Main Menu

Are the Honolulu newspaper birth lists admissible in court as evidence of Obama’s place of birth?

Two competing Honolulu newspapers, The Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser, carried the Health Department list of births, showing a son born to the Obamas August 4, 1961. For some, these are the strongest evidence of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii because they are immune to modern tampering.

Strong as they are, would they be admissible in federal court? Are they excluded by the Hearsay Rule?

I believe that they well may be excluded. An important case on the admissibility of old newspapers is Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. 286 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1961).  Here’s a summary of the issue:

A clock tower at the Dallas County Courthouse fell, doing $100,000 in damage. The County filed a claim with the insurance company alleging that the structural failure was due to a lightning strike that happened a few days before. The insurance company countered that the damage was due to an existing structural fault in the building caused by a fire that occurred during the building’s construction in 1901. As proof of the fire, the insurance company offered a newspaper article from 1901 reporting the fire. The newspaper article was admitted, and the jury found in favor of the insurance company. The case was appealed on the question of whether the newspaper article was properly admitted. The circuit court said yes and the lower court was affirmed.

The newspaper article was not among the explicit exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, but was admissible because it was more likely to be reliable than someone’s memory after 56 years and it was unlikely that a better source of information could be found. The court said:

it was properly admissible because it of its necessity, trustworthiness, relevance, and materialness

The newspaper accounts of Obama’s birth are trustworthy, relevant and material. They are not, however, necessary. Obama’s birth certificate is prima facie evidence of where he was born, and the newspaper accounts aren’t necessary to establish that fact.1

Since that 1961 case, Rule 807 Residual Exception has been added to the Federal Rules of Evidence and it expands on the concept of necessity in 807(a) allowing the exception when:

(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts;

Obama’s birth certificate falls under an explicit exception to hearsay, in Rule 803:

(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.

I am not a lawyer and the legal information you get from may may be worth no more than you paid for it. Your mileage may vary. Not responsible for items left in your car. If problems arise, consult your doctor. May contain forward-looking statements. Sold by weight, not by volume. Image enlarged to show details. May contain peanuts.


1This article assumes that President Obama is a defendant and in a position to offer his birth certificate as evidence.

, , , , , , , ,

90 Responses to Are the Honolulu newspaper birth lists admissible in court as evidence of Obama’s place of birth?

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    Not available after curfew in sector “R.”

  2. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 21, 2015 at 4:19 pm #

    Damn! They never come up in the hills!

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2015 at 4:42 pm #

    I think the birthers a looking for a little stopping power.

  4. avatar
    Joey January 21, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

    Federal Rule of Evidence 902 on Evidence that is Self-Authenticating as exceptions to the hearsay rule states:
    (6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902

  5. avatar
    wrecking ball January 21, 2015 at 6:11 pm #

    ” …. because they are immune to modern tampering.”

    nothing is immune to the birther imagination.

  6. avatar
    OllieOxenFree January 21, 2015 at 7:20 pm #

    I often wonder if Obama hears of things, like the newspaper announcements, and says, “whoa, really? I never knew about those.” I suppose it would be nice and a bit of a nostalgic comfort to think of his parents for a moment, if it weren’t for the nefarious reasons that people dug these things up.

  7. avatar
    Jim January 21, 2015 at 7:46 pm #

    wrecking ball:
    ” …. because they are immune to modern tampering.”
    nothing is immune to the birther imagination.

    Oh yeah, another one of those silly things like Holden beaming to Georgia to intervene in one of Orly’s cases. I was surprised how many birthers didn’t go to college and realize a lot of them get periodicals from all over, guess the President had a team that went around the country and changed them all. Their imagination needs a LOT of work!!!

  8. avatar
    Smirk 4 Food January 21, 2015 at 8:32 pm #

    I work as a marketer for an insurance company, and our advertising is heavily regulated. Our ads frequently mention how much we’ve paid out in the prior year in benefits. As required, we note in our ads that our actuarial department is the source for these statistics.

    One state (who shall remain nameless) told us they would prefer that these statistics be sourced from a newspaper article, rather than our own actuaries, so the state could validate the source of the stats. (The paper would, of course, have to get the stats from us.)

    When our legal department informed me of the request, I asked, “So they WANT hearsay information??”

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

    According to Rule 803 as I understand it, what you describe is an explicit exception to the Hearsay Rule.

    Smirk 4 Food: When our legal department informed me of the request, I asked, “So they WANT hearsay information??”

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2015 at 9:08 pm #

    According to the book Double Down, Obama keeps up with the RWNJ scene. I think he probably does know about them from back in 2008 when they were found.

    OllieOxenFree: I often wonder if Obama hears of things, like the newspaper announcements, and says, “whoa, really? I never knew about those.”

  11. avatar
    john January 21, 2015 at 9:20 pm #

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificate/2015/01/21/retired-navy-seal-carl-higby-to-appear-on-wobc

    Interesting show. They didn’t need the Obots to tell them. It’s bad.

  12. avatar
    john January 21, 2015 at 9:39 pm #

    john:
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificate/2015/01/21/retired-navy-seal-carl-higby-to-appear-on-wobc

    Interesting show.They didn’t need the Obots to tell them.It’s bad.

    During the show in chat, I said that everything is academic at this point (Meaning it is a useless and a hopeless effort to think something is going to happend to Obama.)

    I was kicked out of the chat room.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2015 at 9:43 pm #

    Why do you think that the items in Rule 902 are exceptions to the hearsay rule?

    Joey: Federal Rule of Evidence 902 on Evidence that is Self-Authenticating as exceptions to the hearsay rule states:

  14. avatar
    john January 21, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

    Another caller called in and was upset with Zullo and Arpaio not releasing anything using the same old excuse for 3 years now. I’m afraid I have to agree with caller.

  15. avatar
    Arthur B. January 21, 2015 at 9:48 pm #

    john, is the picture getting clearer now?

  16. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 21, 2015 at 9:52 pm #

    john:
    Another caller called in and was upset with Zullo and Arpaio not releasing anything using the same old excuse for 3 years now.I’m afraid I have to agree with caller.

    Is it dawning on you yet, that Zullo has nothing?

  17. avatar
    RanTalbott January 21, 2015 at 9:53 pm #

    The newspaper lists are also prima facie evidence, and support the claim that Hawaii recorded a birth at the time it says it did.

    They might be excluded in favor of the birth certificate as evidence of the time, place, etc., but I would think they would still be admitted as evidence that the birth certificate is real contemporaneous record, not a recent creation.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 21, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

    I think the more damning evidence is the memo in the Obama Sr INS file dated August 31st 1961.

  19. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 21, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

    Darn right. That is a record that there is ZERO chance anyone from the general public could have influenced, yes?

  20. avatar
    RanTalbott January 21, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

    Thomas Brown: That is a record that there is ZERO chance anyone from the general public could have influenced, yes?

    Sure, but the agents of the giant Jewish-Muslim-Bankster-Marxist conspiracy that’s been working for over a half a century to put Obama in the WH to destroy the country routinely fake up ten such records before breakfast, so it doesn’t count.

  21. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 21, 2015 at 10:24 pm #

    RanTalbott: Sure, but the agents of the giant Jewish-Muslim-Bankster-Marxist conspiracy that’s been working for over a half a century to put Obama in the WH to destroy the country routinely fake up ten such records before breakfast, so it doesn’t count.

    Well yeah, that’s the first trick they teach in basic Cartoon Villainy 101.

  22. avatar
    Rickey January 22, 2015 at 12:26 am #

    john:
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificate/2015/01/21/retired-navy-seal-carl-higby-to-appear-on-wobc

    Interesting show.They didn’t need the Obots to tell them.It’s bad.

    Carl Higby wrote ” Now we’re paying the piper with a stumbling Wall Street, outrageous taxes, galloping unemployment, escalating debt ceiling, and a myriad of other catastrophic disasters.”

    Stumbling Wall Street? The Dow closed at 17,906.71 today.

    Outrageous taxes? Personal income taxes are lower than they have been in decades.

    Galloping unemployment? The unemployment rate is 5.9%, the lowest it has been since the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

    Escalating debt ceiling? The debt ceiling has been raised 104 times since 1944. Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years.

  23. avatar
    Kate January 22, 2015 at 12:40 am #

    Rickey: Carl Higby wrote ” Now we’re paying the piper with a stumbling Wall Street, outrageous taxes, galloping unemployment, escalating debt ceiling, and a myriad of other catastrophic disasters.”

    Stumbling Wall Street? The Dow closed at 17,906.71 today.

    Outrageous taxes? Personal income taxes are lower than they have been in decades.

    Galloping unemployment? The unemployment rate is 5.9%, the lowest it has been since the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

    Escalating debt ceiling? The debt ceiling has been raised 104 times since 1944. Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years.

    It’s quite obvious that Higby gets his news from sources like Fox and other RW sites. You can assume that whatever they say about President Obama, the opposite is likely to be true. However, when it comes to RW’ers, Fox and others just give them what they want to hear. If it’s about President Obama, it has to be negative.

  24. avatar
    gorefan January 22, 2015 at 1:37 am #

    john:
    Another caller called in and was upset with Zullo and Arpaio not releasing anything using the same old excuse for 3 years now.I’m afraid I have to agree with caller.

    John, you should find this very interesting. It is a comment by GiveUsLiberty1776

    “For what it’s worth. I had some face time with Arpaio in mid-October. He wasn’t interested in talking about the issue. In fact he was somewhat irritated and dismissive. I also asked him some very direct questions in a public forum. Also dismissive. I just talked to a good friend and well-known activist who has had 3 conversations on the phone with Zullo in the last month. While there is no representation that A & Z have folded their tents…it was quite apparent that they are not poised to release any information in the near future. Personally as much as it pains me to say it and my friend agrees…we are not optimistic that anything will happen. I think that A & Z have been betrayed by the politicians, they have no viable media outlets (although Arpaio told me that if he needs to get the story out he can do it…but wait he got no traction in his last press conference) and I think they have been intimidated and threatened by forces and powers that we can only imagine. As more time goes by it would seem that there is increasingly less chance that Obama can be convincingly exposed and ultimately removed. I pray that I am wrong. Remember however that Obama has been committing his crimes (at the direction of the puppet masters) with the help of the republican establishment. These traitors will do anything to ensure the status quo.”

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01/investigative-journalist-obama.html#yBCm5O0YuZKddQgs.99

  25. avatar
    Joey January 22, 2015 at 2:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Why do you think that the items in Rule 902 are exceptions to the hearsay rule?

    Because that’s what a self-authenticating document is.
    “According to the law of evidence in the United States self authenticating documents are that which can be admitted into evidence at a trial without proof being submitted to support the claim that the document is what it appears to be. In short, these are documents which do not require outside evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted in evidence. Several categories of documents are deemed to be self-authenticating. Certified copy of public or business records, official publications of government agencies, newspaper articles, trade inscriptions, such as labels on products are few examples of self authenticating documents.”– uslegal.com
    The hearsay exceptions listed in 803 in conjunction with a self-authenticating document is covered in point 16: Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.

  26. avatar
    The Magic M January 22, 2015 at 5:29 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Is it dawning on you yet, that Zullo has nothing?

    Just remember how long people waited for “Duke Nukem Forever” or Dr Dre’s “Detox”. And those people were not loons. 😉

  27. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 22, 2015 at 7:32 am #

    Joey: Because that’s what a self-authenticating document is.
    “According to the law of evidence in the United States self authenticating documents are that which can be admitted into evidence at a trial without proof being submitted to support the claim that the document is what it appears to be. In short, these are documents which do not require outside evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted in evidence. Several categories of documents are deemed to be self-authenticating. Certified copy of public or business records, official publications of government agencies, newspaper articles, trade inscriptions, such as labels on products are few examples of self authenticating documents.”– uslegal.com
    The hearsay exceptions listed in 803 in conjunction with a self-authenticating document is covered in point 16: Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.

    If Rule 902 was amended by order of the Supreme Court on April 26, 2011 and effectuated on Dec. 1, 2011, and a President had previously nominated and appointed two members to the Supreme Court to participate in a vote on the rule amendment, should Rule 902 be implemented to authicate the documents verifying the eligibility of the President?

    It’s absurd to think Obama’s appointees would vote for a rule’s amendment which would expose the President as a usuper.

  28. avatar
    AuBricker January 22, 2015 at 8:27 am #

    @

    SvenMagnussen: d to be self-authenticating. Certified copy of public or business records, official publications of government agencies, newspaper articles, trade inscriptions, such as labels on products are few examples of self authenticating documents.”– uslegal.com
    The hearsay exceptions listed in 803 in conjunction with a self-authenticating document is covered in point 16: Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.

    If Rule 902 was amended by order of the Supreme Court on April 26, 2011 and effectuated on Dec. 1, 2011, and a President had previously nominated and appointed two members to the Supreme Court to participate in a vote on the rule amendment, should Rule 902 be implemented to authicate the documents verifying the eligibility of the President?

    It’s absurd to think Obama’s appointees would vote for a rule’s amendment which would expose the President as a usuper.

    The revised Federal Rules of Evidence were proposed in 2006 and drafting began. They were published for public comment and review in 2009, long before being adopted in 2011.

    Now you tell us Obama orchestrated it all? Wow. We are indeed fortunate to have a president with such foresight.

  29. avatar
    john January 22, 2015 at 8:48 am #

    gorefan: John, you should find this very interesting.It is a comment by GiveUsLiberty1776

    “For what it’s worth. I had some face time with Arpaio in mid-October. He wasn’t interested in talking about the issue. In fact he was somewhat irritated and dismissive. I also asked him some very direct questions in a public forum. Also dismissive. I just talked to a good friend and well-known activist who has had 3 conversations on the phone with Zullo in the last month. While there is no representation that A & Z have folded their tents…it was quite apparent that they are not poised to release any information in the near future. Personally as much as it pains me to say it and my friend agrees…we are not optimistic that anything will happen. I think that A & Z have been betrayed by the politicians, they have no viable media outlets (although Arpaio told me that if he needs to get the story out he can do it…but wait he got no traction in his last press conference) and I think they have been intimidated and threatened by forces and powers that we can only imagine. As more time goes by it would seem that there is increasingly less chance that Obama can be convincingly exposed and ultimately removed. I pray that I am wrong. Remember however that Obama has been committing his crimes (at the direction of the puppet masters) with the help of the republican establishment. These traitors will do anything to ensure the status quo.”

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01/investigative-journalist-obama.html#yBCm5O0YuZKddQgs.99

    That would be Gary Wilmott, a hardened birther. it seems even he’s giving up too.

  30. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 22, 2015 at 8:55 am #

    AuBricker:
    @

    The revised Federal Rules of Evidence were proposed in 2006 and drafting began.They were published for public comment and review in 2009, long before being adopted in 2011.

    Now you tell us Obama orchestrated it all? Wow. We are indeed fortunate to have a president with such foresight.

    The FRE is amended frequently and often.

    http://federalevidence.com/changing-rules

    The FRCP and FRE have the full force and effect of U.S. federal law. Under the Presentment Clause, all legislation or federal rules or regulations are enacted into law after presentment to the President. Barring a veto with the President’s signature or a time constraint with respect to Congress being in session, the President implements all U.S. legislation into U.S. federal law, with or without, his signature.

    If the President is accused of being ineligible, then the FRE used to prevent a full investigation into the President’s eligibility is suspect.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 22, 2015 at 9:22 am #

    Kate: STFU! Don’t you understand that nobody believes a word you say? You had NOTHING to do with anything regarding President Obama. You’re not his half-sister, you didn’t forge any birth certificates and the blue dress wasn’t worn by you. You’ve been told repeatedly that DNA that is over a decade old is distinguishable from that which is only a year old. Your stories are so over-the-top ridiculous, especially with all the people you add to them. Volin? Rondeau? Trump? Gotti? You have a serious problem, get some help.

    The other funny thing is she was born in March 1962 Obama was born in August of 1961. It would be almost impossible to have a proper birth within that time frame. She still never answered me if she was born prematurely perhaps it’s the math that’s got her silent.

  32. avatar
    The Magic M January 22, 2015 at 9:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If the President is accused of being ineligible, then the FRE used to prevent a full investigation into the President’s eligibility is suspect.

    And there you go, another birther who claims the rule of law (usually the RWNJ’s Divine Guideline) no longer applies when it suits them.

  33. avatar
    The Magic M January 22, 2015 at 9:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If Rule 902 was amended by order of the Supreme Court on April 26, 2011 and effectuated on Dec. 1, 2011, and a President had previously nominated and appointed two members to the Supreme Court to participate in a vote on the rule amendment, should Rule 902 be implemented to authicate the documents verifying the eligibility of the President?

    Unless the law was changed by Congress, of course. Or do you suddenly claim the law no longer applies when it’s about the black guy you hate?

    Stop pretending you care about legal ways to remove the President. You’re talking about a revolution where everyone you have declared guilty beforehand (Obama, his appointees, Congress) is out of the loop, so are all laws, just to make sure the Revolutionary Council has all possible instruments (including torture, Ordeal of Water etc.) available to “get the traitors”.

  34. avatar
    Jim January 22, 2015 at 10:48 am #

    gorefan: John, you should find this very interesting. It is a comment by GiveUsLiberty1776“… and I think they have been intimidated and threatened by forces and powers that we can only imagine.

    Are laughing and mocking, like the press did to A/Z at their last press conference, considered intimidating and threatening by the birthers? No wonder they’re so scared of us over at GB, 6 years of laughing and mocking them has them cowering in their mother’s basements.

  35. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 22, 2015 at 10:49 am #

    The Magic M: Unless the law was changed by Congress, of course. Or do you suddenly claim the law no longer applies when it’s about the black guy you hate?

    Stop pretending you care about legal ways to remove the President. You’re talking about a revolution where everyone you have declared guilty beforehand (Obama, his appointees, Congress) is out of the loop, so are all laws, just to make sure the Revolutionary Council has all possible instruments (including torture, Ordeal of Water etc.) available to “get the traitors”.

    The Supreme Court is not Constitutionally authorized to pass legislation or enact legislation into law. The Supreme Court “prescribes” the FRCP and the FRE through a court order pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act. Congress can modify, adjust, add or delete, or amend the prescribe rules and transcribe those rules into legislation. Congress is not Constitutionally authorized to enact legislation into federal law with first presenting the Act to the President for a veto. Without a veto, Congress is not Constitutionally authorized to enact legislation into federal law. Barring a veto, all federal rules and regulations are enacted into U.S. federal law by the President.

    When the FRCP and FRE are used to prevent an investigation into the eligibility of the President, the eligibility of the President is suspect.

  36. avatar
    Arthur B. January 22, 2015 at 11:36 am #

    SvenMagnussen: When the FRCP and FRE are used to prevent an investigation into the eligibility of the President, the eligibility of the President is suspect.

    Oh, gee, something makes you suspect the eligibility of the President! Should that surprise us? As far as I can tell, the very sunrise makes you suspect the eligibility of the President.

    But sorry, Svennie. One of the reasons we have legal procedures and federal rules is to provide a fair and consistent framework for debate, one that is applied uniformly despite the whining of the losing side.

  37. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 22, 2015 at 11:44 am #

    Joey:
    Federal Rule of Evidence 902 on Evidence that is Self-Authenticating as exceptions to the hearsay rule states:
    (6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902

    Actually, Rule 902 means that the evidence can be authenticated without any further evidence of its authenticity. That means, for instance, that the court doesn’t need to call the keeper of the records and state, “Is this the record you keep on file.” The seal acts as basically saying that it’s authentic.

    The evidence itself may still be excluded being hearsay. Rule 902 does not get around hearsay. However, if you take a look at the Hearsay exceptions (FRE 803), subsection 9 states: “A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.” This would be what the exception would be.

  38. avatar
    Joey January 22, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The Supreme Court is not Constitutionally authorized to pass legislation or enact legislation into law. The Supreme Court “prescribes” the FRCP and the FRE through a court order pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act. Congress can modify, adjust, add or delete, or amend the prescribe rules and transcribe those rules into legislation. Congress is not Constitutionally authorized to enact legislation into federal law with first presenting the Act to the President for a veto. Without a veto, Congress is not Constitutionally authorized to enact legislation into federal law. Barring a veto, all federal rules and regulations are enacted into U.S. federal law by the President.

    When the FRCP and FRE are used to prevent an investigation into the eligibility of the President, the eligibility of the President is suspect.

    In at least 226 original jurisdiction lawsuits to date, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have never once been used to prevent an investigation of the president’s eligibility. In fact, the President’s own attorneys have submitted copies of his long form birth certificate into evidence as exhibits in both the Georgia and the Mississippi eligibility challenges. In Georgia, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Orly Taitz said that the submission of a copy of the president’s birth certificate should have been grounds for granting her discovery at the Hawaii Department of Health. And in Mississippi, attorney Taitz filed a contempt motion because the defense attorneys had submitted a more legible copy of the president’s long form birth certificate than the copy she had submitted; plus the defense attorneys also submitted a Certified Letter of Verification for their copy issued by the Hawaii state Registrar of Vital Statistics.
    Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) [point 9] if anyone wants to inspect the president’s birth certificate, they can secure a court order from the judge of a court of competent jurisdiction. Over the last seven years, birthers have been unable to secure such a court order.

  39. avatar
    Joey January 22, 2015 at 12:58 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Actually, Rule 902 means that the evidence can be authenticated without any further evidence of its authenticity.That means, for instance, that the court doesn’t need to call the keeper of the records and state, “Is this the record you keep on file.”The seal acts as basically saying that it’s authentic.

    The evidence itself may still be excluded being hearsay.Rule 902 does not get around hearsay.However, if you take a look at the Hearsay exceptions (FRE 803), subsection 9 states: “A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.”This would be what the exception would be.

    Does subsection 9 cover the admissibility of the NEWSPAPER birth notices of the Obama birth?

  40. avatar
    AuBricker January 22, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The FRE is amended frequently and often.

    http://federalevidence.com/changing-rules

    The FRCP and FRE have the full force and effect of U.S. federal law. Under the Presentment Clause, all legislation or federal rules or regulations are enacted into law after presentment to the President. Barring a veto with the President’s signature or a time constraint with respect to Congress being in session, the President implements all U.S. legislation into U.S. federal law, with or without, his signature.

    If the President is accused of being ineligible, then the FRE used to prevent a full investigation into the President’s eligibility is suspect.

    Humm, no.

    When the Supreme Court amends the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is not submitted to the president for his approval. Congress has a period of time to block the changes. Only changes involving evidentiary privilege require Congressional approval.

    So how did the President somehow change the FRE to his benefit? And how did these changes somehow escape the notice of his detractors and opponents on the Court and in Congress?

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 22, 2015 at 1:58 pm #

    I don’t know what their source was, so I cannot say probative it is.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I think the more damning evidence is the memo in the Obama Sr INS file dated August 31st 1961.

  42. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 22, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    AuBricker: Humm, no.

    When the Supreme Court amends the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is not submitted to the president for his approval. Congress has a period of time to block the changes. Only changes involving evidentiary privilege require Congressional approval.

    So how did the President somehow change the FRE to his benefit? And how did these changes somehow escape the notice of his detractors and opponents on the Court and in Congress?

    A common misconception is SCOTUS “legislates from the bench” and Congress enacts US federal law. SCOTUS interprets U.S. federal law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Congress writes legislation to be presented to the President for enactment into US federal law. Congress can only enact US federal law in the event of a veto signed by the President specifically stating the President is vetoing the legislation.

    If the President does not sign legislation and the Congress is in session for 10 days after the legislation is presented to the President, then the legislation is enacted into law without the President’s signature. Assuming there are 10 or more days left in a session of Congress, unsigned legislation enacted into US federal law is deemed to have been enacted by the President even though the President did not sign it. Without a signed veto, only the President can enact legislation into US federal law.

    The President enacts all US federal rules and regulations. Rules and Regulations enacted into law in the Executive Branch are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. Rules and Regulations enacted into law in the Judicial Branch are governed by the Judiciary Act.

    SCOTUS “prescribes” amendments to the FRCP and FRE. The CJ of SCOTUS submits the proposed rule changes to Congress and the Attorney General. Congress can add, delete, amend or make no changes to prescribed amendments. The Attorney General presents the prescribed rule changes to the President.

    If the President and the Congress do nothing, then the amendments to the FRCP and FRE are deemed to have been legislated by Congress and presented to the President for a veto pursuant to the Judiciary Act. You mentioned an exception with respect to evidentiary privilege. Amendments with respect to evidenitary privilege must be formalized in a Congressional Act and presented to the President pursuant to the Presentment Clause.

    Only the President is Constitutionally authorized to enact legislation into US federal law if the legislation has not been formally vetoed by the President. All federal rules and regulations are enacted into law by the President. An ineligible President is not Constitutionally authorized to enact US federal law.

  43. avatar
    Arthur B. January 22, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: An ineligible President is not Constitutionally authorized to enact US federal law.

    Even if President Obama were later found to be ineligible, all of his official acts would be considered valid under the De Facto Officer doctrine.

  44. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 22, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: If Rule 902 was amended by order of the Supreme Court on April 26, 2011 and effectuated on Dec. 1, 2011. . .

    —-

    “Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

    The language of Rule 902 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902

  45. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 22, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

    We won’t know when he was born until he produces a real birth certificate, now will we?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: The other funny thing is she was born in March 1962 Obama was born in August of 1961.It would be almost impossible to have a proper birth within that time frame.She still never answered me if she was born prematurely perhaps it’s the math that’s got her silent.

  46. avatar
    Suranis January 22, 2015 at 6:22 pm #

    He did. Twice. Unlike John McCain

  47. avatar
    realist January 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm #

    “We won’t know when he was born until he produces a real birth certificate, now will we?”

    Not counting the two times he already has, I presume.

  48. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 22, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

    We know more about Obama than we do about Nancy.

  49. avatar
    AuBricker January 22, 2015 at 9:05 pm #

    \Only the President is Constitutionally authorized to enact legislation into US federal law if the legislation has not been formally vetoed by the President. All federal rules and regulations are enacted into law by the President. An ineligible President is not Constitutionally authorized to enact US federal law.

    Let’s try this again. As a rule, if the Court presents a change in the FRE with the exception of privilege, it automatically takes affect after a set time unless Congress blocks it. When the Court enacts a change in the FRE, they are not making statutory law. It is not subject to approval or veto by the president.

    Were Congress to pass a bill making changes to the FRE, then yes, it would be sent to the president for approval.Otherwise, no.

    Again, I ask, how did Obama change the FRE so as to prevent his being removed from office without any of his political opponents noticing? Any why should he? Congress has made absolute no effort to remove the president from office. They know damn well that would be a fool’s game. And Obama knows the GOP is not going to try.

    Your argument does not make any sense. It would not make sense even if you were right about Obama magically changing the FRE for whatever reason.

  50. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 22, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

    AuBricker: blocks it.

    What political opponents? U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey cancelled Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization in June, 2008. Obama has support from Republicans and Dems in DC.

  51. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 22, 2015 at 11:06 pm #

    Arguing with Sven and Nancy is like playing chess against a cabbage.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 22, 2015 at 11:13 pm #

    Even a cabbage gets … nah.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Arguing with Sven and Nancy is like playing chess against a cabbage.

  53. avatar
    RanTalbott January 22, 2015 at 11:20 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Arguing with Sven and Nancy is like playing chess against a cabbage.

    You need to stop buying that GMO produce: the organic ones don’t constantly interrupt your conversations with stupid questions and delusional stories.

  54. avatar
    Georgetown JD January 22, 2015 at 11:29 pm #

    Doc, in my opinion the newspaper birth announcement would be admissible under Rule 803(16) – Statements in Ancient Documents. The Notes to this exception cite Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 286 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1961), upholding admissibility of 58-year-old newspaper story. See also Hicks v. Charles Pfizer & Co. Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 628, 633 (E.D. Tex. 2005); Greene Archives, Inc. v. BPI Comm’s, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1195 n.3 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

  55. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 22, 2015 at 11:33 pm #

    RanTalbott: You need to stop buying that GMO produce: the organic ones don’t constantly interrupt your conversations with stupid questions and delusional stories.

    Yeah…not unlike those jerkwad cheeses from the cracker commericals.

  56. avatar
    Rickey January 22, 2015 at 11:54 pm #

    Kate: It’s quite obvious that Higby gets his news from sources like Fox and other RW sites.You can assume that whatever they say about President Obama, the opposite is likely to be true.However, when it comes to RW’ers, Fox and others just give them what they want to hear.If it’s about President Obama, it has to be negative.

    And polling consistently shows that Fox News viewers are woefully ill-informed about current events. Even so, I was surprised to see Bobby Jindal still pontificating about “no-go” zones in Europe after Fox News made repeated apologies for spreading the ridiculous story.

  57. avatar
    John Reilly January 23, 2015 at 12:23 am #

    Having just got around to this, I wish Sven would tell us what piece of evidence would have been admissible under any version of the Federal Rules of Evidence that is now not admissible under what he contends is the revised version.

  58. avatar
    Joey January 23, 2015 at 1:07 am #

    Suranis:
    He did. Twice. Unlike John McCain

    Mitt Romney produced a scanned image of a Michigan short form which says that it is “VOID.” No one complained

  59. avatar
    Lupin January 23, 2015 at 2:20 am #

    Rickey: And polling consistently shows that Fox News viewers are woefully ill-informed about current events. Even so, I was surprised to see Bobby Jindal still pontificating about “no-go” zones in Europe after Fox News made repeated apologies for spreading the ridiculous story.

    But they know better, don’t they?

    It’s the same mental impairment that leads Apuzzo to think he is better at reading Vattel in the original French than I am.

  60. avatar
    Lupin January 23, 2015 at 2:23 am #

    AuBricker: Your argument does not make any sense. It would not make sense even if you were right about Obama magically changing the FRE for whatever reason.

    A short while ago, I remember establishing unambiguously that Obama could not have visited France (as the record establishes he did) with an Indonesian passport. thereby destroying one of Sven’s pet theories. Did he learn from this? Update his thoughts to take that fact into account? Of course not. Reason penetrates Sven’s mind like water granite.

  61. avatar
    The Magic M January 23, 2015 at 4:46 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

    Hate to nit-pick, but I’m sure this is another RW meme.
    The actual Supremacy Clause says
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
    So contrary to your limited definition, the Constitution isn’t the only supreme law of the land.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 23, 2015 at 6:59 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t know what their source was, so I cannot sayprobative it is.

    Didn’t a birther get them through an foia request

  63. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 23, 2015 at 7:03 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    We won’t know when he was born until he produces a real birth certificate, now will we?

    We know he was born on August 4, 1961 he already provided the birth certificate. you also have the Hawaiian birth index, the corraborating birth announcements, the 1961 ins memo for Barack Obama Sr, the 1967 state department memo and also the eye witness statement from Monika Danielson who was in the same hospital giving birth to her son.

  64. avatar
    Fernando January 23, 2015 at 7:16 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not available after curfew in sector “R.”

    Doctor, doctor, give him something for his cough. Commie martyr high school will never be the same.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2015 at 8:56 am #

    Yes. What I meant by source was the original source, where the government got the information in the first place. For example, if they got it out of the newspaper, it’s no more probative than the newspaper. If they interviewed Obama Sr., then it’s less probative. If Wood visited the Obama’s in the hospital, it’s pure gold.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Didn’t a birther get them through an foia request

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2015 at 8:57 am #

    That’s COMMUNIST Martyrs if you please.

    Fernando: Doctor, doctor, give him something for his cough.Commie martyr high school will never be the same.

  67. avatar
    AuBricker January 23, 2015 at 8:58 am #

    SvenMagnussen: What political opponents? U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey cancelled Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization in June, 2008. Obama has support from Republicans and Dems in DC.

    “Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization?” What? He was born in Hawaii.

    “What political opponents?” you ask? How about the conservative groups set on blocking his policy initiatives for the past six years?

    If the GOP were really in on this massive conspiracy that exists only within the fevered imaginations of Birthers, why are they so hostile to the president’s program? Why would they put a Manchurian Candidate in the White House and then devote all their energy into defeating his agenda?

  68. avatar
    AuBricker January 23, 2015 at 9:02 am #

    Lupin: A short while ago, I remember establishing unambiguously that Obama could not have visited France (as the record establishes he did) with an Indonesian passport. thereby destroying one of Sven’s pet theories. Did he learn from this? Update his thoughts to take that fact into account? Of course not. Reason penetrates Sven’s mind like water granite.

    Cognitive Dissonance is a best friend to most Birthers.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2015 at 9:04 am #

    Put the lime in the coconut and drink it all up.

    Fernando: Doctor, doctor, give him something for his cough.

  70. avatar
    Fernando January 23, 2015 at 9:25 am #

    Now let me get this straight: You want me to put down my fork and use that entrenching tool? You know, this reminds me very little of the time my guru sent me to clean up….NO, I shall not be tricked into telling a story for which the world is not yet ready.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Put the lime in the coconut and drink it all up.

  71. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 23, 2015 at 9:59 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Put the lime in the coconut and drink it all up.

    Reminds me of that God awful Coca-Cola flavor they had a while back! It tasted like generic cola enriched with potting soil.

  72. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 23, 2015 at 1:02 pm #

    John Reilly:
    Having just got around to this, I wish Sven would tell us what piece of evidence would have been admissible under any version of the Federal Rules of Evidence that is now not admissible under what he contends is the revised version.

    Obama’s CLN and Certificate of Naturalization were cancelled by senior Bush administration officials in 2008. Since that time, the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia ruled the regulation used to void Obama’s CLN was arbitrary and capricious (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0E0B84A6A298A92385257A1B004EF146/$file/11-5010-1378147.pdf) and the regulation used to void Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization only effected the validation of the certificate and had no effect on his citizenship status as a naturalized U.S. citizen (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9835723v2.html).

    Obama’s NUMIDENT file with SSA proves Obama filed as a Permanent Resident Alien in 1977. Obama has not notified the SSA he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983. To prove to the SSA he naturalized in 1983, Obama will have to apply for a corrected Certificate of Naturalization with USCIS. Once a certified copy of the corrected certificate is provided to Obama, he can use that to prove to SSA he is a US citizen.

  73. avatar
    realist January 23, 2015 at 1:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s CLN and Certificate of Naturalization were cancelled by senior Bush administration officials in 2008. Since that time, the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia ruled the regulation used to void Obama’s CLN was arbitrary and capricious (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0E0B84A6A298A92385257A1B004EF146/$file/11-5010-1378147.pdf) and the regulation used to void Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization only effected the validation of the certificate and had no effect on his citizenship status as a naturalized U.S. citizen (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9835723v2.html).

    Obama’s NUMIDENT file with SSA proves Obama filed as a Permanent Resident Alien in 1977. Obama has not notified the SSA he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983. To prove to the SSA he naturalized in 1983, Obama will have to apply for a corrected Certificate of Naturalization with USCIS. Once a certified copy of the corrected certificate is provided to Obama, he can use that to prove to SSA he is a US citizen.

    You may be even more nutz than Nancy Ruth Owens, Martha Trowbridge, Linda (can’t remember her last name) and many other nutjobs who just make “stuff” up combined.

  74. avatar
    AuBricker January 23, 2015 at 1:12 pm #

    Sven,

    Stop with the word salads, please, and address one issue at a time. You have skipped a few steps to whatever point you are seeking to make.

    You are also avoiding every question the answer to which invalidates your theory.

    Allow me, please, to simply copy and repaste my last response to you.

    “Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization?” What? He was born in Hawaii.

    “What political opponents?” you ask? How about the conservative groups set on blocking his policy initiatives for the past six years?

    If the GOP were really in on this massive conspiracy that exists only within the fevered imaginations of Birthers, why are they so hostile to the president’s program? Why would they put a Manchurian Candidate in the White House and then devote all their energy into defeating his agenda?

  75. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 23, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes. What I meant by source was the original source, where the government got the information in the first place. For example, if they got it out of the newspaper, it’s no more probative than the newspaper. If they interviewed Obama Sr., then it’s less probative. If Wood visited the Obama’s in the hospital, it’s pure gold.

    Would there be a way to FOIA information regarding that memo?

  76. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 23, 2015 at 3:13 pm #

    Like ‘Come-Sit-On-Daddy’s-Lap’ Klayman saying, “We’ve hit the ‘Motherload?'” *g*

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes. What I meant by source was the original source, where the government got the information in the first place. For example, if they got it out of the newspaper, it’s no more probative than the newspaper. If they interviewed Obama Sr., then it’s less probative. If Wood visited the Obama’s in the hospital, it’s pure gold.

  77. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 23, 2015 at 3:22 pm #

    Fernando: Doctor, doctor, give him something for his cough.Commie martyr high school will never be the same.

    I need a gas station. Did I pass one?

  78. avatar
    bovril January 23, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

    So Svenny, first there is a Certificate of Naturalization, now there is also a cancellation of a Certificate of Naturalization, guess what, that means there are TWO publicly accessible, publicly searchable records fir you to provide.

    You remember, via the method and process I have provided you on a number of previous occasions, so off you trot Svenny, documents to search and wave under our noses.

    And no numident required, shuffle along Sven or do tell, why oh why can’t you do this, is it because these magical Certs and cancelled carts don’t exist, perchance…?

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

    Off hand I would think that anything related to the memo would have been a proper target for the original FOIA request. You could certainly request the information, but I think it highly unlikely that they would find anything more.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Would there be a way to FOIA information regarding that memo?

  80. avatar
    Fernando January 23, 2015 at 6:29 pm #

    Thomas Brown: I need a gas station.Did I pass one?

    No, no, but the fox did. Squeeze him right there, maybe he’ll pass another.

    How big a fan are you: That’s hot. I’m going to be nuked to death, and all I got on is Pam Jurgenson’s extra towel.

    Or even more obscure: My old army buddy, Jesus Retardo, beating off all the armies of the world with a cross in one hand and a switchblade in the other.

    But, hey, I think I’m starting to get a little off topic here.

  81. avatar
    John Reilly January 23, 2015 at 10:27 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s CLN and Certificate of Naturalization were cancelled by senior Bush administration officials in 2008. Since that time, the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia ruled the regulation used to void Obama’s CLN was arbitrary and capricious (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0E0B84A6A298A92385257A1B004EF146/$file/11-5010-1378147.pdf) and the regulation used to void Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization only effected the validation of the certificate and had no effect on his citizenship status as a naturalized U.S. citizen (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9835723v2.html).

    Obama’s NUMIDENT file with SSA proves Obama filed as a Permanent Resident Alien in 1977. Obama has not notified the SSA he naturalized as a US citizen in 1983. To prove to the SSA he naturalized in 1983, Obama will have to apply for a corrected Certificate of Naturalization with USCIS. Once a certified copy of the corrected certificate is provided to Obama, he can use that to prove to SSA he is a US citizen.

    The thread concerns admissibility of evidence. Doc asked if the news accounts of Obama’s birth were admissible into evidence.

    Sven argued that there had been a change to the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2011 which Sven argues is void. (Our colleague Sue, who actually is a lawyer, noted that the 2011 changes were cosmetic and not material.)

    So I then asked Sven to identify what pieces of evidence would have been admissible about Obama’s eligibility for office that became inadmissible by virtue of the 2011 change in the rules.

    Sven responded, well, it wasn’t really a response. It was a reference again to some government documents which Sven asserts exist, but which he has yet to take the time to obtain.

    So Sven, if you got Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization from the government (or if anyone got it: John, Nancy, etc.), is it now no longer admissible by virtue of the 2011 changes in the rules? It just seems to me, and IANAL, that a government document has probably always been admissible.

    What am I missing?

  82. avatar
    Lupin January 24, 2015 at 3:07 am #

    John Reilly: What am I missing?

    Amongst other things that Sven is purposefully and deliberately LYING.

    He got his *ss handed to him last time when he tried to claim that Obama was “naturalized” in 1983, when the record shows unambiguously that he went to Europe in 1980 or 1981 under a US passport.

    So at the very least, Sven should now claim Obama was “naturalized” in 1980. He knows this; yet he continues to claim a falsehood.

    Sven is a liar and a con artist; as someone wrote he is no more worthy of attention than Nancy or Linda.

  83. avatar
    The Magic M January 24, 2015 at 4:33 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama’s CLN and Certificate of Naturalization were cancelled by senior Bush administration officials in 2008.

    1. Yet somehow same officials had no problem with him running for Prez despite not even being a citizen according to your fairy tale.
    (Also, in your world, such cancellation would be null and void since it was obviously partisan and not based on the law.)

    2. Your statement is true since there never was a CLN/CoN (like the statement “All of Sven’s North Korean citizenships were renewed in 2014” is logically true).

    Still waiting for proof of your claim there ever was a CLN/CoN, though.

  84. avatar
    bovril January 24, 2015 at 9:03 am #

    I’ll maker even easier for you Svenny, look, here is where a idiot Birfoon like you has done EXACTLY what I have told you told, except in this case he got the paperwork for Marco Rubio’s father.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62055196/Rubio-Naturalization-Petition-CERTIFIED-from-National-Archives

    So, off you go and get that paperwork for Obama you swear exists, oh along with the cancellation you swear exists as well.

  85. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 24, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

    John Reilly: The thread concerns admissibility of evidence.Doc asked if the news accounts of Obama’s birth were admissible into evidence.

    Sven argued that there had been a change to the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2011 which Sven argues is void.(Our colleague Sue, who actually is a lawyer, noted that the 2011 changes were cosmetic and not material.)

    So I then asked Sven to identify what pieces of evidence would have been admissible about Obama’s eligibility for office that became inadmissible by virtue of the 2011 change in the rules.

    Sven responded, well, it wasn’t really a response.It was a reference again to some government documents which Sven asserts exist, but which he has yet to take the time to obtain.

    So Sven, if you got Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization from the government (or if anyone got it: John, Nancy, etc.), is it now no longer admissible by virtue of the 2011 changes in the rules?It just seems to me, and IANAL, that a government document has probably always been admissible.

    What am I missing?

    The FRCP and FRE Rules amendments voided after the installation of an ineligible President voids the procedural rules for prosecuting the case and not the evidence. The President appoints the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist of the United States holds all laws, rules, regulations in trust as evidence of law. Pursuant to the Appointments Clause, an appointment by an ineligible President voids the actions of the appointee. The laws, rules and regulations held in trust by the Archivist must be independently verified before they are used to prevent a complete investigation of the eligibility of the President. An audit by a law firm not associated with the US federal government will have to be preformed to verify the President’s eligibility and the evidence of law held in trust by the Archivist of the United States.

    Prior to the enactment of the Judiciary Act, allegations were made in a petition for a hearing before the court. Professionals admitted to practice before the court were considered honorable officers of the court. Therefore, the allegations made in the petition were considered to be true. The merit of the allegations as facts were determined at the end of trial.

    Furthermore, discovery was conducted in court before a judge. If the allegation was made that a defendant was a naturalized citizen and the plaintiff’s counsel demanded the defendant produced a certified copy of his naturalization certificate, then the judge would make reasonable inferences based upon the defendant’s answer.

    For example, the defendant may agree to produce his birth certificate and a newspaper announcement to prove he was born alive in the State of Hawaii. The judge may ask the defendant, “Do you have a certificate of naturalization issued to you by the United States? Yes or No?” When the defendant storms out of court yelling, “This is nothing more than a fishing expedition to get something on me!”, the judge may conclude additional witnesses from USCIS and SSA are needed to determine the merits of the allegations. Or the judge may conclude it is improbable a person born in the US has ever been issued a Certificate of Naturalization during their lifetime and dismiss the case.

    Currently, the FRCP and FRE are used to prevent discovery and a trial. When an allegation the President is ineligible is made, discovery and a trail are necessary to preserve the Constitutional republic.

  86. avatar
    John Reilly January 24, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    So let’s see.

    1. You did not answer the question.

    2. I checked my copy of the Constitution. It’s missing the clause providing for an investigation by an independent law firm. Will Dewey, Cheatum & Howe do, or did you have another firm in mind?

    3. If the defendant doesn’t storm out of your hypothetical court proceeding, but simply denies ever having a naturalization certificate, do you think the other side will have done the research you absolutely refuse to do?

  87. avatar
    bovril January 24, 2015 at 6:29 pm #

    So, Svenny,,care to respond around your wondrous tale of Barry, the Pirates and the Magical Certificate..?

  88. avatar
    John Reilly January 24, 2015 at 6:40 pm #

    Sven: You do mention the time before the passage of the Judiciary Act. A little research leads me to the Judiciary Act of 1789. So you mean what would have happened in Court if we had a Black President from Hawaii in 1788, right?

  89. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 24, 2015 at 7:07 pm #

    Sven, you seem to be under the impression that the law is just something you can make up as you go along, so long as you write long paragraphs… None of what you say is true.

    And as John Reilly points out, you still haven’t answered his question.

  90. avatar
    Keith January 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

    John Reilly: I checked my copy of the Constitution. It’s missing the clause providing for an investigation by an independent law firm. Will Dewey, Cheatum & Howe do, or did you have another firm in mind?

    You sir, are a Marxist Stooge!