[Tau Food]

The judge will hear Obama's testimony that he was born in Hawaii, he will read the birth certificate, he will note that no one is providing any evidence to the contrary and the judge will find, ten times out of ten, that all of the evidence points to Hawaii as the birthplace and that there exists no evidence to the contrary.

That's the way it works.

You have lots of additional questions, but as your legal experience develops, you will learn that with every piece of evidence, more questions can always be asked and you can always make things just as convoluted and confusing for yourself as you wish.

The rules of evidence are designed to force the parties to present evidence rather than more questions. The purpose of these rules is to enable a finder of fact to rationally separate what is true from what is false (or conjecture) in an orderly, disciplined way.

I think you should try to reconcile yourself to the truth. If your desires are impeding you from accepting the truth, then just try to quit thinking about this issue. It's already been resolved by other people and there is nothing left for you to actually do. In other words, if you cannot accept the truth, then at least accept that it doesn't matter whether or not you accept it. It's over.

[Fantasywriter]

You’re like a frightened child. You had no idea how little actual evidence supports one of lying Obama’s many claims about his birth location. When you see even the tip of the iceberg, you run back to the safe confines of your happy judge and courtroom. If you can just confine this discussion to legalities, you won’t have to confront reality. After all, the courtroom is safe, and reality is scary.

SMH.