In that case, none so blind as he who does not wish to see.
First, show me where I said, in my post, anything that indicated that I "do not wish to see"!!
Next, let's assume, just for fun, that you are the judge in the trial of Bernie Madoff and Sheriff Joe comes into your courtroom and says, "Your honor, my team and I have investigated Mr. Madoff for the past 6 months and we have concluded that he is guilty of all the charges against him."
Do you, as the judge, then say "Well, alright, then. Court is adjourned, let's all go to lunch . . . . except you, Mr. Madoff, you're getting a balongna sandwich courtesy of the sheriff and his prison"? Or, do you, as the judge, then say,"Holden sie der phone, ein moment! What proof do you have, Sheriff, that Mr. Madoff actually swindled these people out of their money, knowing that he had no intention of ever paying them anything in return"?
Courts need proof. While I'm not a court, I would like some definitive proof that I can place in front of an anti-birther that says here is the result of an investigation conducted by a legitimate legal authority and these are their findings! I'm tired of having to argue this on the basis of he said-she said.
BTW, for those who are following this particular discussion, a year ago or more, Orly Taitz, who is often discredited and called a nutjob and whatever, released a long and very detailed analysis of zero's selective service registration card by a former FBI document analyst who conclusively proved that it was a forgery. But, as all we FReepers know, Orly Taitz is nuts!
Or is she? Sheriff Joe just proved her right if his cold case team really did a thorough analysis!