“On her website, Orly Taitz is slamming Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo stating the affidavit carries no weight in the appeal.”
An appeal is not an evidentiary event, but the Obot lawyers are trying to get the AL Supremes to “take judicial notice” of what they claim is evidence of Barry’s HI birth.
Klayman is properly telling the court that it is improper for any evidence to be introduced in this appeal, but “in the alternative” as the lawyers like to say, should the AL Supremes actually consider the newly fabricated 3rd forgery, Klayman is asking that the court also take judicial notice of Zullo’s affidavit.
Neither the WH pdf (any version of it) nor Zullo’s certified expert finding of forgery have been “proved up” (entered into evidence under the federal rules of evidence) in any proper discovery hearing by a trial court, so neither one should be considered by the court at this time, IMO.
Additionally there is binding precedent in Alabama concerning evidence not introduced at trial being ignored on appeal.
There are several Alabama Supreme Court cases that said that appeals courts will not take judicial notice of new evidence.
EX PARTE BAKER 459 So.2d 873 (1984) – “In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court is bound by the record and cannot consider a statement or evidence in brief that was not before the trial court.”
EX PARTE EPHRAIM 806 So.2d 352 (2001) – “This Court does not review evidence presented for the first time on appeal.”
Both the Democrats’ Amicus Brief and the Zullo affidavit are likely to be ignored.