You still seem to think that Carter could have helped her more with the Lucas Smith document. Or should have least given it some thought.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I think she should be sanctioned for presenting it to a court.
“Correct me if I am wrong.
“I think she should be sanctioned for presenting it to a court.”
Taitz sanctioned for presenting the BC(s)? Under what provision of law? The 1964 BC was an exhibit that she stated she had not yet verified, and the 1961 Smith BC was filed as part of his affidavit. I don't believe she made any false statements about either to the court, although Smith claims she asked him to.
Ultimately Judge Carter decided that this was a quo warranto in the wrong court, and in any case no remedy was requested that his court could grant (non-justiciability).
My problem with Carter and the Smith BC was that Carter presumed that discovery in Kenya and HI could not possibly favor the Kenya BC. I think this might be an error.
If, after discovery, a jury or judge could be persuaded that the Kenya BC was more credible than the HI vital records, a jury or judge might find Obama to have been born in Kenya. Judge Carter doesn't allow for the possibility of a Kenya BC “win”. The best case he sees for the Kenya BC is a tie with the HI vital records.
Judge Carter didn't say that Taitz wouldn't be entitled to a normal discovery order if he dismissed the 12(b) motion to dismiss. He just decided that any discovery wouldn't overcome a presumption in his mind that in a US court an HI authentication would trump a Kenya authentication. I disagree with the reasoning of that particular ruling. I don't think Carter cited any statute or case law supporting this part of the ruling.