“Correct me if I am wrong.
“I think she should be sanctioned for presenting it to a court.”
Taitz sanctioned for presenting the BC(s)? Under what provision of law? The 1964 BC was an exhibit that she stated she had not yet verified, and the 1961 Smith BC was filed as part of his affidavit. I don't believe she made any false statements about either to the court, although Smith claims she asked him to.
Ultimately Judge Carter decided that this was a quo warranto in the wrong court, and in any case no remedy was requested that his court could grant (non-justiciability).
My problem with Carter and the Smith BC was that Carter presumed that discovery in Kenya and HI could not possibly favor the Kenya BC. I think this might be an error.
If, after discovery, a jury or judge could be persuaded that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, a jury or judge might find Obama to have been born in Kenya. Judge Carter doesn't allow for the possibility of a Kenya BC “win”. The best case he sees for the Kenya BC is a tie with the HI vital records.
Judge Carter didn't say that Taitz wouldn't be entitled to a normal discovery order if he dismissed the 12(b) motion to dismiss. He just decided that any discovery wouldn't overcome a presumption in his mind that in a US court an HI authentication would trump a Kenya authentication. I disagree with the reasoning of that particular ruling. I don't think Carter cited any statute or case law supporting this part of the ruling.
“If, after discovery, a jury or judge could be persuaded that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, a jury or judge might find Obama to have been born in Kenya. Judge Carter doesn’t allow for the possibility of a Kenya BC “win”.”
No. No. No. No. A thousand times no. (Why is it that laypeople would never attempt to question the nuances of a surgical procedure but have no problem questioning the nuances of the law?)
Carter allows for the possiblity of a “win” for a fully certified and vetted Kenyan Birth Certificate presented to the court properly under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Anything is possible with evidence.
The conjecture you are hung up on is that if a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is presented along with a certified Kenyan birth certificate, the tie will most likely go to the document produced by Hawaii. Why? Because the Rules presume that certified and authenticated US government documents are valid.
In the scenario of two certified documents - one from Hawaii and one from Kenya - the presumption is with the defendant. The burden of proof would therefore shift back to Orly to prove that the certified Hawaiian document is invalid.
Orly and her followers have no concept of the burden of proof and it is maddening. She has to prove that the Kenyan document is valid. Then she has to prove that any Hawaiian document is invalid. I’m sorry. But them’s the breaks.
All of this is moot by the way. Because she presented a worthless piece of paper to the court. She did absolutely no legwork and asked the court to try to validate it for her.