The two federal court cases you gave testimony in had nothing to do with either Obama's elibility or the authenticity of your Kenyan BC. You gave testimony, IIRC, in Liberi v. Taitz, in Pensylvania (in which one birther lawyer sued another birther lawyer), and in Rivernider v. U.S. Bank, in Florida, a real estate foreclosure case, (in which a magistrate judge was trying to determine whether to sanction Orly Taitz or her ex-assistant, Charles Lincoln). In the latter case, the judge explicitly forbade any wandering into the eligibility issue.
Your BC and affidavit were first submitted to the court in Rhodes v. McDonald in the District Court of Central Georgia, and here's how Judge Land questioned Orly Taitz about your affidavit and BC during the hearing on Sept. 14, 2009, according to the official Transcript of Proceedings, Pages 34-36:
THE COURT: Let me make sure I understand this. So this is a United States citizen that went over there.
MS. TAITZ: Yes.
THE COURT: And this hospital, under their rules and regulations and the applicable law, would not allow him to come into that hospital and review their medical and birth records.
MS. TAITZ: Not because of rules or regulations but because Mr. Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga, is the Prime Minister of Kenya. That is the reason why that hospital is specifically protected.
THE COURT: Well, if you sent this same person to a hospital here in Columbus, and he said, "I would like to go through your birth records," you don't think that person would be authorized to do that, do you, in the United States?
MS. TAITZ: Well, let me tell you --
THE COURT: It's a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it. But I want to make sure I understand this, because you have left the impression with me that this witness you have bribed an official in Kenya in order to obtain this document that you have submitted as evidence in this court. Now, if you did not intend to leave that impression, I will let you clarify that. But as I understood what you just said, the person otherwise did not have access to these hospital records; and he had to pay somebody in order to get access that he otherwise did not have; and upon paying that person, he therefore got this document. That sounds to me like a bribe. If that's not the impression that you tried to leave, then I'll let you straighten that out on the record.
MS. TAITZ: I would like to straighten it out. To me, the fact that our judiciary, when, after a hundred lawsuits were filed, and our judiciary, in many cases, and our U.S. Attorney and JAG, are unwilling to provide the citizens of this country with documents that shows --
THE COURT: No, ma'am. That's just another speech. That may work fine out on the front steps of the courthouse when the press is listening, but that is not an answer to my question. I gave you the opportunity to dispute the fact that this sounded like a bribe, and you did not wish to answer that question.
And in his Order for Dismissal on Sept. 16, 2009, Judge Land referred to your Kenyan BC in Footnote 5 on Page 10 of the order:
One piece of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
Your BC and affidavit were also submitted by Orly Taitz in the Barnett v. Obama case in California, and Judge Carter had the following to say in his decision granting the Motion to Dismiss, Oct. 29, 2009, Page 27:
Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of President Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the birth certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot. For Leave to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the following depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security; e. All other Defendants . . .”).In neither of these eligibility cases, in which you did not testify, were your Kenyan BC, or your affidavit, admitted as evidence, authenticated, validated, or deemed reliable.
Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
Since when is the court afraid of a little "comparative exercise"? Hmmm. Isn't that their job?
And how does the Court know that there will be any "contrast" at all unless it does a little exercise and compares the documents?
Perhaps the U.S. documents will simply corroborate the Kenyan one, after a little "comparative exercise" of course.
Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
the state of Hawaii excepted, of course.
It really is sort of a waste of time when I have to answer people like you that do a 5 minture google search and then post your “findings” at freerepublic and other online blogs.
I will however explain the facts for you.
I was a witness is “BARNETT vs OBAMA”. The birth certificate that I procured in Kenyan was filed in the case. And yes, as the title implies, “BARNETT vs OBAMA”, yes it was a case againts President Barack Obama. My 09.03.2009 Declaration was aslo filed in this case. I was in the Honorable Judge David O Carter’s courtroom in the witness room waiting to testify on 09.08.2009.
So stop with reporting misinformation.
As for Ory’s other cases, the “Rhodes” case that you have cited, Orly attached the same documents to that case as well, at a later date. BY THE WAY, the Rhodes case was ALL ABOUT OBAMA. The soldier refused to deploy to war because the soilder refused to acknowledge Obama as having power to command the arms forces because Obama has not proven that he is eligible to hold office of President of the United States.
Do you get it now??? I hope so. I also hope that you will have enough integrity to admit when you’ve made a mistake rather than reply with some jab which explains nothing more than it’s your story and you are sticking to it. Don’t let your pride get in the way.
By the way the only other case which I hace testified in RIVERNIDER vs US BANK. It was a back door for getting some facts onto court record that can be used in another federal court case. I was there to testify for Charles Lincoln because Orly Taitz was attempting to smear Lincoln. I personal knowledge of their work agreement and their friendship.
As for your mention of the Liberi vs Taitz case. I HAVE NEVERT TESTIFIED in that case. Perhaps Phil Berg and Liberi have now attached my declaration and my affidavit to that case which they or any other lawyer has the right to do once record of it was already made in another court.
Long stort short, DONT ATTEMPT TO STATE HERE THAT I WAS NOT A WITNESS IN FEDERAL COURT REGARDING OBAMA.
Again, Pamele Barnett vs Barack Obama. Can you read that? Go google search it or whatever it is that you yourself do in you “great research”.
And you might also want to review the “Rhodes” case. IT IS ALL ABOUT OBAMA.
Report back when you can admit that you made an error in youe “findings”.
It really is sort of a waste of time when I have to answer people like you that do a 5 minture google search and then post your “findings” at freerepublic and other online blogs.
I will however explain the facts for you.
I was a witness is “BARNETT vs OBAMA”. The birth certificate that I procured in Kenyan was filed in the case. And yes, as the title implies, “BARNETT vs OBAMA”, yes it was a case againts President Barack Obama. My 09.03.2009 Declaration was aslo filed in this case. I was in the Honorable Judge David O Carter’s courtroom in the witness room waiting to testify on 09.08.2009.
So stop with reporting misinformation.
As for Ory’s other cases, the “Rhodes” case that you have cited, Orly attached the same documents to that case as well, at a later date. BY THE WAY, the Rhodes case was ALL ABOUT OBAMA. The soldier refused to deploy to war because the soilder refused to acknowledge Obama as having power to command the arms forces because Obama has not proven that he is eligible to hold office of President of the United States.
Do you get it now??? I hope so. I also hope that you will have enough integrity to admit when you’ve made a mistake rather than reply with some jab which explains nothing more than it’s your story and you are sticking to it. Don’t let your pride get in the way.
By the way the only other case which I hace testified in RIVERNIDER vs US BANK. It was a back door for getting some facts onto court record that can be used in another federal court case. I was there to testify for Charles Lincoln because Orly Taitz was attempting to smear Lincoln. I personal knowledge of their work agreement and their friendship.
As for your mention of the Liberi vs Taitz case. I HAVE NEVERT TESTIFIED in that case. Perhaps Phil Berg and Liberi have now attached my declaration and my affidavit to that case which they or any other lawyer has the right to do once record of it was already made in another court.
Long stort short, DONT ATTEMPT TO STATE HERE THAT I WAS NOT A WITNESS IN FEDERAL COURT REGARDING OBAMA.
Again, Pamele Barnett vs Barack Obama. Can you read that? Go google search it or whatever it is that you yourself do in you “great research”.
And you might also want to review the “Rhodes” case. IT IS ALL ABOUT OBAMA.
Report back when you can admit that you made an error in youe “findings”.
Smith’s BC was not "proved up" as evidence in federal court, but his affidavit regarding Taitz has been deemed sufficiently reliable by Judge Carter for him to refer to it in his ruling.
Your transcript between Judge Carter and Taitz only shows that Taitz did not understand the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) on foreign document authentication, and that does reflect badly on Smith or his CPGH BC at all.
In your transcript, Judge Carter was getting on the record that Smith's affidavit declaring that he paid a bribe to obtain the CPGH BC was not sufficient to satisfy the FRE which requires authentication by Kenyan authorities.
Judge Carter, in your transcript, gets Taitz to impeach herself as an incompetent lawyer but does not impeach Lucas Smith as an unreliable witness or fraudster.
In his ruling, Carter refers explicitly to Smith's affidavit and gives every appearance of finding the affidavit to be credible when he said he was "concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury":
"Additionally, the Court as received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court."
Judge Carter would have been completely derelict if he hadn't researched the felony background of both Smith and Sinclair whose affidavits he referred to in making these scathing accusatory suspicions of felony on Taitz's part on the record!
Judges listen to testimony from felons every day and become confident that by instinct they can assess the credibility of witness testimony in full context, whether in-person or by affidavit.
Lucas Smith found out quickly that Taitz didn't know the kind of authentication that was required under the FRE and has never claimed that his CPGH BC would be admissible in federal court without additional authentication.