Replies

When a court takes judicial notice of a certain fact, it obviates the need for parties to prove the fact in court.

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??