[SteveH]

IMHO the reason the Obamamites didn’t attend is because they will be unable to introduce their “evidence” without risk of perjury. They don’t have that risk when they just go around throwing so called evidence over the wall and saying “here’s the proof”. But in a legal setting, for each piece of evidence being introduced, they’d have to have someone sworn in and attest that the item of evidence was authentic and be subject to cross examination.

I wonder where an affadavit would fit in relative to a mere attachment to the letter from Obama's attorney to Kemp. The latter seems of tenuous veracity, in the manner of "attached is something that my client posted on the net that either he or perhaps someone in his office claims is a copy of his birth certificate." In legal proceedings involving civil lawsuits, if my understanding is correct, a party needs to swear under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state that the attachment is a true copy of the document it is purported to represent. Thus, every document copy is accompanied by an affadavit containing a sworn signed statement. If there is no affidavit attesting to the veracity of the copy allegedly submitted as evidence, it is more difficult for me to envision that the copy can even be considered evidence at all by the court. OTOH, the rules of the administrative court might be more informal than the rules of evidence in a formal civil or criminal proceeding in a superior court. Does anyone know one way or another?

[PA-RIVER]

Obama is the ultimate con man. Everything he does is backed up by attitude and nothing else. All bluff.