Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Seizethecarp
Whether Smith is a convicted felon has no bearing on the authenticity of the BC which, under the FRE, can only ultimately be authenticated by Kenyan officials.

Well did he do that? If not, then under the evidence rules the document has no place in the courtroom.

28 posted on 01/14/2010 9:20:34 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur; InspectorSmith; rxsid; AmericanVictory; LucyT
The Factcheck COLB has also not been authenticated under the FRE, nor have the “best evidence” HI vital records underlying the representations of HI officials, nor has the claim by HI officials that Obama is NBC.

Both Judge Carter and Judge Land with their FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for “failure to state a claim” denied standing to the plaintiffs thus precluding the discovery process in which all BC related documents can be authenticated to the extent possible, and witnesses, like Fukino, Obuko, the HI AB and Smith, can be deposed.

Judge Carter said that even if the Smith BC was fully authenticated by Kenya officials, Carter would be unlikely to give greater weight to a Kenya BC over an equally authenticated HI BC.

Judge Carter assumed, without having the HI vital records released, that discovery of those records would not raise questions and issues that might lead to greater weight being given to the Kenyan BC.

For example, the HI vital records may have been amended from showing a Kenya birth location to showing an HI birth location. Subsequent to such an amendment, “properly” filed, HI officials would be legally required to attest to an HI birth for Obama and precluded from making reference to the pre-amendment Kenya birth, such as is shown on the Blaine BC, for example.

Judge Robertson in the Hollister case also granted an FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal by stating that Obama’s birth location had been Factchecked, blogged and twittered, none of which meets FRE requirements. Robertson, like Carter, precluded any discovery involving actual authentication of HI vital records in the context of HI Territorial Law 57 and statements of HI officials regarding amendments or Obama’s NBC status.

Theoretically (but not realistically), both Carter and Robertson might be overturned for failure to give adequate weight to the possibility that with discovery under the FRE, plaintiffs could prove-up their documents.

29 posted on 01/14/2010 11:50:18 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well did he do that? If not, then under the evidence rules the document has no place in the courtroom.

Quoting from the transcript

The Court: And you understand that one of the Federal Rules of Evidence is that for a court to consider a document as documentary evidence in a court of law -- I'm not talking about at a press conference or on a TV show or in a Fox and Friends. I'm talking about, in a court of law, the judge has to determine whether there's been sufficient foundation laid as to authenticity to consider a document that's admitted into evidence. Tell me what it is that you've done to establish the evidentiary foundation for this Kenyan document. My understanding of what you have done is, you have got an individual who went and got this piece of paper, who says he got it from this office in Kenya, and he says they gave it to him as this birth certificate. There's no official --

Taitz: Your Honor --

The Court: -- in Kenya that signed any authenticity certificate.

38 posted on 01/14/2010 6:19:33 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson