The GA judge can request the document from the driver, and then request confirmation from the state of NJ.
If the driver shows a judge a bogus license and the State cant provide the license for any reason, the Judge is obligated to put the driver in jail. A bogus BC should be a problem. If the Judge allows Obama to use bogus documents, than he opens the court to bogus documents for all. So he can't do that without risking his own reputation.
It all depends on what the Judge believes is sufficient for NBC. For the office of president of the USA, I would think releasing all documents held by HDOH would be required and reasonable. It's not asking too much. This shouldn't be a big deal. I am an NBC, and it's one lousey document. Not a big deal. For someone adopted it might be two or three.Not a big deal.
Right now, Obama is playing a game of chicken with all who oppose him. The race card will be dealt on this judge if he stops Obama. This is the reality.
If Obama shows a fake and then the judge asks the HDOH to confirm it, they would confirm it. If the judge asks for more documentation to prove the authenticity, HI would tell them to stick it where the sun don’t shine because the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires GA to accept the records of another state.
Judge Leon, in the Strunk FOIA lawsuit, accepted what definitely appeared to be a forged Department of State “cable” as proof of a retention period being changed and millions of records being destroyed without there being any legally-required record of either the retention change or the destruction. Refused to even require the Passport Office to authenticate this supposed “cable”. And at the same time he accepted a search of 1978-2010 records as a “reasonable” search for 1965 records.
At this point judges don’t give a rip about their reputations where Obama is concerned. I could go on a long, long time (but will spare you. lol) about the blatant judicial corruption in the Obama cases. These guys either don’t care if everybody knows they’re jerking us around, or else they may even be WANTING us to know that their decisions are compromised.
I think their reasoning is sort of like the Roe v Wade thing. The stuff with Obama only counts for Obama, just like the stuff for Roe isn’t supposed to make sense with anything else. If anybody tried to actually use the reasoning from Roe v Wade they would be laughed out of court. Everybody knows the reasoning of Roe v Wade was just a bunch of baloney in order to justify legislating from the bench. If anybody argued the logical extensions of Roe v Wade we’d have to conclude that children in the womb can’t inherit, that corporations can’t be “legal persons”, that Blacks are still “human livestock”, and that the government has a vested interest in controlling women’s menstrual cycles as they represent “potential life”. Nobody argues those points because they know the court could never have meant what they said in Roe; it was just a one-time stupid decision that everybody rolls their eyes at because it’s so stupid but they let the facade go on as if it was a legitimate decision. In reality they ignore the stupidity of Roe because they want abortion on demand.
And the courts would never allow the same reasoning as used in the Obama cases for anything else. They know that Obama gets special treatment, just like abortion, because it’s judges playing politics. One set of laws for Obama and another for everybody else. Everybody knows that the courts won’t accept forgeries for anybody else but Obama so how Obama is treated makes no difference to anything else.