[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.

[EnderWiggins]

"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."

And I directly responded by pointing out that you don't need any expertise whatsoever to authenticate a hard copy of a state certified and sealed document. Even you are perfectly qualified to do so under the law.

"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)."

No... not even close. A self authenticating document can be challenged if you actually have evidence that it is a forgery. And if you had such evidence, you wouldn't be filing civil complaints. You would file a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH for complicity in fraud where there is no hurdle of standing to overcome.

The real explanation why it has never been introduced in a court of law is that you do not have the evidence to prevail in a criminal court, and you do not have the standing to prevail in a civil one. Go get some real evidence and then see how quickly things change.

" 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."

Why wait? You said yourself that it is an "obvious forgery." So why no criminal case yet against the Hawaii DOH for fraud?