Posted on 09/17/2009 10:56:30 AM PDT by lonewacko_dot_com
In yesterday's decision about the latest Orly Taitz case, the judge applied a different standard to evidence offered by Taitz than he did to that from the other side. This post is only about that aspect of this issue, and it's an aspect that most people should agree with.
Here's what the judge says about the picture of a COLB on Obama's site (PDF here), a picture that's never been authenticated by any government agency:
Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
Bearing in mind that the picture Land refers to has never been authenticated, here's what he says about the (almost assuredly bogus) Kenyan certificate that Taitz provided:
[The] “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. p 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
Does Land have "an original certificate of authentication" for the picture of a Hawaiian COLB? Has he authenticated that Hawaiian COLB? Is a picture of a document the same as the document itself? Apparently to Land it is. It's also apparent that - leaving all other issues aside - he's clearly shown that he wasn't willing to give Taitz a similar benefit of the doubt that he's willing to give to Obama.
[Sidenote: Unlike others, my main goal with covering this issue is in order to use it to discredit the MSM. That would be fairly easy if not for the fact that I've gotten zero help with that. If, instead of concentrating on speculation, people would simply concentrate on the cut-and-dried facts of the certificate issue and the fact that the MSM has consistently lied and misled about those cut-and-dried facts, we could encourage the MSM to offer better coverage. Those who push the N.B.C. line who claim that the certificate issue is a "red herring" are hurting themselves; I'm trying to get the MSM to offer better coverage, those who play the "red herring" card are in effect giving the MSM a pass and helping those who call anyone who discusses this issue names. If anyone wants to help out, I'm trying to get a correction from CNN over one of their reports. In order to get that, I need a statement from HI's governor but they're stonewalling me. See the FAX here; if you want to help, call Hawaii and see if you can get an official statement from them with the answers to the questions in that FAX.]
Good post, lonewacko. That struck me, too. He swallowed the COLB, no questions asked. What a judge.
This was a setup IMHO. For this judge to all of a sudden have this hearing the day after the CA judge set a hearing date smelled fishy to me, but I am just part of the 55% of Americans who don’t want O’s policies to work and therefore I am a racist.
Perhaps Taitz should start posting her stuff on a web page to point out to the judge the stupidity of accepting Zero’s JPG file as a BC.
That is horse hockey. No digital image on the internet is proof of anything. No document expert would vouch for its authenticity for that simple reason—it could be a wholly digital creation and have no paper image at all to back it up.
I admire Orly’s pluck but she really needs more experienced assistance in these cases. The deck is stacked against her to begin with simply because of who her target is but she now has the additional burden of having developed the reputation of a courtroom novice who can be shoved around by plaintiffs’ attorneys and the bench.
Did Obama’s attorneys pout the COLB into evidence? Was it authenticated? Then it should not have been considered. So now the internet, twitter, political party contributions count as vetting authentication and evidence? I guess we don’t need any judges, we should be able to vote online from evidence we gather on the internet. Yeah that’s the ticket
Sorry, but the Judge was perfectly correct. Ms. Taitz bore the burden of proof. The birth certificate proffered by Ms. Taitz not being admissible, there was no basis on which to proceed.
Huh? So all you have to do is put it on the internet to make it authentic?
The Twitter argument should equally apply to the authenticity of the so called COLB. I.e. it is widely held as fraudulent.
You aren’t supposed to expose the duplicity of an obamanoid shil like Clay Land. Shhhhh
Fine, but the Plaintiff has the burden of proof.
I read this as the judge making an obervation that other supposedly BCs are out there. I don’t see where he declared that the Obama website BC was authenic. Thus you need to have evidence of the one you produce as being authenic.
The obamanoid kneepad judge coneviently ignores thaqt TRUTH that Obama first posted an obvious fraud ont eh Internet to prove his eligibility. That first image lacked a raised seal. So when that image exhibit was questioned, the obama goons redid it to add a raised seal, but it was added to the first exhibit as easily proven by markers which may someday come out at trial. So why would a judge accept anything the proven liar/fraud posts on the Internet?... Because as a good little commie stooge he does as he is told.
The reference to Obama’s “short form” is only an acknowledgement that Orly has ignored it. The judge doesn’t draw any conclusion from it.
The reference to Orly’s Kenyan certificate is different. She has the burden of proving the document, and the judge correctly points out that she fails to do so.
Discovery was never allowed. There was no shortage of people willing to testify that the image bore the signs of fraud.
Exactly. I’ve defended Orly vigorously here in the past but I’ve started to wonder how much of the rejection she receives from Dhimmi judges is the result of their bias and how much is the result of her presentation. I’d like to see her enlist the services of a good tort lawyer who has been around for a while and knows how to push the right buttons and not make silly procedural mistakes which incur the judges’ wrath.
And in the mean time, other court stooges overturn the Indiana voter ID law while we can’t get a little discovery.
Thanks.
No surprise there.
Globalists have long played favorites to the max.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.