Replies

If judicial notice was taken of the BC itself then Taitz would have the ability to demand the original to be presented for her examination. MDEC didn’t ask the judge to take judicial notice of the forged BC though - just the letter of verification (where they never asked about the genuineness of the White House image or the truthfulness of the claims). They asked if the “information contained in” the White House image “matched”. When KS SOS Kris Kobach asked if the information in the White House image was “IDENTICAL TO” the information in the genuine record, Onaka would not verify that - showing that there is a difference between “matches” and “is identical to”.

The MDEC lawyers knew that. That’s why they were very careful never to ask anything that would only work for a valid record. It was their actions which made me realize that they knew Onaka had confirmed the non-validity of the HDOH record.

Actually if the judge takes judicial notice, it works against Orly Taitz, not in her favor.
Taking judicial notice is “a doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action.

When a court takes judicial notice of a certain fact, it obviates the need for parties to prove the fact in court. Ordinarily, facts that relate to a case must be presented to the judge or jury through testimony or tangible evidence. However, if each fact in a case had to be proved through such presentation, the simplest case would take weeks to complete. To avoid burdening the judicial system, all legislatures have approved court rules that allow a court to recognize facts that constitute common knowledge without requiring proof from the parties.”

So if Judge Wingate were to take judicial notice of Dr. Onaka’s Letter of Verification and the attached LFBC, there will be no need for the defense to prove the validity of the Obama birth record in this trial in Mississippi and likely in future trials, based on this precedent.

The word “matched” in the letter goes with Federal Rule of Evidence 1005:
“Copies of Public Records To Prove Content”

RULE 1005. COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO PROVE CONTENT

The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has COMPARED it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005

Registrar Onaka says in the letter that he compared the attached copy and it “matched” the original. We’ll all just have to continue to wait for Judge Wingate to rule.