldn’t Abercrombie find Ann Dunham’s name in the labor room log for Kapiolani then? Why did he tell Mike Evans that he had gone to all the hospitals with a search warrant and was unable to find any proof of Obama being born in any of them?
When you want to introduce into evidence any kind of object, including an newspaper, you must "authenticate" the object, i.e., offer evidence to prove that the object is what you claim it to be. If you authenticate a July 10, 1975 issue of the New York Times, you have only proved that the object is what you claim it to be, i.e., a genuine July 10, 1975 issue of the New York Times.
You run into the hearsay problem when you want to prove more than that it is a genuine copy of the newspaper. If you want to use what is written in the newspaper as evidence that what is said there is true, then the hearsay rule comes into play and you have to find an exception to the hearsay rule.
Let me run that by you again. If all you want to prove is that the piece of paper is a newspaper, then authentication is enough. If you want to also use the content of the newspaper as evidence that something it says is true, you have to overcome the hearsay rule.
Yes, I'm sure you have.
One of things I'm suggesting though, is a lot of the birther industry is driven not by ideology, but by avarice.
The only public birth record presented to the public thus far has been a falsified 1960-64 birth index.
There are 2 letters of verification effectively confirming that Obama’s Hawaii BC is legally non-valid.
The library microfilms have been altered and the copies that are there now cannot possibly be the same ones that were there in 1961. There’s a lot of evidence of that but it’s too much to say here right now.
Bless your heart, I have no doubt that you believe all that and that you believe it all means something serious. Having read some of your posts in the past, I don't believe you are one of the folks who are making any money from any of this.
What you might ask of those who are making money from all this - with alll the money you have received to investigate these claims, why have you not found any admissible evidence that Obama was born in a foreign country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.