“Eyewitness testimony of direct examination of a recorded document (secondary source) is not hearsay. It’s referred to as secondary source because the eyewitness does not possess or control the document. Anyone who has visited or worked in a U.S. Federal facility that houses documents protected by the Privacy Act know its impossible to make copies, photograph or record a document without specific authorization.”
Under the FRE there is a hearsay exception for the custodians of official records who are government employees action in an official capacity, such as those who work in a US document retention facility. You have not yet claimed to be such a person.
If a plaintiff’s case gets dismissed on a motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction or standing preceded by a general answer requiring no rebuttal of plaintiff’s specific claims, then there is no trial, no discovery and no evidence or witness testimony placed before the court. So no primary or “secondary” witness testimony from employees or custodians at US document facilities would be allowed.
“Under the FRE there is a hearsay exception for the custodians of official records who are government employees action in an official capacity, such as those who work in a US document retention facility. You have not yet claimed to be such a person.
If a plaintiff’s case gets dismissed on a motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction or standing preceded by a general answer requiring no rebuttal of plaintiff’s specific claims, then there is no trial, no discovery and no evidence or witness testimony placed before the court. So no primary or “secondary” witness testimony from employees or custodians at US document facilities would be allowed.”
Then it’s prudent not to explain or diligently describe all aspects of plaintiff’s case in public. I’d rather Obama and Napolitano know there is a secondary source witness who can be called to impeach any primary source witness who testifies a Certificate of Naturalization was not issued to Barack Hussein Obama II and not much else.
And then there is the so called “fishing expedition” to uncover and prove the specific allegation Obama naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s Form SS-5 and NUMIDENT file from SSA if Obama produced his Certificate of Naturalization from DHS and defended his sworn statements to various state election boards he is eligible for the Office of the President of the United States. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s Occidental College transcripts and applications if he produced his Certificate of Naturalization from DHS. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s passport applications, Certificate of Loss of Nationality and his mother’s passport records explaining her 1967 amendment on her passport application from the State Department. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s CLN from Treasury or F.B.I. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s Federal Foster Care records from ORR at DHS. It wouldn’t be necessary to subpoena Obama’s records from Catholic Social Services if Obama would merely produce his Certificate of Nationality and defend himself against the allegation he is not eligible for POTUS.