reply to post by Lessinterested
A judge decides which evidence can or can't be included so if she has presented the same evidence over and over again, yet that evidence has been
proven to be a hoax, the judge w/shouldn't have permitted the evidence.
Furthermore, prosecutors the nation over, try cases sometimes five times with the same faulty evidence, yet where is the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals then? Corporations (i.e Monsanto) bring defendants to litigation all of the time based on little to no evidence, yet were are the courts to
"punish" these frivilous suits?
The point here, is that entities and attorneys bring frivolous lawsuits all of the time with not one single person yelping a word, except the scorned
victims. Moving along, it is a judge who decides the merit of a lawsuit and whether it can or can't go forward, based upon the law. This same
standard for evidence presented therein.
reply to post by whatukno
Look, I'm not arguing the authenticity of the BC form presented by the Obama Administration. Rather, I'm arguing that this same form wouldn't be
accepted at the DMV. The DMV in most, if not all, states doesn't consider this type of Birth Certificate to be satisfactory relieving the BC
requirement because it is not considered proof for which state you were born in.
How do I know this? Because just last year, I too tried to use that form to get a simple state ID. I have my military retirement ID, VA ID and another
state's drivers license, yet all of these forms were not good enough, if I didn't have an actual Birth Certificate. Not the Birth Certificate form,
but an actual certificate (the pretty kind). There is a difference between the two. On the form presented by Obama, it is basically the state saying
that he has a birth certificate, it is not a copy of the certificate itself. The issue of whether his certificate form is authentic or not, is really
irrelevant to the argument presented.
Furthermore, it might be a little presumptuous to assume something as fact because Factcheck.org or even snopes says so. I would hope that you are
more astute than to put this kind of trust in any media outlet. It could be quite dangerous to allow any political entity to be the end-all
With that being said, I'm not really arguing against what either one of those outlets have to say about the issue, though it is the wrong argument
for this debate.