Obama's Birth Announcements Aren't Evidence Of Anything

Custom Search



Originals only -- no copies!



help fight the media




Items on this page archived in order of discovery.

They Ain't Evidence Of Nothin'

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.

Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved