Appreciate the ping Seizethecarp. I noticed this from the April 4, 2013 order by Judge England. It states:
“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.”
According to that, it’s going to be tuff for Orly since she can’t put show any exhibits like his fraudulent selective service registration. The reason I say that is because Judge England seems to have made his mind up already. He also stated this:
“…there is no requirement that there be any type of identification shown at any time for any person to be the President of the United States, as required by the United States Constitution, because the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.” Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. January 3, 2013.
Looks like he is siding with the Hawaiian Department of Health.
“...the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.”
The plaintiff should have the opportunity to challenge the prima facie self-authentication of the Director’s letter and the LFBC.
Taitz has made the judge aware of Sheriff Arpaio’s claims that Hawaii officials might be complicit in “racketeering” to make Barry POTUS. The judge might want to make sure that he doesn’t get any blowback down the road if Arpaio’s Posse makes there case.
If he had made up his mind he could have dismissed the case outright on the motions from CA and DOJ, I would think.
It’s odd that the judge calls a letter of verification to be “credible testimony,” especially when it never says Obama’s PDFs are “authentic.” It’s even more odd when the rules of evidence requires original certified documents to be submitted to the opposing party prior to a trial or else they are only considered to be hearsay.
Interesting that the judge claims that Fuddy certified the authenticity. Fuddy is not authorized to certify the authenticity of any vital record. That job belongs to Onaka. So exactly what is the judge even referring to there?
With total disregard for HDH's obvious cover up.
“I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file”.
(RE:Washington Times)
Matching the original record, and certifying that the document attached was issued by the HI DOH, is two different things. Onaka did not certify that all of the information matched, nor did he certify that the document was the one issued by his office, nor dispute any claims to the contrary which are easily found in the public domain. The omission of the certification that the document, which was a copy of the LF BC posed on the official White House web site, leaves open the legal challenge to forgery and fraud.
The records in Hawaii can be something completely different. The state law bars these people from disclosing any information that Obama himself did not disclose. This is a weasel clause so to speak, so that if/when the facts of this case do get to criminal complaints, the officials at the HI DOH are covered.