Replies

"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?

Again:

"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

NOT

"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

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.

Thanks. I say it's not authentic as we've seen no solid proof that it contains the seal and the signature. Since you agreed I'm qualified, that means you can't disagree with my conclusions. Good call.

No... not even close. A self authenticating document can be challenged if you actually have evidence that it is a forgery.

Which is what this thread is about.

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.

You're finally right about something. I think there's enough evidence now to make this a criminal matter. We're talking about an impeachable offense. As for the DOH, the evidence of complicity is a little tenuous yet, but for cantfactcheck.org, a very strong case indeed.

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.

You don't get it or don't want to admit it. We do have evidence now. Spokesbabe Okubo has confirmed that Obama's cert number can't be legit.