“There is no evidence of any nature that the present occupant of the White House was born in Hawaii or for that matter anywhere else. My personal speculation is that he was born outside the US but as yet, there is no evidence.”
Federal Rules of Evidence
RULE 1005. COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO PROVE CONTENT
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
Except for the pronouncements by the issuing authority, the state of Hawaii, you are correct. However those pronouncements have proven difficult hurdles to overcome. Triers of Fact have accepted them as valid.
In many if not most or all of these cases where the trier of fact has accepted or failed to rule out the Hawaii Record, the substance of Plaintiff's case was addressed to the argument that zero was not Natural Born for the reason that his father was BHO Sr. who was not a US Citizen.
Since the courts involved viewed that argument as being without merit, not much attention was given to the Hawaii record factual question--no one argued that Senior was not the father; so given that Senior was the father and Plaintiff's argument was that Senior as a non-citizen father made zero ineligible, where he was born was not the issue.
And to be fair, counsel has never done a particularly adequate job of contesting the validity of the Hawaii record. We see lots of loose information here on that topic but what has been in the record in these cases is really not well done.
The Georgia ballot ALJ hearing was a particular tradigy.
The Administrative Law Judge was prepared to give the Plaintiff's a fair hearing on the record and to permit them to make a complete record. Since Zero's counsel did not appear, the record could have been made a complete record which would stand virtually unimpeachable on appeal at any level.
What should have been done was introduce an extensive record of the deficiencies in the Hawaii record making it clear that nothing in any of the Hawaii documents represents evidence that Zero was born there.
Then, hard testimony and affidavit evidence should have been introduced that has zero having told a number of people over the years that he was born in Kenya; his official biography in the early state races says he was born in Kenya. Almost all of those statements are evidentiary--they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule as statement's against interest which are evidence that zero was born in Kenya.
At worst, in a cureative or supplemental hearing, zero would have the burden of proving where he was born. At best, you should have been able to obtain a decision based on a fact of having him born in Kenya and ineligible on the record; under circumstances where the record of his statements was birth to Stanley and Senior in Kenya, he was not even a U S Citizen at birth.
I doubt that he was in fact born in Kenya. But the point is to get a record legal proceeding on which the legal issue of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office would be before the Supreme Court on an appeal.
Your rules of evidence contradict that the issuing authority has presented legal evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Under the law you cited, it says, “if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4)”. Further, under the rules of evidence, if such documentary evidence is not provided to the adverse party for inspecting prior to a trial or hearing, the claims in the documents is considered to be hearsay.
TP Bookmark...