Replies

First:

Interesting. Here’s weaknesses, IMHO. One, the COLB states on its face that it is prima facie of evidence of what it purports to say. Could someone have gotten it in a less than scrupulous manner. Of course. Is there any evidence to support that contention? No. Nothing but “well this could have happened” type stuff.

What the author has tried to do is bootstrap these suspicions into something that guts Hawaii law and probably the law of every other state. Well, if somebody could have cheated back in 1961, then what you (Hawaii) do every day is inadequate for all purposes. BS. States are using this form of documentation for a reason.

The facts are, this is how Hawaii does it. Without any proof that this isn’t working, there is no reason for it to change. This is an official state document. It says he was born in Hawaii. Case closed.

It looks to me like the author is just trying lump enough language into his article to make it look well done and cover the great big huge gaping hole in his rationale.

parsy, who wasn’t moved

Part two:

Now here’s the mechanism for the author’s evil little intent:

“From an evidence standpoint, five of the six above vital records procedures support the argument that Hawaii’s birth certificate printout, called a Certification of Live Birth, is a summary derived from 1961 business records that lack an adequate indicia of reliability that would afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of document’s statements.”

Let me put this into another example form BuckeyeTexan, that you have experience with. Assume:

Texas State law provides 3 ways of obtaining a title to a vehicle:

1) The applicant presents a notarized bill of sale to himself at the DMV.

2) The applicant applies for a title based on the abandonment of the vehicle on his property for a period of 120 days.

3) The applicant gives a bond that neither of the two above ways are applicable.

Now, common sense tells you 2 of these 3 ways are more prone to fraud. You could lie on No.2, and give phony addresses of owners, etc. You get a $1,000 car for free. On No. 3, the amount of the bond is probably 150% the value of the car, say $1500 on a $1000 car, and would cost $150 to obtain. If a crook, applicant gets the $1,000 car for $150.

Both number 2 and 3 have an economic incentive to lie.

Now this calculating author wold approach it like this:

Since 2 of the 3 ways that one could get a Texas vehicle license are fraught with the potential of fraud, and lack indicia of reliability, such that a judge can not determine the truth of a Texas vehicle title. Therefore, no Texas vehicle title can be presumed valid.

See the illogic: First, the potential for fraud is characterized as actualized fraud. Which is jumping to a legal conclusion without any evidence. And by using “2/3” of the PROCEDURES as bad, he makes 100% of the Texas titles look bad.

Problem is, 99% of the titles are obtained by method no. 1 which are not fraught with potential of fraud. So, where the truth is maybe 1% of 1% are fraud, he has managed to make all 100% look bad.

parsy, who says “Nice trick, Foretti, but you can’t slip that past me!”

Part 3:

The legal standard stuff.

First, he sets forth various legal standards. OK. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a little heavy for civil stuff. Usually, clear and convincing is more than enough. I “suspect” he put it in to give the whole question that fun little criminal slant.

The states have filing requirements. Presumably, they can accept what documents they deem necessary. I suspect birth certificates will satisfy them . I suspect Hawaii’s will satisfy them since it is Hawaii’s official documentation. Maybe they will want an original certified copy. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh, what was the point of all this stuff he wrote? Language to cast doubt without really saying anything.

parsy, who is not impressed with Forseti