If Obama is ever required to produce his birth certificate in court, I believe that he will produce one from Hawaii stating that he was born there.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires the court to treat that birth certificate with the same respect that the court has to birth certificates of its own state. The birth certificate will be self-authenticating and prima facie evidence. Anyone challenging that birth certificate will have to come up with their own evidence that the facts on the birth certificate are somehow false. A newspaper from Kenya, for example, will not trump the official record of a state. Assertions and speculation won’t do. You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge. What proof do you think a court will accept over its official state records?
The evidence is there to establish a challenge to the Full, Faith And Credit Clause.
Not if it’s a non-valid BC. A non-valid BC means that the legal presumption is that it is NOT true, and it is up to Obama to prove that it is. What Onaka has disclosed is that Obama’s Hawaii BC is NON-VALID.
Anything you believe to the contrary is at this point a matter of blind faith, ConstantSkeptic.
What do you base this belief on?? He has had dozens and dozens of opportunities, yet he has previously refused to submit it. Georgia advised him to submit evidence in the ballot challenge and he specifically refused. The reason why is pretty obvious.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires the court to treat that birth certificate with the same respect that the court has to birth certificates of its own.
Only if it is submitted to the opposing party so it can be evaluated for authenticity.
The birth certificate will be self-authenticating and prima facie evidence. Anyone challenging that birth certificate will have to come up with their own evidence that the facts on the birth certificate are somehow false.
It is only self-authenticating if it is provided ahead of time to the opposing party and if no objection is raised. Short of this, it is considered to be hearsay.
A newspaper from Kenya, for example, will not trump the official record of a state.
So far, Obama has not presented an official record of a state, and second, newspaper accounts are considered self-authenticating under the rules of evidence.
Assertions and speculation won’t do. You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge. What proof do you think a court will accept over its official state records?
Again, Obama has NEVER presented an official state record of anything, and his alleged B/Cs lack the required certification elements as described on Hawaii's DOH rules and procedures.
“You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge.”
Barry’s desperate legal gymnastics in HI and federal courts alone betray a near certainty that his HI state records are false in a way that threatens his eligibility.
Mike Zullo has now gone out on a limb and claimed that the new, previously undisclosed evidence that exposes the LFBC forgery (evidence that obviously could NOT have been used to “get it right the first time”) is in the possession of Arpaio’s posse.
Because HI DOH has “authenticated” the LFBC in a way considered legally valid by at least two state SOSs, Zullo must also believe that the new evidence will convince 100% of skeptics that HI DOH is corruptly hiding a flawed original vital record, IMO.
Time will tell whether Zullo is blowing smoke.