[EnderWiggins]

"BULLSH*T! In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" — it MUST appear in Court. It NEVER has. It's only appeared on the Internet."

LOL... BP, you keep mistaking yourself for somebody who is actually important.

I can't believe you have yet to figure out that you will never personally touch a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate. The best you will ever get is an image on the Internet or in a Newspaper, and the testimony of an independent third party that the document is actually real. You've already had that for more than a year.

Even if the COLB eventually is presented in a court room, you will still personally never get aything more than an image and the verification of somebody you either trust or you don't. And let's not pretend that Birthers trust judges any more than they trust FactCheck reporters.

You already have in your possession all the evidence you are ever going to get, and you've made your decision that you don't believe it. Great. But you look silly pretending that you will ever get (or deserve) anything more than you already have.

[BP2]

I can't believe you have yet to figure out that you will never personally touch a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate.

I do not want to personally touch it. Quit shifting the argument to something it's not.

I DO want Obama's "birth certificate" to appear in Court as a "prima facie" FACT, which it never, ever has. As such, HRS 338-13(b) and 338.19 has never been "activated."

YOU and the rest of the After-Birther foolishly and mistakenly put your TRUST in internet-based prima facie, originating from LIAR-in-Chief Obama with a very dubious Chain of Custody on its way to another LIAR, Nancy Pelosi at the DNC Convention in August 2008.

The JUDGMENT and TRUST of yourself and all of the other After-Birthers is highly, HIGHLY misplaced.

A LIAR lies, both AFTER and BEFORE the Election.

[STE=Q]

In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" — it MUST appear in Court.

Bringing an ORIGINAL document to court has consequences that supersede giving a putative copy to a third party -- such as a news organization.

Deceiving a court with a fraudulent document would be a big no no... Yes?

Whether it would "satisfy" birthers, ant-birthers, or the dog catchers of America, is irelivant... it would "satisfy" the law: in that it would be a legally introduced piece of evidence.

Why the Obama administration doesn't do just that is anyone's guess.

STE=Q