Obots are always pointing to the two "birth announcements" from
Honolulu newspapers (
images
here) as evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth.
As
anyone who has ever had a birth, wedding, or death in the
family, knows, the information in those announcements are sent
to newspapers by the family, or agents of the family. They
do not originate from government agencies, hospitals, churches
or synagogues, although they may originate with political
campaigns.
Beyond questions about the source of the Obama
birth announcements being his family, probably grandmother
Madelyn, there is a question about the law to consider.
Could those microfilm/fiche copies (nobody has ever seen the
original newsprint copies) from 50-year old newspapers be
allowed as evidence in a court of law?
So, as a civilian, I
asked an attorney (actually two), if one must posses and present
the original newsprint copy of those "birth announcements" for
them to be admitted into evidence.
This attorney,
practicing in a mid-western state, and in the federal courts,
pointed to the
Federal Rules of Evidence 1002 -- Requirement of Original:
"To prove the content of a writing,
recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording,
or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in
these rules or by Act of Congress."
In simple terms, one must posses and present the
original newsprint copy of those "birth announcements" for them
to be admitted into evidence. Conclusion -- those
microfilm/fiche copies would not be admissible in a court of
law.
This rule would also apply to Obama's Certification
of Live Birth (COLB). Under 1002, Obama's original
long-form birth certificate would be required as evidence to
prove his birth.
In the opinion of this attorney, the
courts don't want to be put in the position of demanding Obama's
long-form birth certificate, and are putting up smoke and
mirrors because they know it would prove him ineligible.
This attorney says:
"If I was a judge, I would not rule
on anything in this matter, because I could be held as a
co-conspirator when the truth comes out. This is worse than
Chester Arthur's
cover-up
and is more documented."
There's the answer to why 80+ cases have been
dismissed without hearing any testimony, or examining any
evidence, and why Justice Thomas
said, "We're evading that one," when questioned about the
presidential eligibility issue in a formal Congressional session
There's always a simple answer -- even to the most complex
question.
