“Let’s see it?” Haven’t you noticed that judges don’t often publish exhibits from the obriefs that they receive?
The courts are interested in the data on a birth certificate in a civil action dealing with eligibility not the version of the certificate. Since Hawaii has issued Letters of Verification for the data, a criminal action for forgery or document fraud/tampering would be needed to impeach the validity of the version of the birth certificate that is being proferred. To date, there has been no such criminal action.
Because Orly Taitz or one of the other plaintiff’s attorneys had also submitted a copy of the whitehouse.gov version of Obama’s birth certificate for Judge Mahili, there was no need to have the pliaintifs review the defense Verizon of the exact same document.
I've seen plenty of briefs get published. It's how I know the Mississippi lawsuit only has a photocopy/printout of the PDF.
The courts are interested in the data on a birth certificate in a civil action dealing with eligibility not the version of the certificate.
That's not true. Under the rules of evidence, a birth certificate would be self-authenticating because the caretaker certifies that the document is correct under the law. It's not about data.
Since Hawaii has issued Letters of Verification for the data, a criminal action for forgery or document fraud/tampering would be needed to impeach the validity of the version of the birth certificate that is being proferred.
According to what??
Because Orly Taitz or one of the other plaintiff’s attorneys had also submitted a copy of the whitehouse.gov version of Obama’s birth certificate for Judge Mahili, there was no need to have the pliaintifs review the defense Verizon of the exact same document.
Orly was challenging the validity of the document. Again, it only counts as hearsay if a certified copy is not presented in court. Read the rules of evidence.