Replies

I hope it turns out that you’re right, browardchad, but I remain skeptical.

You don't have to hope, you can read the Federal Rules of Evidence here. They're not a secret, and they're not that difficult to understand.

Would you prefer to live with a legal system where there are no rules? Where every case is decided by the passing whim of a judge? And nothing could be appealed, because all judgments are subjective, and therefore not based on rules, or laws?

Should we encourage trashing the Constitution because we feel this man has circumvented it?

I certainly don't want to live in such a place. And I'm not willing to give up defending the rule of law because we are now saddled with such a sorry excuse for a President.

browardchad,
You wrote “Would you prefer to live with a legal system where there are no rules? Where every case is decided by the passing whim of a judge? And nothing could be appealed, because all judgments are subjective, and therefore not based on rules, or laws?

Should we encourage trashing the Constitution because we feel this man has circumvented it?”

I had to read my post again to make sure I hadn’t inadvertently written something that would cause one to infer that I hold the views that you seem to be attributing to me, but I don’t see anything in my post that would warrant such attribution. Apparently you DO, so clue me in to what I said specifically, if you would be so kind. For the record, I’m for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and for the governance of this great nation unwaveringly according to the rule of law. I believe that the present administration is bent on circumvention of the Constitution and, when all else fails, outright violation of it. I believe that, in their minds, the rule of law is what THEY define it to be at any given moment and that expediency trumps anything and everything.

Regards.

You don't have to hope, you can read the Federal Rules of Evidence

Like Rule 102 (101 being the scope of the rules and the first rule):

These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.

Like that?

Or maybe rule 301:

Rule 301. Presumptions in General Civil Actions and Proceedings

IOW the Respondent must rebut evidence provided by the plaintiff. In this case the easiest was to do that would have been to provide ... well you know.

Or Rule 803:

Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
...
(9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.
...
(12) Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates. Statements of fact contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament, made by a clergyman, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.

Then there is 902(3):

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
...
(3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.