Taitz didn't assert that either the 1964 BC or the Smith 1961 BC were authentic, she asked for discovery to authenticate them using court ordered subpoenas including deposing Smith as to how he obtained his BC. Discovery would include discovery of the original HI vital record for comparison and to resolve discrepancies.
To get to discovery, Taitz and Kreep had to survive a 12(b)(6) challenge meaining that even if their claims as to authenticity of the Kenya BC were true, could they prevail?
Judge Carter's 12(b)(6) dismissal precluded discovery and submission of any evidence under the FRE. Judge Carter ruled that even if the Kenyan authorities fully validated Smith's BC, that validation couldn't overcome the Factcheck COLB (not in evidence) or the statements of HI officials on Obama’s NBC status (not in evidence or subject to cross-examination either).
In effect, Carter presumed that the best that Taitz and Kreep could hope for after all of the evidence was in was a “he said, she said” standoff between HI and Kenya and that he, as a USA federal judge, would be compelled to rule in favor of HI authorities and against Kenya authorities.
I think Carter's presumption is presumptuous!
I am holding out hope that at least one 9th Circuit judge will disagree with Carter on this particular point, even if they don't overturn the dismissal, assuming Taitz gets her appeal together. Kreep didn't make representations about BC's at trial or in his appeal, now that I think about it. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on FR!)
Where, in the Federal Rules, is it the Court's responsibility to grant discovery to appellants for the purpose of authenticating documents introduced as evidence?
Please cite the rule.