Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Seizethecarp
For example, the HI vital records may have been amended from showing a Kenya birth location to showing an HI birth location.

"Might," "may," "possibly" and "if" have no weight under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The issue of the COLB's authenticity was not Carter's decision to make. In case you've forgotten, there are no laws, anywhere in either the Federal or State governments, that specifically demand a candidate for POTUS to present a birth certificate, and/or to provide proof of its authenticity.

On the other hand, an attorney filing a lawsuit asserting that a Kenyan Birth Certificate is authentic has to prove, by expert certification, that it is authentic.

30 posted on 01/14/2010 12:01:35 PM PST by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: browardchad
“On the other hand, an attorney filing a lawsuit asserting that a Kenyan Birth Certificate is authentic has to prove, by expert certification, that it is authentic.”

Taitz didn't assert that either the 1964 BC or the Smith 1961 BC were authentic, she asked for discovery to authenticate them using court ordered subpoenas including deposing Smith as to how he obtained his BC. Discovery would include discovery of the original HI vital record for comparison and to resolve discrepancies.

To get to discovery, Taitz and Kreep had to survive a 12(b)(6) challenge meaining that even if their claims as to authenticity of the Kenya BC were true, could they prevail?

Judge Carter's 12(b)(6) dismissal precluded discovery and submission of any evidence under the FRE. Judge Carter ruled that even if the Kenyan authorities fully validated Smith's BC, that validation couldn't overcome the Factcheck COLB (not in evidence) or the statements of HI officials on Obama’s NBC status (not in evidence or subject to cross-examination either).

In effect, Carter presumed that the best that Taitz and Kreep could hope for after all of the evidence was in was a “he said, she said” standoff between HI and Kenya and that he, as a USA federal judge, would be compelled to rule in favor of HI authorities and against Kenya authorities.

I think Carter's presumption is presumptuous!

I am holding out hope that at least one 9th Circuit judge will disagree with Carter on this particular point, even if they don't overturn the dismissal, assuming Taitz gets her appeal together. Kreep didn't make representations about BC's at trial or in his appeal, now that I think about it. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on FR!)

31 posted on 01/14/2010 1:01:59 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson