I'm trying to do my best not to get sucked into the complexities of the BC claims, as frankly, I don't think they're entirely all that germane to the Captain's case.
Be that as it may, I was answering a hypothetical question posed by an earlier poster - What happens if this civilian TRO case is heard on it's merits. To answer such a hypothetical, I engaged in some presumption. As in, I presume that the HI officials have made good faith and earnest representations of the facts. If that's true, and they'll be willing to provide sworn testimony as such, that presents a significant challenge to the plaintiff.
Moreover, if the official aren't lying, the logical conclusion is that either an Obama COLB exists, or a duplicate can easily be officially created. In any case, that COLB is prima fascia evidence of US birth - in any courtroom in America - it's tested and settled law.
Some people will claim that a COLB can be issued to people who aren't actually born in HI. Perhaps that's true. I have no experience in that area of law, nor am I familiar with Hawaii's 1960's era birth record's procedures. If it's a legitimate point of contention, and the plaintiff can prove as such, then they'd probably be able to challenge the defendant's exhibit 1 and the matter would be decided in a evidentiary hearing. It's actually quite straightforward.
If that evidentiary hearing favors the plaintiff, then there might be a case. If not, we move on, and that COLB (if it exits now or in the future) coupled with sworn testimony from the HI officials presents a serious and formidable obstacle to plaintiff's claim. As such, their chances of prevailing in the case would be minuscule, at best.
And, barring any procedural mistakes by the presiding judge, I doubt that an appellate court would even hear an appeal. Plus, SCOUTS has already signaled to the lower courts that they have no interest in hearing, much less deciding, the Constitutional merits of these kinds of challenges.
That's all I'm saying.
After reading several more of your posts, I understand. But there are awful lot of "Ifs", and I thought the point of courts of law was to settle those "ifs". If, that word again, this thing can ever get to the phase of evidence and discovery of evidence many of those "ifs" would become hard facts, one way or another.
SCOUTS has already signaled to the lower courts that they have no interest in hearing, much less deciding, the Constitutional merits of these kinds of challenges.
Specifically when? You are likely correct in that statement, but I'd like to know just how this "signaling" was done.
But given that it is the case, it's a heck an indictment of the judicial system. Denying the people substantive access to one of the boxes which preserve freedom, is a very dangerous thing to do.
"We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."Sen. Larry McDonald
“Some people will claim that a COLB can be issued to people who aren’t actually born in HI. Perhaps that’s true. I have no experience in that area of law, nor am I familiar with Hawaii’s 1960’s era birth record’s procedures. “