Posted on 05/22/2013 7:40:21 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Cold Case Posse Commander Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on submitted a devastating 57 page 207 paragraph affidavit to the Alabama Obama ballot challenge appeal case that is before the Alabama Supreme Court. He did this at the request of Attorney Larry Klayman representing the appellants. Now Alabama Democratic Party attorney's Barry Ragsdale and Thomas Woodall have fired back with a 'Opposition To Motion To Strike'. They slam Zullo and the Cold Case Posse's evidence confirming Obama's birth certificate and selective service registration card are forgeries. They state in their motion to strike that Mike Zullo's affidavit is nothing but 'rambling screed' and should be disregarded in it's entirety. See footnote 9.
Satisfaction of any self-authentication method contained in Rule 902 does not guarantee genuineness. Consequently, nothing in Rule 902 is intended to preclude the offering party’s opponent from disputing authenticity. Any document or record offered under Rule 902 must satisfy other evidentiary concerns, such as the hearsay rule and the best evidence rule. See, e.g., Ala.R.Evid. 803(8) (public records exception to the hearsay rule); Ala.R.Evid. 1005 (public records exception to the best evidence rule).
link to source
If the court accepted what Hawaii offered as evidence, then the appeal can cover if the trial judge exceeded his authority in doing so. If it rules the trial judge exceeded his authority in allowing the evidence, they could then decide if that would have changed the outcome of the trial.
But no, a court of appeals (such as a state supreme court) will not take in new evidence. That is not what appeals courts do.
And a trial judge does have latitude in what is accepted or not, depending on a variety of factors. One would think that after a hundred cases or so, birthers would have figured out you can’t just go to court and demand to see anything you want to see...
Ummm, the ADP submitted copies of the LFBC and the AZ LOV recently. The so-called “birthers” responded to this, and THAT is why the ADP is backing off on what it submitted. It helps to understand details like this.
Except that these letters of verification do not contain compelling birth data. Again, re-read the rule I just posted. The self-authentication rule does NOT guarantee genuineness or authenticity. A letter of verification cannot substitute for a certified birth certificate when it fails to include the specific birth data and/or the required certification elements. The Arizona letter is lacking in both departments. Again, this is why the Alabama Democrat Party is walking back any notion that either of these documents comply with the rules of evidence.
There is no indication I can see that the Alabama challenge will consider ANY birth certificate. The issues are 1) is the case moot? and 2) does the Sec of State have a legal duty to investigate a candidate’s qualifications?
There is no issue involving a birth certificate for the supreme court to review.
People can put anything they want in a motion, but the court will review the issues before them - and this appeal is NOT about birth certificates. See page 4:
Also see:
I do not know how the law is written in Alabama, but in Arizona, the law did NOT support a duty to investigate candidates. I wrote my reps and asked them to change the law, but it did not happen.
In a trial court, the attorney for either side can challenge evidence. In an appeal, the court can review the trial judge’s ruling. I’ve got an 800 page book on my shelf discussing the federal rules of evidence, so it isn’t quite as easy as just reading a sentence off of the Internet and becoming an expert.
However, there is no indication the trial judge considered ANY birth certificate in deciding the case. The reports I’ve seen indicated the ruling was made on lack of jurisdiction, so the case was dismissed with prejudice.
It would be if it were true. But I believe that term was used by the person who opened the thread, and not by the Alabama Democratic Party.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Zullo’s evidence was convincing and unimpeachable what does any of that have to do with the case before the Alabama Supreme Court?
“Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Zullo’s evidence was convincing and unimpeachable what does any of that have to do with the case before the Alabama Supreme Court?”
Oh come on O.E.O.............why do think Zullo was asked to create a affidavit for the appeals case?
I did use the word devastating because the Zullo affidavit is.
I have no idea. Now please answer the question.
Of course it is. Irrelevant but devastating.
God forbid that they should disrupt their chosen methodology for the sake of accuracy. One of the reasons I find the American court methodology contemptuous.
Also, there has never been a court ruling that the whitehouse.gov version of the birth certificate is forged so there is no risk to using it.
I like how "no ruling" is flipped into a "positive ruling". That is sophist.
The state of Hawaii has issued 3 Certified Letters of Verification in support of its authenticity.
But would they not send these same letters of Verification in support of the authenticity of a replacement birth certificate due to adoption?
The Alabama Democrats also submitted one of those Letters of Verification with their Amicus Brief for the Supreme Court.
A letter is not proof. Proof is more along the lines of an image with a certified statement and State Seal proclaiming a "true and correct copy of the original document" Without the "or abstract thereof" which totally renders it irrelevant as proof.
Even then, given Hawaii's peculiar laws, and apparent habit of issuing these things to people newly arrived off of boats and such, it's difficult to regard even Hawaii's best efforts to convince as above reproach at this juncture.
Much of their credibility was lost when they made such a stink of releasing the original document. Constitutional Requirements ought to trump state privacy laws in EVERY CASE.
There was NO legitimate reason to keep proof from the American people.
The Letters gave them Cover to do what they desperately wanted to do anyway. Make this issue go away while pretending they did their job.
SOS Bennett was actually surprised when he couldn't get cooperation from Hawaii. He made his promise to require proof before he knew that Hawaii really didn't want to give him anything.
He smelled a rat, but he was far more afraid of bringing embarrassment and humiliation to himself than he was in pursuing it. It was another of those "Let this Cup pass before me" events in which he managed to get away from it.
I get the feeling that if you are criticizing someone, most likely THEY are the one who is correct.
Which is why the court system deserves contempt. On such a serious issue, roadblocks to official documents never should have been tolerated. The very effort stinks of some sort of game or corruption, and if the courts were competent, the very first one would have swept aside all efforts to legally block access to a record of VITAL IMPORTANCE to the nation.
Again, the legal system is contemptuous. It produces idiocy regularly, and the victims of it simply have to endure.
“Without the “or abstract thereof” which totally renders it irrelevant as proof.”
What do you mean by this? All birth certificates are abstracts, in that they contain only some of the information required by NIHS standard Certificate of Live Birth form.
And yet they are conspicuous by NOT being a birth certificate. So you're saying we should just all accept this game of three-card-Monty as being clean?
Don't think so chum. One doesn't do so many legal backflips if all is as it ought to be.
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.