Bottom line, if the doc's are real they would hve been requested by family back in 1964, held by family for 45 years and offered up only by a family connection of some kind.
Where is the chain of custody for the birth docs if they are real? It would be a very short chain.... One link....
No responsible lawyer or journalist would present them, much less enter them as court evidence without at least a minimum discussion of where 45 year old docs came from.
Focus on that one issue, if you can explain that, O's house of cards comes tumbling down.
When the divorce paper were published, several pages were missing. It is probable that the document that Orley has is one of those missing papers. It has been explained repeatedly on this and other threads, that judges require such documents under certain circumstances....Those circumstances were present in this divorce case. For 45 years it’s been in a file cabinet.
Orly Taitz wrote an update today in which she stated:
“More then one person had certified copies of this document.”
She is the only one, besides the person(s) from whom she got this document, who can disclose the “chain of custody”. Hopefully she will be able to do that at the appropriate time, but she may not as IIRC the source wishes to remain anonymous (understandable but regrettable).
As someone has already told you, there are verifiable reasons why this document could have been requested from Kenya and people on this forum pointed them out. If you had read the thread you would know that you are a bit late suggesting that it was done by someone in the family.
If you had done some reading here before deciding to participate you would know that the people you refer to as birthers have so far tried very hard to dispute the legitimacy of this document with remarkable skill and integrity and have yet to be able to do so. You have mischaracterized their efforts 100%.
I’m not sure the provenance will be so important if it is proved that the birth entry in the Kenyan registry matches this document - almost makes it moot.
The ignorance you have demonstrated in your posts makes you moot, too.
Orly is an attorney. Legal files from another old case could be passed along to her by a client for use as evidence in a new case.
Orly claims the person who provided it fears for his life and preemptive internet image release was a form of life insurance for this person. She has not to fear doctored web images. DU’s campaign is laughable and will have no impact on the court, only on public opinion.
Ms Taitz as attorney for the plaintiff who feels he has been threatened for possessing this file, has the original. And has asked a court to authenticate it.
DU is hysterical about Orly being charged with perjury or fraud or misrepresentation. BS. She has not submitted this to the court as a bona fide. She has asked the court to authenticate. BIG DIFEFFERENCE. This lady seems very smart about legal rules and maneuvers.
Since she meticulously documents everything and fearlessly, if there were threats made to the possessor of this BC that led him to retain her as counsel, and to surrender these files to her for safekeeping and authentication and for self protection— then that will also come out in court.
This is the key:
IF DU and the WH know the Kenyan BC copy is a fake, they have nothing to worry about.
Certainly obama, since he is using campaign funds for legal teams, can afford the best forensic examiners to debunk the original... in court. His best defense would be to provide an official certified bona fide long form birth document, wouldn't it?
Even if Orly has a “fake” BC, she has a legal tool that requires the defendant to respond.