Posted on 04/16/2013 9:21:37 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court will hear oral argument regarding both California Defendants’ and Federal Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on April 22, 2013 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 7. The Court will allot each party--Plaintiffs, California Defendants, and Federal Defendants--a maximum of 30 minutes of oral argument. Oral argument will be limited to: (1) mootness, (2) standing, (3) political question doctrine, (4) the Speech and Debate Clause, and/or (5) service of process on defendants. No witnesses and/or exhibits will be permitted or considered at the hearing. Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Recuse Counsel for Defendants and Motion to Expedite under Local Rule 144” (ECF No. 102) currently set for April 18, 2013 is VACATED in light of the hearing on the motions to dismiss. A new hearing date will be set for said motion if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Federal Rule of Evidence standard is that a witness has “COMPARED” the data on the copy that is being proferred to the data on the original. “Matches” is an appropriate response when comparing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005
It’s up to each Trier of Fact to rule on what evidence is probative. Since 2008, no judge, justice or state elections board has found any problem with any version of an Obama birth certificate, be it the factcheck.org copy, a copy of the whitehouse.gov PDF image or a HDOH copy. All of those versions have been admitted as evidence of place of birth and date of birth.
As a matter of fact, several plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility from the Emmerich de Vattel position of two US citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen, have used data from the Certificate of Live Birth, namely, father’s birthplace: “Kenya East Africa,” to make their case.
And again, if any judge would like to examine the original, they can issue a court order for it. If any congressional committee would like to see it, they can issue a congressional subpoena for it.
Onaka certified that official records where referred to, he did not certify a true and correct copy.
The people who produced this absurdity, those that fall for it, and those that defend this obvious fake are fools.
We know with certainty that the WH COLB PDF is not a scan of an official document, as it has been represented to be. That is forgery and fraud, both are felonies.
And yet no grand jury investigation and no congressional hearing. Go figure.
What you know for a fact no one with the authority to pursue the issue as a criminal matter seems to know as a fact.
If you say so, then it MUST be true!
Just yesterday another copy of the whitehouse.gov version was submitted as an exhibit in an appeal. This time to the Alabama Supreme Court in McInnish v. Chapman. In a “politics makes strange bedfellows” moment, the Alabama Democratic Party has submitted an amicus brief in support of Alabama’s Republican Secretary of State Beth Chapman, the defendant.
Knowing and turning a blind eye are two separate things.
Strange bedfellows? Hardly. Alabama Democratic Party is attempting to legitimate Obama.
And Solyndra, Lightsquared, the stymieing of the XL pipeline, job-killing regulations, and on and on. . .
Are you saying that all I have to do in a court case is refer the judge to a URL that contains an image of one side of a document hosted somewhere in the internet ether, and that's good enough for the judge? Actually presenting a hard-copy of a document in the courtroom for all to inspect is asking too much?
-PJ
And the Alabama Republican Secretary of State is defending his eligibility.
It will be interesting to see how this appeal fares since every justice on the Alabama Supreme Court is a Republican and two of the Justices, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Associate Justice Tom Parker are known as two of America’s most conservative jurists.
AL SOS is saving their own skin.
The issue will remain unresolved until actual documents are produced and authenticated.
An exhibit is a hard copy not a URL. For example here’s a link to an actual submission in a real eligibility challenge. Go to the last few pages of the Motion to see the birth certificate exhibit and the certified Letter of Verification exhibit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz
A judge’s court order or a congressional committee’s subpoena could accomplish that.
I see from your link that this was not a document that Taitz provided, but that the Democrats provided. It's the one with the "txe" misprint on the rubber stamp. Also, the lawyers didn't authenticate the document itself, only that the information on the document matched information on some other document in Hawaii. It's a double-blind authentication, we can't see the original document that purports to contain the same information as this document, so nothing is really authenticated.
-PJ
You asked if the birth certificate exhibit was only a link to a URL. It is not. You are looking at a scan of the exhibit on a computer. The judge has an actual hard copy of each page of the motion and the exhibits in his or her hands.
In Mississippi, Orly Taitz submitted a hard copy exhibit and the Mississippi Democratic Party submitted a hard copy of the same document for the Judge that they said was “more legible.”
There is no “copy of a page in a book,” What you saw in my link is a scanned copy of a motion written for the judge to read and rule on. It is up to the judge to decide the probative value of the exhibit, if any.
You're saying that the judge has a hard-copy of the image in the document you linked? Or are you saying that the judge has an actual copy of the page from the book (front and back) that was scanned in the image?
If all the judge has is a paper version of the scanned single-side page image, and not the page itself, then he is still accepting a facsimile of one side of a document as if it were the real document itself.
I'm asking if he has the unbound page from the document? I'm guessing that the answer is "no," he has the image of one side of the page from a book, and an attestation that the information on the image matches the information on some other unseen document in Hawaii's possession.
-PJ
I hope this helps. The Hawaii Director of Health gave Judith Corley, President Obama’s White House Attorney two sealed and certified hard copies of the long form Certificate of Live Birth on April 25, 2011. One of those copies was converted to a PDF file and scanned onto the whitehouse.gov web site. Others have made photocopies of that PDF file image to include as exhibits in lawsuits, as recently as yesterday in an exhibit in Alabama, for the Alabama Supreme Court.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
There is no “book.”
It is up to each individual judge to decide if any exhibit submitted is helpful to the side that submitted it, helpful to the opposition’s case or irrelevant.
The image on the last page of the court filing that you linked to me shows a scan from a page from a book or bound documents. That's the book I was referring to.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.