MaineSkeptic wrote:
I don't understand this at all. The people who speak for the Department of Health can do nothing but attest to what the original form says.
It seems odd to say that the verification is independent of the document upon which the verification relies. A simple rephrasing would have solved the problem.
Remember all the brouhaha about Hawaii's verification procedure and how Orly totally misunderstood it? (Hint: it's a "yes or no" question.) It's an object lesson, I think, in understanding the distinctions that apply here.
So let's revisit it using a hypothetical:
1. A controversy arises in court as to whether Fergus Farkus was, in fact, born in the State of Frenzy in 1991. There's a BC floating around -- or maybe two or three BCs floating around -- and at least one of the parties suspects the BC(s) may be bogus.
2. One of the parties invokes the Frenetic Verification Procedure and asks the State of Frenzy whether ol' Ferg' was born in Frenzy in the year 1991.
3. The Pharaoh of Records (PoR) of the State of Frenzy provides this certified reply:
Quote:
"Yes, according to the official records of the State of Frenzy, Fergus Farkus was born in the State of Frenzy in the year 1991. Signed, stamped, sealed, etc."
4. The PoR's reply is introduced into evidence. At this point, the BCs in question become all but irrelevant because the State of Frenzy has attested to the essential
facts and this attestation is deemed authoritative pursuant to the full faith and credit clause. Moreover, the PoR's certification is "best evidence" of where and when Fergus was born. As such, it is superior to anything the BCs could add to the inquiry.
5. To defeat this strong presumption, the contesting party would have to prove contrary facts (most likely meeting the
clear and convincing evidence standard, depending upon the law of the forum).
What we're seeing in this case is more or less a simulation of this process. There's an exhibit attached that says, "Here's a BC that's been tendered online that would seem to indicate that the subject was born in Hawaii in 1961." Now then, let's ask the State of Hawaii whether the essential facts pertaining to place and date of birth are correct.
Bear with me please.
Let's jump to the instant case. Winding back to step #4, the important analogous step is this:
The court may take judicial notice of the fact that the State of Hawaii has already attested to these essential facts. (See references in a forum and form permitting judicial notice.)
The issue now is not the authenticity of the BC, but whether the opposing party can disprove the facts that the State of Hawaii has attested to.
BTW, it is not theoretically impossible to impeach facts in official records. But you can't do it by mere doubt or disbelief or by demonstrating flaws in the BC documents. It would take affirmative proof of contradictory facts. That's something the birfers can't do.
Login
Register
FAQ
I, for one, have no problem being led by a 3500 year old Pharaoh who was trained by space aliens on a distant star.
See, e.g., Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp.2d 1363, 1368 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Because of the alleged urgent nature of the request, the Court waived its local rule that requires counsel admitted pro hac vice to associate local counsel. It became apparent during the hearing on the motion that the Court's waiver of this local rule was a mistake as counsel abused her pro hac vice privileges.”) 
, Plaintiffs have attached as an exhibit to their complaint, a copy of the hearing transcript upon which the order rejecting all of Taitz’s so-called “evidence” was based.
I am also very impressed with the way the AG has handled the state's part.
She keeps saying that the entire eligibility issue isn't about race. She says it in interviews and writes it online.
](./images/smilies/brickwall.gif "brickwall")
