By Sterngard Friegen
Since Taitz no longer can use the thoroughly debunked Kenyan fake birth certificates, her case has become one of “questioning” the identity of President Obama. But “raising questions” does not constitute proof. Taitz said in an interview after the hearing that her role was to “raise reasonable doubt.” Raise “reasonable doubt” about what? President Obama’s identity? That his social security number was wrongly issued? That his selective service number no longer returns his name if people illegally access his files on the social security website?
In quantifying the burden of persuasion, most lawyers and appellate decisions agree that if a case needs to be proven to a “preponderance,” it means just slightly more than 50% of the evidence must demonstrate the facts needed to prove the issue. In trying to quantify the “beyond a reasonable doubt” rule, while exact numbers are difficult, we’re talking about evidence that proves underlying facts in at least the 97-98% range. So, what Taitz is saying is she only has to smear enough shit on the record to show there is a 2-3% chance her facts are right.
Of course, Taitz has no competent, relevant admissible evidence at all. Her “evidence” does not move the fact-meter in any respect at all. But she also completely misconstrues what her burden of persuasion is. It is to adduce evidence which moves the meter 50.1% — by a preponderance — not to raise “reasonable doubt” and move the evidence maybe 2-3%.
Just as Taitz misunderstands the burden of persuasion, she also misunderstands what her role is as an advocate. Her role is not to raise “suspicions” so that somebody else — appointed and directed by the tribunal — will do the real work and investigate and prove the facts, her job is to do the real work and perform the investigation to prove the issue.
It is based on Taitz’s total misunderstanding of what court and hearing officers do, and her role in that process that leads to her utter incompetence and total failure on every level in every hearing she participates in. That’s what happened with her car wreck in Atlanta.
From Butterfly Bilderberg, also at The Fogbow:
And to elaborate on Stern’s incisive analysis … This underscores why Jablonski’s refusal to attend the hearing was a brilliant strategic move. He KNEW from reading the plaintiff’s complaints and PTOs what evidence they would have to produce at the hearing as a factual predicate for each case. Hatfield sent Jablonski a Notice to Produce the LFBC, so Jablonski KNEW that a birth certificate would be introduced. He KNEW that Iron and Hatfield would need to offer a birth certificate to establish that Obama’s father was African-born. Orly attempted to subpoena Jablonski’s client and summon him to bring his birth records, so Jablonski KNEW that a birth certificate was necessary to her case.
He also KNEW that since the plaintiffs would be introducing some iteration of the birth certificate, he didn’t need to be there to … introduce the birth certificate. Moreover, by not appearing, the plaintiffs would be forced to offer non-certified copies of images downloaded from the Internet. They would not have the benefit of the raised-seal paper document. He deprived them of the authentication — the thing that makes the document an exception to the hearsay rule.
Mr. Kemp advised Jablonski that if failed to show, it would be at his peril. Jablonski assessed the peril in light of what he KNEW the plaintiffs would be required to offer in order to meet their respective burdens of persuasion, and rightly concluded there was none.
Brilliant, I tells ya.
Continue reading »
