The point being that Smith signed an affidavit under penalty of perjery.
Well, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word or the sworn testimony of a proven criminal and scam artist as valid... no matter if he's swearing on a stack of Bibles... LOL...
I mean, after FReepers tore into him, showed him to be the criminal and scam artist that he was, and when WorldNetDaily said that he failed to follow through with what he said he would do in allowing them to check the birth certificate for authenticity (or even show them) and when his lawyeer dropped off because he said that his client wouldn't follow through with what he said (according to WorldNetDaily) and when his agent said he was dropping out, because his client would not follow through with what he said -- and when he says something about jumping Taitz's bones or something like that and being "involved" with her -- and he accuses Taitz of telling him to lie (if you can believe that or not, I really don't know) -- all that tells me that character should be sitting in jail about now.
That guy "Smith" is sorta like that guy "Chief Editor Korir" who claimed that he had Michelle Obama on tape saying that Obama was born in Kenya -- and -- Berg even represented the good ole "chief editor" for a while, too... LOL...
There was even Ed Hale who was going to sue Chief Editor Korir, because the ole chief was going to give the tape to Fox News and not to Ed Hale... :-)
This whole thing of the various claims really gets crazy at times... :-)
The "Good Doctor" (who apparently had a heck of time passing her exams, and has no speciality) has done no such thing.
The State of Hawaii, and most especially not the Good Doctor, has no authority to declare anyone a "natural born citizen", because that determination takes more information than they have in their records. The long form BC only has parent's birth place, not their citizenship.
That's why state governments employ lawyers and have a bunch on staff... they cover things like this... doncha know... :-)
That is one of the points, they obviously DON'T want it. They don't want to look at any evidence, and AFAIK, haven't.
It's as I've said all along -- in that the problmem with getting a court to compel a candidate to produce a birth certificate is going to be a failing process (as I've said from the beginning) -- because -- there is no legal requirement for a candidate to produce his birth certificate.
And hence..., that's the reason for enacting a state law which requires the candidate to produce a birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot in that state.
It's no wonder the courts won't compel the candidate (any candidate) to produce a birth certificate... there's no legal requirement that the candidate do so.
They will need to provide the actual document, that's the only way that any plaintiff could challenge it's legitimacy. If they only provide selected information, there is no way the information can be verified. But if they provide the whole thing, hospital records can be checked, the doctor can be reasearched to see if that doctor actually practiced in that hospital at that time. Or if no doctor is shown, and the birth is recorded as being "at home", or some other place not a Hawaiian hospital, that's a horse of a different color, but still might leave some room for verification and/or rebuttal.
Get the state law enacted and then you'll have the legal ability to compel the showing of that birth certificate and the information on it.
I could see that as a required solution to the problem of showing the birth certificate from the time just after the election.
You don't have to, but in court you do need to refute it with evidence. Other sworn statements, certified documents, and so forth. You can't point to an image on a website somewhere and say "See, that settles it".
It's no wonder the courts won't compel the candidate (any candidate) to produce a birth certificate... there's no legal requirement that the candidate do so.
There are lots of things that a court can compel that there is no statutory legal requiremet for.
Courts are supposed to be about determining facts and rendering opionions based on those facts, and the law, including the Constitutions of the state and nation.
Besides they would not compel the candidate to produce the document, they would compel the state of Hawaii to produce it during "discovery". The law does provide for that. Look it up on the Hawaii Department of Health Statistics Website which states:
A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:
...
a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
ROTFLMAOAPMP!