Irion and Hatfield challenged Obama’s eligibility on one issue - that Obama’s father was not a US citizen. They didn't challenge Obama’s citizenship so it was not an issue to be address in court. Irion stipulated that Obama was citizen and Hatfield did not present evidence challenging Obama’s citizenship.
If the copy of Obama’s BC was good enough for the plaintiffs then it was good enough for Obama. Either it was accepted as true or it was not - since it was central to Irion’s case, he stipulated that it was true accurate and the judge therefore accepted it as true and accurate.
I think you are making up the requirement that the BC had to have a proper certifying statement and the legally-prescribed raised seal to be considered probative evidence. Can you provide a specific legal citation from the Georgia legal code?
As for Orly, she was so incompetent that she destroyed her own case.
A paper passport application from the Passport Office, which came as the result of a lawsuit that is in the public record - including the document itself within that public record - was dismissed by Malihi is being non-probative.
That document is as close to certified as you’re ever gonna get without an actual raised seal and certifying statement on it, and yet Malihi rejected it. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution says that the acts and records of a state have to be given full faith and credit from other states’ judiciaries when properly authenticated according to the standards that Congress would set; Congress set the standard as having the proper raised seal and certifying statement.
If Malihi rejected that document that is certified within the record of an actual court case - which seems to me to be an even HIGHER evidentiary standard Malihi used for that document than the Full Faith and Credit Clause allows - then good luck trying to pass off a supposed vital record that’s not even on paper.
Somebody sent me a computer image of a Columbia University student ID for Obama, saying he was a foreign student. If Irion had given that computer image, or the Kenyan BC, or any number of other computer images, and had stipulated that they were factual evidence, would Malihi be legally bound to accept them as probative - as you’re claiming he had to do for the internet image that Irion DID offer?
The claims you are making would be totally laughable if we weren’t dealing with people using the same logic in US courts as are used to stone women to death in Iran without a scrap of evidence except some elusive, hidden, non-scrutinizable “judge’s knowledge”.
I am not ready to bow to sharia standards and it sickens me that you seem more than ready to do just that.