[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

[EnderWiggins]

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

Of course it does. But first, someone needs to actually make the case that a court should even care. That requires evidence.

You got any? No?

So... we are still waiting for you guys to manage that neat little trick.

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

Ah... but that's not one of those different consequences. Simply presenting the document would meet the "prima facie" standard, and the case would be closed with no further investigation. It has always been up to you guys to provide evidence to challenge it... and after more than a year and a half, you've still got exactly nothing.