Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus

[SgtMeowenstein]

so asking that a person who RUNS for President of our country to show PROOF they are a Natural Born citizen is EXTREME?

That must be in the same category as it's EXTREME to ask that voters have a legitimate ID to vote.

So, a COLB is not proof enough, but a circumcision certificate is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so asking that a person who RUNS for President of our country to show PROOF they are a Natural Born citizen is EXTREME?

That must be in the same category as it's EXTREME to ask that voters have a legitimate ID to vote.

So, a COLB is not proof enough, but a circumcision certificate is?

It's worthless unles it has a original with it.

Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
Only two people have supposedly seen the original

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

so asking that a person who RUNS for President of our country to show PROOF they are a Natural Born citizen is EXTREME?

That must be in the same category as it's EXTREME to ask that voters have a legitimate ID to vote.

So, a COLB is not proof enough, but a circumcision certificate is?

It's worthless unles it has a original with it.

Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
Only two people have supposedly seen the original

Worthless? The COLB is only recognized by every state and fed agency. Yeah, it's worthless alright.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so asking that a person who RUNS for President of our country to show PROOF they are a Natural Born citizen is EXTREME?

That must be in the same category as it's EXTREME to ask that voters have a legitimate ID to vote.

So, a COLB is not proof enough, but a circumcision certificate is?

I want to see Sarah Palin produce that!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, a COLB is not proof enough, but a circumcision certificate is?

It's worthless unles it has a original with it.

Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002
Only two people have supposedly seen the original

Worthless? The COLB is only recognized by every state and fed agency. Yeah, it's worthless alright.

Federal rule for evidence is worthless? How does that go again? Is it Federal law does not over rule state law or is it state law does not over rule federal law?

 

[gekaap]

Federal rule for evidence is worthless? How does that go again? Is it Federal law does not over rule state law or is it state law does not over rule federal law?

1. Do you know what rules of evidence are? The federal rules of evidence apply inside federal court rooms. They are procedural matters in federal court. That's about it.

2. A certified copy is a legal document which suffices as an original for all legal purposes. Thus, even under the federal rules of evidence, the BC Obama owns and has shown to the world would work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Federal rule for evidence is worthless? How does that go again? Is it Federal law does not over rule state law or is it state law does not over rule federal law?

1. Do you know what rules of evidence are? The federal rules of evidence apply inside federal court rooms. They are procedural matters in federal court. That's about it.

2. A certified copy is a legal document which suffices as an original for all legal purposes. Thus, even under the federal rules of evidence, the BC Obama owns and has shown to the world would work.

I've post the rules, procede. I'll do it again
Federal Rules of Evidence
main pagesearch|evidence overview

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules.

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.

Federal Rules of Evidence - Notes to Rule 1002

 

[gekaap]

There ya go. When someone says something you can't argue with, just repeat your previous comments to try to start over again, hoping that this time you'll avoid the brick wall into which you ran.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There ya go. When someone says something you can't argue with, just repeat your previous comments to try to start over again, hoping that this time you'll avoid the brick wall into which you ran.

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.

 

[gekaap]

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."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

 

[geauxtohell]

What a ******* stupid *****.

Ah, and you were so excited too!

Another crushing defeat for idiot birthers.

How does it feel to be a perpetual loser?

 

[geauxtohell]

so asking that a person who RUNS for President of our country to show PROOF they are a Natural Born citizen is EXTREME?

That must be in the same category as it's EXTREME to ask that voters have a legitimate ID to vote.

No. Asking for them to show proof above and beyond the legal standard is ridiculous.

Obama has shown proof he is a "Natural Born Citizen". Simply because you refuse to accept the legal standard of proof doesn't change a damn thing. The world will keep on going without ya.

 

[gekaap]

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

I'm not sure if it's funny or just sad that you actually believe that. Actually, I am sure. It's funny. Something that funny just couldn't be sad.

You're so damn ignorant. You talk and think you actually know something. But you haven't the first clue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

I'm not sure if it's funny or just sad that you actually believe that. Actually, I am sure. It's funny. Something that funny just couldn't be sad.

You're so damn ignorant. You talk and think you actually know something. But you haven't the first clue.

The only thing left to do is prove me wrong.

 

[Gadawg73]

I suspect she will not be reelected.

We had a Governor in Georgia that was not re-elected for doing the right thing.
He gave in to integration against the wishes of the electorate.
The problem we have now are politicians that think about re-election only and will do the wrong thing to get elected.
She did the right thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I suspect she will not be reelected.

We had a Governor in Georgia that was not re-elected for doing the right thing.
He gave in to integration against the wishes of the electorate.
The problem we have now are politicians that think about re-election only and will do the wrong thing to get elected.
She did the right thing.

I still don't grasp it, what is wrong with showing the long form BC? When the short form looks like swiss chesse with all the holes.

 

[gekaap]

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. Thus, you haven't even provided anything to support your claim.

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

 

[gekaap]

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.