Posted on 07/10/2015 11:30:45 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
Somehow we quickly seemed to be talking past each other.
My point was EVEN IF the WH LFBC was electronically created from scratch, there is no material misrepresentation (thus no fraud) given that Hawaii has verified the information.
Say, hypothetically, Johnny Intern at the White House is given the physical copy and tasked with scanning it and uploading it to the webpage. Soon, he's rushing down the hall to his friend, Jimmy the Geek: "Jimmy, I'm screwed, I just spilled my coffee all over the original and I'm supposed to have this online within the hour." Jimmy: "Chill dude, I've got your back." The Geek turns to his computer, programs in some basketweave background, creates some boxes, and enters the information as stated on the stained original, and produces what looks to be a birth certificate much like the original. The file is then converted to a .pdf and uploaded.
Is that image fraudulent? No. The representations of fact are accurate and a facsimile (whether created by scanning or via reproduction) obviously doesn't purport to be an original document.
Now, that electronic facsimile (no mater how created) couldn't be used even as secondary evidence. But I wasn't going in that direction.
That’s exactly right.
No one should ever trust any judge due to the opinions of five of them on homosexual ‘marriage.’
Particularly you’ve got to watch out for those “small claims court” shysters.
Got it.
Federal Rule of Evidence 1005: Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
Federal Rule of Evidence 902: Evidence That Is Self -Authenticating
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:
(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.
(2) Domestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and Certified. A document that bears no seal if:
(A) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule 902(1)(A); and
(B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal — or its equivalent — that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.
(3) Foreign Public Documents. A document that purports to be signed or attested by a person who is authorized by a foreign country’s law to do so. The document must be accompanied by a final certification that certifies the genuineness of the signature and official position of the signer or attester — or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the signature or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the signature or attestation. The certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If all parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to investigate the document’s authenticity and accuracy, the court may, for good cause, either:
(A) order that it be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification; or
(B) allow it to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.
(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(5) Official Publications. A book, pamphlet, or other publication purporting to be issued by a public authority.
(6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.
(7) Trade Inscriptions and the Like. An inscription, sign, tag, or label purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating origin, ownership, or control.
(8) Acknowledged Documents. A document accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment that is lawfully executed by a notary public or another officer who is authorized to take acknowledgments.
(9) Commercial Paper and Related Documents. Commercial paper, a signature on it, and related documents, to the extent allowed by general commercial law.
(10) Presumptions Under a Federal Statute. A signature, document, or anything else that a federal statute declares to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.
(11) Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that complies with a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.
(12) Certified Foreign Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. In a civil case, the original or a copy of a foreign record that meets the requirements of Rule 902(11), modified as follows: the certification, rather than complying with a federal statute or Supreme Court rule, must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to a criminal penalty in the country where the certification is signed. The proponent must also meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11).
Oh, only five judges in the entire USA supported homosexual ‘marriage.’ What a relief. I had been under the impression many other judges supported it as well. But if it is a total of only five in the entire country, that is not quite as bad.
The digital image obviously wouldn’t pass muster under that rule. But I have little doubt that if court evidence rules had had to be satisfied, Hawaii would have simply generated another COLB (short form). Those are routinely accepted in court (and for passports, marriage licenses, DMV, etc.) Such would be self-authenticating.
The proof of what you are saying is in what has already occurred. The Administrative Law Judge in the Georgia eligibility challenges (”the trials on the merits”), the U.S. District Court Judge in the Mississippi eligibility challenge and the Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court all received copies of the Long Form Certificate of Live Birth and entered them into evidence.
Whether those copies were analogue, second generation copies or digital copies, I do not know.
“Second-generation copy: An image or recording which is a copy of a first-generation copy. The first copy of an original is first-generation: copies made from this copy retain and may increase any defects of the first copy. Generally applied to analogue copies: digital copies are, on the whole, free from generational decay in quality.”
Both the Mississippi and Alabama copies came with a Certified Letter of Verification for the data on the copies prepared by the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics.
When the issue of homosexual ‘marriage’ reached the highest court in the land, it was five Justices who issued the majority ruling.
I would estimate that 2% of the judges in the United States have ever issued a ruling on homosexual ‘marriage.’
What a bizarrely humorous post. There is an actual number of judges who have ruled Obama’s way on homosexual marriage. Imagine—a real number. Why are you so obsessive/compulsive about the number of judges who have ruled Obama’s way on eligibility, but so vague on the number that has gone his way on homosexual ‘marriage?’
This is a forum dedicated to the natural born citizen issue, not the homosexual ‘marriage’ issue.
There is a different Free Republic forum on “the homosexual agenda.” If I was posting there, I would see what statistics I could find on court rulings pro and con on that issue.
I try to be polite and indulge your annoying tendency to wander off topic but I have no interest in researching off topic issues.
This topic always makes you so you touchy/nervous—and I can see why. You come on this site and argue that if enough judges agree with Obama on his eligibility, they must be right. This is a liberal argument, and anathema to conservatives.
You see, NG, conservatives realize how far left the courts have moved, and how politized they have become. We no longer expect justice or fairness from them, and we certainly don’t look to them to establish truth.
You do. You cite the number of judges who have sided with Obama ad nauseum. It is sickening to any real conservative, to see the way you neverendingly tout Obama’s support in our liberal court system. Do you do it because you are not bright enough to perceive the anti-conservative bias that all but insures liberal victories in most cases, or because you are so liberal that to you the courts really are the arbiters of truth and right?
Of course the number of judges that have affirmed homosexual marriage is entirely pertinent. If your argument is that so many judges must be right about Obama’s eligibility, then it follows that a similar number of judges agreeing on same-sex marriage must also be right.
Thirty-nine judges, NG; 39. That is the number that went Obama’s way on homosexual marriage. If your vaunted number re eligibility means anything, then for you, the 39 number must mean just as much.
"Secondary evidence" comes into play with the Best Evidence Rule. The original (vault copy) is never available.
A COLB duly certified and sealed would be self-authenticating. A copy of a long-form certificate would suffice, if the certification was an original. But I don't think both the document and the cert. can be copies. The verification letters from HI may suffice.
The Georgia and Mississippi Obama birth certificate copies were just exhibits included in motions and pleadings. The Alabama copies were in an amicus brief submitted by the Alabama Democratic Party in support of the Republican Secretary of State Beth Chapman who was being sued.
39 judges, huh. Well I was way off. That’s far less that 1/10th of 1% of the judges in America.
And its still off-topic.
A judge can rule against homosexual ‘marriage’ and for Obama’s eligibility or vice-versa.
For example, Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas voted against homosexual ‘marriage’ and they each wrote scathing dissents but they each refused to issue injunctions or stays in various petitions to block Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency.
And Justice Roberts administered the Oath of Office to Obama, yet on homosexual ‘marriage’ Justice Roberts said:
“The Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states completely undermines America’s democratic process.
That’s the bold statement Chief Justice John Roberts made in his principal dissent. In one day, Roberts said, the court has basically transformed the societal institution that has held together humanity for millennia.
‘Who do we think we are?’ he said.”— Washington Post
And thanks for the always helpful lessons on how to be a Fantasywriter-brand conservative.
So in your world, conservatives revere the courts?
Absolutely not. When did I ever say anything about revering the courts? The reason the federal judiciary gets lifetime appointments is so that they can ignore whether the people love them or despise them.
Republicans’ Approval of Supreme Court Sinks to 18%
PRINCETON, N.J. — After a historic Supreme Court session that included rulings on same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act, Democrats’ approval of the high court has surged to 76% and Republicans’ approval has plummeted to a record-low 18%. Americans overall are divided, with 49% approving and 46% disapproving.
The new July 8-12 Gallup poll came after the Supreme Court issued rulings in late June that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and upheld federal subsidies for health insurance purchased through government exchanges. Those decisions were hailed by President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders but criticized by Republican leaders. The shift in opinions of the Supreme Court by political party indicates that many Americans are aware of the decisions, as well as the thrust of those decisions politically, and have adjusted their views accordingly.
Specifically, Republicans’ approval of the Supreme Court is down 17 percentage points from September 2014 and down a total of 33 points since last summer. Democrats’ approval rose from 47% in September to 76% now — a 29-point gain. Independents’ views were largely unchanged, as 46% approved in September 2014 and 49% currently do.
Supreme Court approval among all Americans is up five points since last fall, from 44% to 49%. The current job approval rating is just below the 52% average, which dates back to 2000.
As a result of the partisan changes in opinions of the Supreme Court, Americans’ views of it are polarized along party lines more than ever has been the case in Gallup’s 15-year trend. The 18% approval among Republicans is the lowest to date, and the 76% approval among Democrats is the highest, albeit by a single percentage point. In 2009, after Obama took office and nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, 75% of Democrats approved.
The previous high point in political party polarization came in 2012, after the first major Supreme Court ruling on the 2010 healthcare law upheld Congress’ ability to fine Americans for not having health insurance. After that decision, 68% of Democrats and 29% of Republicans approved, a 39-point party gap compared with the current 58-point gap.
Partisans’ Views of Supreme Court Responsive to Rulings
Supreme Court job approval among all Americans has varied between 42% and 62% in Gallup’s 15-year trend. But it has varied even more among Republicans (between 18% and 80%) and Democrats (38% and 76%) during this time. That is because partisans, as is the case in the current poll, have frequently re-evaluated their views of the Supreme Court after it issued rulings that touched on topics that greatly divide Republicans and Democrats.
For example, after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush in the dispute with Al Gore over recounts in Florida presidential voting back in 2000, Republican approval increased 20 points while Democratic approval dropped by 28 points.
As previously noted, the initial Supreme Court ruling on the 2010 healthcare law — issued in 2012 — led to a much more positive evaluation of the high court from Democrats along with diminished approval among Republicans.
At this time a year ago, a slim majority of Republicans, 51%, approved of the job the Supreme Court was doing, up from 30% in September 2013. That increase may have reflected support for the court’s decision in the “Hobby Lobby” case. The Supreme Court ruled that private companies could, because of religious objections, opt out of the ACA requirement that all health plans must cover contraceptive services.
Over the last 15 years, partisans’ views have also responded to presidential appointments to the court. As noted, Democrats’ views of the high court became more positive after Obama nominated Sotomayor to the court in 2009. And Republican approval of the Supreme Court improved from 44% in June 2005 to 65% in September 2005 after President Bush nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Republicans’ approval rose further to 75% by September 2006 after Justice Samuel Alito, a second Bush appointee, joined the court.
Implications
Americans — specifically Democrats and Republicans — have often changed their opinions of the Supreme Court based on how it has ruled on high-profile decisions. That indicates that many Americans are aware of what the Supreme Court is doing and the public’s evaluations have some substance behind them.
Right now, after two major rulings that were consistent with Democrats’ policy preferences, Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of the Supreme Court are more disparate than at any time in the past 15 years. A key question is how long those highly polarized views might persist. Clearly they could shift if the Supreme Court issues another major ruling on a politically divisive issue that pleases Republicans, which in the next term could be invalidating the use of race as a factor in college admissions. More generally, though, the evidence from the trends suggests the major partisan shifts do not persist long, usually diminishing to some degree in the subsequent poll, and possibly showing more substantial change if there is an intervening major Supreme Court event that favors one group of partisans over another.
I read maybe two sentences of that. Anytime you post a wall of words, please be advised that I’ll skip most of it.
So how do my thoughts re conservatism differ from mainstream conservatism?
Excellent! The more you skip, the less I respond to.
I have no idea what you consider to be “mainstream conservatism,” so I can’t answer your question.
“And thanks for the always helpful lessons on how to be a Fantasywriter-brand conservative.”
As opposed to what other type of conservative? Please describe in detail this other ‘brand.’
Nah, describing in detail would take more words than you would read.
I’ll just say that the little that I understand of your unique brand of conservatism, it is much less likely that there would be be issue specific alliances between the most conservative members of Congress and the most liberal members, as there often are; like there just was on not granting Fast Track Trade Authority to Obama.
Additionally, Fantasywriter conservatism sees the entire political system. particularly the judicial branch, as corrupt. Not all conservatives take such an absolutist position.
You are babbling raw, unreconstituted gibberish. Nothing you mention is contained in my post 150. Yet of that post you said,
“And thanks for the always helpful lessons on how to be a Fantasywriter-brand conservative.”
The line was just another of your periodic inanities, and heaven knows why you felt compelled to post it. It was silly at best.
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.