[EnderWiggins]

"Can you cite the document forensics credentials of this alleged independent third party??"

LOL... Why would a document forensics expert be needed? Did you not read the post on the Federal Rules of Evidence? That's why we certify documents in the first place. So that no experts are necessary.

Now if you have any evidence that contradicts it and can thereby justify the additional need for some forensic expert to get involved, go for it. Until you do though, the document authenticates itself.

"A lucky happenstance for Barry Soetoro."

Luck's got nothing to do with. He has evidence, you do not. No luck involved.

[edge919]

Why would a document forensics expert be needed? Did you not read the post on the Federal Rules of Evidence? That's why we certify documents in the first place. So that no experts are necessary.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the conspicuous absence of any certified birth documents being entered as evidence in a court of law?? I was referring to the credentials of the factcheck amateurs who are so far the only persons claiming to have seen a hard copy of the alleged COLB.

Further, if you understand the Federal Rules of Evidence, you would realize that a self-authenticating documenting is only self-authenticating if it's not an obvious forgery (which explains why it has NEVER been introduced in a court of law). Moreover, being self-authenticating doesn't mean it can't be challenged. I believe if the alleged COLB was entered by the defense, the plaintiff would demand to have it examined by a qualified examiner ... not factcheckamateur.org. It would be easily shot down.

Luck's got nothing to do with. He has evidence, you do not. No luck involved.

Sorry, but there have been motions to dismiss based on standing, but actual evidence, no.

It pains me to shoot down such weak arguments, but the gun is loaded and the target avails itself like a whale in a barrel.