I found this statement by you:
The Factcheck COLB has also not been authenticated under the FRE, nor have the “best evidence” HI vital records underlying the representations of HI officials, nor has the claim by HI officials that Obama is NBC.
Both Judge Carter and Judge Land with their FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for “failure to state a claim” denied standing to the plaintiffs thus precluding the discovery process in which all BC related documents can be authenticated to the extent possible, and witnesses, like Fukino, Obuko, the HI AB and Smith, can be deposed.
Judge Carter said that even if the Smith BC was fully authenticated by Kenya officials, Carter would be unlikely to give greater weight to a Kenya BC over an equally authenticated HI BC.
Judge Carter assumed, without having the HI vital records released, that discovery of those records would not raise questions and issues that might lead to greater weight being given to the Kenyan BC.
For example, the HI vital records may have been amended from showing a Kenya birth location to showing an HI birth location. Subsequent to such an amendment, “properly” filed, HI officials would be legally required to attest to an HI birth for Obama and precluded from making reference to the pre-amendment Kenya birth, such as is shown on the Blaine BC, for example.
Judge Robertson in the Hollister case also granted an FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal by stating that Obama’s birth location had been Factchecked, blogged and twittered, none of which meets FRE requirements. Robertson, like Carter, precluded any discovery involving actual authentication of HI vital records in the context of HI Territorial Law 57 and statements of HI officials regarding amendments or Obama’s NBC status.
Theoretically (but not realistically), both Carter and Robertson might be overturned for failure to give adequate weight to the possibility that with discovery under the FRE, plaintiffs could prove-up their documents.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2427610/posts
In reference to your statement:
In fact, Federal Judge Carter in CA said that even if Kenyan official did certify Lucas Smith’s CPGH BC, he would likely rule in favor of a certified HI COLB, if submitted into evidence.
As you can see, it makes it much clearer, don’t you agree.
Also interesting is a previous statement(Not by you, I believe) but, I will add it here. It is Judge Carters assessment of Lucas Smiths past, as it relates to evidentiary evidence:
Carter was fully aware that Smith had also placed before the court the Kenya BC. Carter did not consider Smith’s well-publicized background and claims about the BC to have impeached him as a witness.
Well, no because, not being a lawyer nor having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express but taking a shot at it anyway, that each document on it's own maintains it's own weight. However, what each document contains is another matter. If the HI bc was only based upon typical white granny's word (imho, hearsay) or was a delayed certificate or had amendments involving adoption and various citizenships, then you'd have something. There is also that missing page in the divorce and amazing how the passport break in still hasn't been resolved. Unfortunately, what y'all said earlier about sacrificing someone's rep seems to be the only way this will ever be heard. Going in the front door isn't getting anywhere.
"Carter was fully aware that Smith had also placed before the court the Kenya BC. Carter did not consider Smith’s well-publicized background and claims about the BC to have impeached him as a witness."
Ummm...actually, that was me.
I pointed out that Judge Carter clearly appears to have relied on Lucas Smith's affidavit alleging Orly's attempt to suborn perjury when Carter called her integrity in question, which is truly exceptional for a judge to do to a member of the bar without a hearing.
Now, if that is true, what does it tell about Carter???