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.
So far Obama hasn’t been REQUIRED by any court to submit a birth certificate.
There have been three times in which Hawaii has made official verifications of the information on the birth certificate. I haven’t looked up the ones issued to the secretaries of state, but the one issued for the Mississippi case is pretty clear in stating that the information on record with the State of Hawaii matches the information contained on the copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate which appears on the internet. So yes, if Obama is ever REQUIRED by a court to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, I believe he will do so.
I am not a lawyer and don’t know the rules of evidence, but I’m sure that there are procedures in place so that all parties are satisfied that an original certified copy from the state is the item submitted into evidence.
(edge919) None of those three rise to standards of the Federal Rules of Evidence in certifying the document as CORRECT.
(CS) The State of Hawaii has verified that the information on the posted long form birth certificate matches the information on Obama's original Certificate of Live Birth. This is not rocket science. Any court will accept the verification as prima facie evidence of the details of the data verified. You're not comparing dollar bills, you're comparing information. "August 4, 1961" on the posted long form matches the "August 4, 1961" on the original Certificate of Live Birth. It's the information which matters and that is what Hawaii has verified.
(edge919) The MDEC was not "required" submit a letter of verification from the state of Hawaii, but they did. But they shouldn't have to ask for a letter of verification to begin with because their buddy and co-defendant Obama should have a spare copy of his alleged certified hard copy of his B/C. He claimed to have obtained TWO copies in April 2011. That's what the extra copy was for, wasn't it?? To submit in court where it has been challenged. Why did he need two if he's not going to use EITHER??
(CS) While Obama may be listed as a defendent in this suit, I don't believe he was ever successfully served by Dr. Taitz, so legally he is not a defendent at this point.
Dr. Taitz included a poor copy of Obama's long form birth certificate in one of her motions. The lawyers for the MDEC included a more legible copy of the LFBC with their reply, which led Dr. Taitz to ask the court to sanction the lawyers for submitting a forged document. I doubt the lawyers considered asking Obama (who was not their client not a legal part of the lawsuit at this point) for one of his copies of the LFBC. Instead the lawyers asked the State of Hawaii, the official record keeper, for a verification of the information contained on the copy of the LFBC that the lawyers had given to Mississippi. Lawyers ask states for documentation every day. This is just standard operating procedure, not a big deal.
(CS) So yes, if Obama is ever REQUIRED by a court to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, I believe he will do so.
(edge919) You still haven't explained why you have such an irrational belief. Have you not seen Obama go out of his way to avoid presenting this document in court?? You're like Charlie Brown expecting Obama to actually hold the football for you to kick.
(CS) Irrational? Let's see, Obama is the first president to produce both his Certificate of Live Birth and his Long Form Birth Certificate. Hawaii has stated that Obama was born there and has produced three verifications of Obama's birth. Yeah, they're all trying to hide something.