You are completely mis-stating what happened.
Carter stated that in general, 12(b)(6) motions do not prevail, which is accurate. Orly and all her supporters took this to mean that she prevailed. Which is idiotic.
He ordered discovery as it related to the 12(b)(6) motion only. In other words, only evidence that would support standing was available.
Orly and all her supporters took this to mean that she could fish for evidence of Obama’s birth circumstances. Which is idiotic.
Finally, you are still missing the point of the Fed Rules of Evidence.
It’s not the Court’s job to authenticate evidence. If you bring a document, it’s not up to the court to determine if it is real or not. It’s not up to the court to help you prove that it is real or not. It is up to you to bring proof that it is real. If you can’t do that without the court’s help, tough.
Orly wants the court to conduct an investigation, not a trial.
I never made any of the assertions about the FRE that you claim I made. Where did I say it is “the Court’s job to authenticate evidence?”
Your statement of what Judge Carter said is more general and accurate, but we both agree that Orly and her followers misinterpreted it. I said Orly “jumped the shark.” Is that a complete misstatement of what happened?
Sounds like we mostly said the same thing.