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.
No, that's not true under the rules of evidence, at least not when there are documents that have to be certified as CORRECT.
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.
This assumption already failed in the Kansas ballot challenge in September. It was pointed out that the MDEC letter did NOT certify the LFBC as correct as is required under the rules of evidence. This is why SOS Kobach felt compelleged to contact Hawaii and ask if the LFBC was IDENTICAL. The ballot challenge successfully shifted the burden of proof, but that burden should have been placed on Obama and his counsel and not the Kansas SOS.
The word “matched” in the letter goes with Federal Rule of Evidence 1005:
Well, no actually it doesn't and your own citation shows why.
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.
"match" does NOT equal "correct" especially when we're talking about a document that must be certified. And moreover, under the rules of evidence, if the certified document is not submitted for inspection by the opposing party prior to the trial or hearing, the document is treated as hearsay.
Now, if we can't get the actual hard copy of the alleged certified LFBC in court and Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. refuses to verify all information in the letters of verifications, then maybe Alvin would be willing to testify in court??
Your own citation proves the point. “Correct” is not the same as “matched”. Notice that MDEC itself did not certify delivery of its motion by saying that a copy that “matches” was delivered to the plaintiffs, but that a true and correct copy was sent.
They know that “matches” doesn’t cut it in legal language. In Duncan Sunahara’s case the judge deliberated over whether to accept the copy of “Public Health Regulations” that was presented by Deputy AG Jill Nagamine because though Nagamine certified that it was a true and correct copy taken from the government website, there was not a certification by the authority holding the record that it was a true and correct copy. That’s how picky the exact language and exact certifying elements are. “Matches” has no legal significance whatsoever. Just like “indicates”. Both the judges and the attorneys know that full well. That’s why the AG’s office would allow Onaka to use “indicates” and “matches” and not the legal language required in a court of law.
When something gets judicial notice, the opposition has the opportunity to challenge it and require the records to be submitted in court. Judicial notice simply provides a way to skip that part if both parties acknowledge the fact at hand. That’s why Obama’s attorneys have never asked a judge to notice the actual forged documents, but only somebody’s COMMENTS about the forged documents - the first time the report by Jess Hennig and Joe Miller, the Factcheck employees who presumably helped forge the COLB, and now it is Onaka who used the legally worthless word “matches”.
That legal maneuver to avoid having either the COLB or the long-form even be “noticed” makes edge’s point perfectly. They are very deliberately avoiding presenting that thing as evidence. Why argue that the thing is able to be submitted in a court and then scratch, claw, bite, and worm your way around to make sure it never is?