can that decision be appealed to a cooperative jurist or bureaucrat and thereby avoid having Obama or his lawyers ever having to present any testimony or false evidence?
I don't know the specific procedure in Georgia. With that said, even under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the defense has no obligation to present any evidence unless the petitioner presents a prima facia case. This requires Oily Nuts to read the Georgia statute to determine the legal requirements to get on the ballot in Georgia and then show by a preponderance of the evidence that Obama fails to meet those standards. The best approach is to bring in an expert witness to raise doubt about the validity of Odumbo's Hawaiian BC in the hopes of convincing the judge to require the production of the original BC. Then -- and this is most important -- put in evidence concerning the citizenship of ODumbo's parents and Odumbos residency in Indonesia. Once the facts re in, present the legal argument that even if the court accepts the validity of the Hawaiian BC, as a matter of law, Odumbo is not a natural born citizen because Odumbo's father is a British subject and ODumbo gave up his US citizenship when he became a resident of Indonesia. The social security number is totally irrelevant unless Georgia law requires a valid social security number to get on the ballot.
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120125/frontpage-Obama.html
An excerpt.
"...The procedures of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings require the burden of proof to be placed upon the agency, in this case the secretary of state’s office (SOS).
But, because the SOS was only involved as a matter of procedure, Hatfield was requesting that the court properly place the burden of proof to lie either with the plaintiffs (i.e., to prove the defendant ineligible) or with the defendant (i.e., to prove himself eligible).
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states, in pertinent part, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President …”
Hatfield argued Georgia statute requires “Every candidate for federal … office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Citing Haynes v. Wells, Hatfield said the entire burden of proof is placed upon defendant “to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office,” and stated, “Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell are not required, and should not be required, ‘to disprove anything regarding [Defendant Obama’s] eligibility to run for office …’”
Referring to Jablonski’s argument in his motion to quash in Taitz’s challenge, Hatfield said he seemed “to somehow be contending that the fact defendant Obama currently occupies the presidency is, in itself, evidence of defendant Obama’s constitutional eligibility to that office.”
“On the contrary,” wrote Hatfield, citing Malone v. Minchew, "there is [no] presumption, at least not a conclusive presumption, that a person named or appointed to an office ... was eligible and qualified to hold the office. Such qualification or eligibility depends upon facts which, when challenged and drawn in question in a proper judicial proceeding, is a judicial question to be determined by the courts."
Hatfield also argued “basic fairness” would dictate the burden of proof should rest upon the individual seeking to qualify for the office being sought, not plaintiffs being placed in a position of trying to “prove a negative.”
Considering “[a]ll of the facts and evidence that one would naturally assume would be supportive of defendant's eligibility for office are in the possession and control of the defendant. Defendant should not be permitted to 'back his way into office' by withholding testimony and evidence which are necessary to a judicial determination of whether he is actually eligible to serve,” Hatfield said placing the burden of proof with Obama will assure he will necessarily put up his case for eligibility, or else be stricken from the Georgia ballot.
These three eligibility cases are the first to address Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president. "
-end snip-
What happens how?