 Wiggy, Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists FAILS when evidence contradicting that fact is presented, and in such case, the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If the proponent of that "fact" fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. EVEN BEYOND THE CONCEPT of WHERE Obama was born, to date, Obama has presented no additional evidence, other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB). NO Judge has seen it, nor has a member of Congress seen it. It's unknown if Pelosi has seen it, or the President of the Senate when confirming the Electoral Votes in January 2009. Hence, the prima facie validity of Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) FAILS and he is compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961. Quo Warranto WILL eventually make him PUT UP or SHUT UP. At that point, the Constitutional argument defining the "original intent" meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" begins. That won't bode well for the son of a British Subject, or Barry Soetoro — take your pick. Wiggy, I suggest you take a gander at A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Pay particular attention to where it says a presumption applies to the presumed fact and "must be inferred, absent rebuttal evidence." In Obama's case, the Courts pass because of Legal Standing, Jurisdiction and Political Question. Considering the UNRELIABLE and BIASED "chain of evidence" regarding Obama's "birth certificate," there's PLENTY of A PHOTO of an "internet image" does NOT rise to the level of a true and valid document. And NO AMOUNT of After-Birther spin can change that.
|