The onus is on him to be transparent even if the court(s) shows disinterest or even bias.
All they saw and commented on was the COLB from 2007 - which is being held as pointing to an underlying document. Obama could show the underlying document, could be completely transparent, but has chosen not to - again, it’s just a logical question - WHY? The court is clearly sympathetic to the Obama storyline.
It was an original typewritten, 1961 COLB was confirmed by State of HI official Fukino (an MD and not a forensics document expert). The COLB posted by Obama on the Internet was falsely represented to be an “original.” (It was an ‘abstract’ of a laser-printed computer record having no physical connection to the typewritten 1961 original.)
I pullquoted this also and it makes perfect sense:
“In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can’t wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they’ll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.”
Are you saying that the court did not see a certified document from the state of Hawaii? But rather something that Obama was allowed to submit on his own? Like me sending you a transcript showing all A+s not my university’s registrar? Did the plaintiff have any right to expert examination?
The document did say place of birth was Hawaii.