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!
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 shouldn't be too hard, in a court with this character, to simply discredit his testimony simply on the basis of his actions thus far with the "birth certificate" that he was trying to sell it on eBay for a million dollars ... LOL... and then going to get WorldNetDaily to verify it for him and then refusing to let them do it. And not following through with what he said he would do, causing his attorney to drop out. And then, his agent not being able to rely on what he said and then he dropped off. And when they bring up the other scams that he tried to "run" -- this will look like another scan. By the time some attorney gets through with him, you wouldn't buy a peanut-butter sandwich from the guy! LOL...
But, that's all in a court of law. And nothing is happening in that area. Even Orly Taitz can't get any traction. Besides Smith is now calling Orly Taitz a liar on the stand, too... :-)
So, is it Orly Taitz who is a liar or is it Lucas Smith who is the liar? Good question there.
This guy would be blown out of the water for being someone anyone could trust with any testimony, when an attorney got through with him.
HOWEVER, in the "court of public opinion" -- this guy would be lower than low. When you put him up against the State of Hawaii and their public statement -- and then try to put the word of a scammer against that State of Hawaii... I think you know where the public opinion is going to go...
At any rate, you've got two different venues here. One is a court and the other is the public. The State of Hawaii has spoken to the pubic (and has a lot more credibility, too, since they are the ones who keep the records and print out the "certified copies").
The other is the legal venue in a court and with a judge. As I said, there's no sign that is ever going to take place.
There are lots of things that a court can compel that there is no statutory legal requiremet for.
That's very true, but the courts are going to have to have a reason for it that will "fly" with them. No one has been able to do that. That's what we're talking about.
You're not going to go into court saying, "I know that there's no legal requirement for a candidate to show his birth certificate but I know you can compel it, if you so order. So, will you order it, so we can take a 'look-see' at it?"
They're gonna say, "What for?!".... LOL...
If there's not a "what for" that's going to fly with the court, they're not even going to get anywhere near that track. If there's not a case for which the showing of the birth certificate is relevant for some reason, no court is going to order a copy of it. They're not going to go for a "fishing expedition" no matter how earnestly you want to see it... :-)
ST's standard excuse to avoid the issue because her views are totally flawed.