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.
Sorry, but this is stupid point. Obama wasn't required to ask for judicial notice of third-parties who claim (with no expertise or authority) that his birth certificate is "real." Under the rules of evidence however, any kind of claim that would be supported by available certified legal documentation has to be invalidated unless that documentation is presented to back up the claim.
There have been three times in which Hawaii has made official verifications of the information on the birth certificate.
None of those three rise to standards of the Federal Rules of Evidence in certifying the document as CORRECT.
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.
It doesn't mean anything if the information is not certified as correct. That's how the law is written. A counterfeit dollar bill is going to have information that matches a real dollar bill, but stating the information "matches" does not mean the dollar bill is real.
Also, you're trying to play this two ways. 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??
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.
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.
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.
You don't have to be a lawyer. Google the terms "self-authenticating Federal Rules of Evidence." It's Rule 902. The law is not hard to read or understand. This rule is why the objections board in Kansas did not accept Obama's jpgs and PDFs on his website or the previous letters of verification in Miss. and Ariz. Of course the letter they got still didn't comply with the Rules of Evidence, but they lucked out because the challenge was dropped due to harrassment.