Replies

This attorney, practicing in a mid-western state, and in the federal courts, pointed to the Federal Rules of Evidence 1002 -- Requirement of Original: "To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress." In simple terms, one must posses and present the original newsprint copy of those "birth announcements" for them to be admitted into evidence. Conclusion -- those microfilm/fiche copies would not be admissible in a court of law.

The author is being highly misleading. Rule 1002 contains an exception where "otherwise provided in these rules." Rule 1004 says, in pertinent part:

"The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if--
(1) Originals lost or destroyed. All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or
(2) Original not obtainable. No original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure; ..."

So yes, the microfiche copies will be admissible in court, unless someone can find a paper copy.

When an article misstates a key fact like that, it makes me question the author's truthfulness and reliability.

Why are we still talking about this?

Obama can, at best, be a NATIVE born citizen. We knew this in 2006 when Alan Keyes and Obama debated. We also know that he cannot be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, because his father was not an American citizen. Seems simple enough.

Yet, he is the sitting President of the United States. Unless he resigns, is found mentally or physically unfit by Congress, or is impeached and convicted. He will continue in that office, to which he was constitutionally un-entitled, until 2012. This dichotomy is at the heart of the cognitive dissonance that is plaguing the country, and de-legitimizing our government.

It is clear that efforts to correct this situation must continue for only one reason: there can be no repeats. Since, electorally speaking, the 2012 season is already upon us, we need a fast-track method of handling the possibility that Obama wants to run for a second term. We need speed.

IMHO, the solution lies at the state level. States' Attorneys General ALREADY have the power to keep the man off their state ballots on constitutional grounds. That would immediately ignite the legal process, and whether the plaintiff (Team Obama) 0r the defendants prevailed, (Atty Gens), it would go to the SCOTUS on appeal.

Win, lose, or draw, we need a ruling on Article II from Scotus before the next national election cycle. You cannot run a country on doubt.

Do you have any idea when or why the originals were destroyed, and by whom? Either of the paper copies or of the original, untampered microfilms?

Who changed the call number on the Aug 1-15 Honolulu Advertiser microfilm box at the Library of Congress so that the microfilm would be temporarily “lost” until the microfilm could be changed out and the call number changed back to what it was supposed to be? When did they do it, and why?