Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus

[bigrebnc1775]

Records?

Fallacy of equivocation. "Recording" not "record." Go grab a CD. That's a recording. The rule has nothing to do with public records. I've quoted the rule that deals with public records. You should read it.

I love the way to swept my reply away.

The only thing left to do is prove me wrong.

See, that's where you are wrong. You're looking up at the sky and saying it's yellow. It's your job to prove that. I don't have to disprove anything.

See, there's a major issue with your argument here. You are citing a rule that deals with writings, recordings, ect. For example, if I were in federal court and wanted or needed to prove that a company memo said such and such, I have to provide that memo. The rule you cite does not deal with things like public records.

Your case is further complicated by the fact that the rule immediately following the one you cited (rule 1003) explicitly states that duplicates are permissible, unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or under the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Your case becomes completely destroyed when we take a look at rule 1005, which actually deals with public records.

Rule 1005. Public Records

The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original.

Records?

Rule 1001. Definitions

For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:

(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.

(2) Photographs. "Photographs" include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.

OR
(3) Original. An "original" of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original".


(4) Duplicate. A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.
Federal Rules of Evidence (LII 2010 ed.)

And back to point A
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

TRY AGAIN

You are averting away from

"Writings" and "recordings" which as nothing to do with CD's

 

[gekaap]

TRY AGAIN
You are averting away from

"Writings" and "recordings"

The rule explicitly does not apply to public records, because a separate and distinct rule has been put forth to deal with public records.

Go read Rule 1005. Go read the notes to it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

TRY AGAIN

You are averting away from

"Writings" and "recordings"

The rule explicitly does not apply to public records, because a separate and distinct rule has been put forth to deal with public records.

Go read Rule 1005. Go read the notes to it.[/QUOTE]
I don't have to.
(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.

 

[gekaap]

I don't have to.

Of course not! You only have to demand evidence, you don't have to actually look at it.

NOTES TO RULE 1005

HISTORY:

(Jan. 2, 1975, P.L. 93-595, § 1, 88 Stat. 1946.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules.

Public records call for somewhat different treatment. Removing them from their usual place of keeping would be attended by serious inconvenience to the public and to the custodian. As a consequence judicial decisions and statutes commonly hold that no explanation need be given for failure to produce the original of a public record. McCormick § 204; 4 Wigmore §§ 1215-1228. This blanket dispensation from producing or accounting for the original would open the door to the introduction of every kind of secondary evidence of contents of public records were it not for the preference given certified or compared copies. Recognition of degrees of secondary evidence in this situation is an appropriate quid pro quo for not applying the requirement of producing the original.

 

[jillian]

What does this say?
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

Repeated to kill your repeated argument.

I know what it says, and I've explained how your allegation that Obama's BC would not meet the rule is false. A "certified copy" is legally and "original."

You keep repeating te same old thing. In a Federal court of law without an original the certified copy is worthless.

one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents

that isn't true. a "certified copy" is one which has been examined against an original in order to be certified. it is certified in order to take the place of the original.

in a federal court of law, or any other court, a certified copy is admissible evidence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know what it says, and I've explained how your allegation that Obama's BC would not meet the rule is false. A "certified copy" is legally and "original."

You keep repeating te same old thing. In a Federal court of law without an original the certified copy is worthless.

one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents

that isn't true. a "certified copy" is one which has been examined against an original in order to be certified. it is certified in order to take the place of the original.

in a federal court of law, or any other court, a certified copy is admissible evidence.

It true jillian
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

Without actual proof of the original the copy is worthless

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't have to.

Of course not! You only have to demand evidence, you don't have to actually look at it.

NOTES TO RULE 1005

HISTORY:

(Jan. 2, 1975, P.L. 93-595, § 1, 88 Stat. 1946.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules.

Public records call for somewhat different treatment. Removing them from their usual place of keeping would be attended by serious inconvenience to the public and to the custodian. As a consequence judicial decisions and statutes commonly hold that no explanation need be given for failure to produce the original of a public record. McCormick § 204; 4 Wigmore §§ 1215-1228. This blanket dispensation from producing or accounting for the original would open the door to the introduction of every kind of secondary evidence of contents of public records were it not for the preference given certified or compared copies. Recognition of degrees of secondary evidence in this situation is an appropriate quid pro quo for not applying the requirement of producing the original.

What you are missing is the rule was expanded to other forms of documentations.
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

 

[gekaap]

What you are missing is the rule was expanded to other forms of documentations.
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

You are talking about things you know nothing about. Rule 1001 does not apply to public records. Go ask any lawyer you want, you will be told exactly what I am telling you here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What you are missing is the rule was expanded to other forms of documentations.
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

You are talking about things you know nothing about. Rule 1001 does not apply to public records. Go ask any lawyer you want, you will be told exactly what I am telling you here.

Yes it does.
I showed you the legal definition of the words and usages.

Rule 1001. Definitions

For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:

(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.
(2) Photographs. "Photographs" include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.

OR
(3) Original. An "original" of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original".


(4) Duplicate. A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.
Federal Rules of Evidence (LII 2010 ed.)

And back to point A
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.
What in the hell is "or other form of data compilation" "Duplicate. A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original" . If they aren't talking about things such as birth records death records marriage records?

What in the hell is this

(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.

 

[rightwinger]

AZ Gov, Jan Brewer just vetoed the so-called 'birther bill' and another bill which would have allowed guns on college campuses. What will the birfers hang their hopes on now?

Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus

PHOENIX - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed two controversial bills passed by both the Arizona Senate and House -- the guns on campus bill and the 'birther' bill.

Guns on Campus Bill

- Would've allowed guns to be carried on public rights of way at public university and community college campuses
- Applies only to rights of way -- not inside classrooms
- University presidents opposed the bill

'Birther' Bill

- Would've required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state's ballot
- Arizona would've become the first state to require such proof

I have never respected Brewer but it is good to see there is someone from the right to keep the radical Arizona right wing in check

 

[gekaap]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/82346-altering-quotes.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/82346-altering-quotes.html

 

[Luissa]

im pissed about the gun thing. being armed is a right.

Going to school and not having to worry about your classmate being armed is also someone else's right.

That is what you morons forget. I want the right to be able to go to school, and not worry about some dumb asshole twenty year old carrying a gun. Just sayin.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The neg you got was well deserved for editing my reply.

 

[gekaap]

The neg you got was well deserved for editing my reply.

So, on to the point. Explain rule 1005, considering your theory.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The neg you got was well deserved for editing my reply.

So, on to the point. Explain rule 1005, considering your theory.

You are a dishonest hack

 

[gekaap]

You are a dishonest hack

HA! That's rich, coming from you. So you're conceding that you cannot rectify the contradiction that your theory would create.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a dishonest hack

HA! That's rich, coming from you. So you're conceding that you cannot rectify the contradiction that your theory would create.

I have never eited your post. you have proven how dishonest you can be.

 

[gekaap]

I have nevr eited your post. you have proven how dishonest you can be.

Nearly every post you make, you are dishonestly reframing what people say, what laws say, and anything that does not conform to your idiotic positions. You are doing it right here, with this nonsense about rule 1001 prohibiting certified copies of birth certificates. You won't even address rule 1005 because you know that the theory you are presenting is false, and yet you continue to propagate it. That is what makes YOU a liar. Doubly a liar that you complain about your own words being misrepresented.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have nevr eited your post. you have proven how dishonest you can be.

Nearly every post you make, you are dishonestly reframing what people say, what laws say, and anything that does not conform to your idiotic positions. You are doing it right here, with this nonsense about rule 1001 prohibiting certified copies of birth certificates. You won't even address rule 1005 because you know that the theory you are presenting is false, and yet you continue to propagate it. That is what makes YOU a liar. Doubly a liar that you complain about your own words being misrepresented.

I don't edit post you are dishonest move aong

 

[washamericom]

What you are missing is the rule was expanded to other forms of documentations.
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1) and (2), supra.

You are talking about things you know nothing about. Rule 1001 does not apply to public records. Go ask any lawyer you want, you will be told exactly what I am telling you here.

a combination of events will be sufficient to authenticate a letter which .... It is in the discretion of the trial judge as to whether it will apply ... Rule 1001(3): An original of a writing includes not only the writing itself but ... E. Public Documents: Rule 1005. 1. May be proved by a certified copy ...