Many thanks for the cogent response!
Would it be accurate to say that a forgery is proven to be such, by comparing the document to a real one.
Not by trying to show, for example, that the parents are not the baby’s real parents?
I think that many people are confusing the legal stand of not proving the lineage in a court of law with not knowing the parentage
Legally the purpose of a birth certificate is to prove lineage. It is witnessed by a person either present at the birth ( doctor, nurse, midwife other) or a relative who remembers the birth ( my mothers older sister had to witness for her to get a BC)
In either case the document is filed with the proper authorities. Then when there is a question relating to the birth of that individual - time, place, parental lineage the authority issues a certificate attesting to the fact. In a court processing the individual presenting said certification to the court/judge must testify and/or have others testify that said certificate matches record on file and comes directly from that record on file. That is the “proving” of the birth.
Obama s certificate has NOT followed that process therefore there is no “Proof”. Of his birth. It’s legalize not to be confused with who his mommy and daddy are.
I remember as a young woman accompany a agent from a neighboring county’s courthouse ;having been sworn in and attesting that I witnessed her getting the paperwork and was with her until we were in judges chamber.
It’s often done in other ways but this was last minute and fit the time constraints of the case That didn’t realize that the baby involved was born out of county till last minute
In most cases the judges clerk ( county clerk) can serve as witness or the certified signed document can be set thru certified RRR mail between clerks The legal process is completely absent or “broken” in O’s case which makes his “proof” invalid in a court of law. His dob , lineage, pob
Are therefore in question. He’s trying to hide one of those. He’s a lawyer it’s not that he doesn’t understand the process. IMO he’s twerking the process!
“Would it be accurate to say that a forgery is proven to be such, by comparing the document to a real one.(?)
“Not by trying to show, for example, that the parents are not the baby’s real parents?”
A document entered into evidence can be challenged a number of ways. No certified copy of the LFBC has EVER been entered into evidence in court, state or federal. Only photocopies of the claimed certified copy, which is not the same thing.
Zullo’s CCP presser attempting to show prima facie (on its face) evidence of forgery of the LFBC image was supporessed in the MSM with hand-waiving by “experts” claiming that they saw no evidence of forgery and could explain all the anomalies away.
Compare this episode with Dan Rather’s attempt to crush Bush’s 2004 campaign with a claimed National Guard document. Dan Rather got fired and Bush survived because the MSM (and eventually the courts) and even the Dems decided not to suppress the evidence that MS Word software was used in generating a document pre-dated MS Word.
Proving that Barry’s LFBC is forged, as the CCP appears to be prepared to re-litigate in the media and hopefully in the courts, does NOT refute the extensive evidence that Stanley Ann is Barry’s mom. That is totally separate.