All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision...

Natural Born Citizen ^ | February 3, 2012 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

[Mr Rogers]

“@What does “considered” mean?”

Since you obviously don’t know, I cannot help you. I suggest use of a dictionary, or perhaps a remedial English class.

[philman_36]

Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose.

Snip...The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.
That's all in one paragraph. Did you not read the whole paragraph?

[philman_36]

I'll paraphrase what you said up thread...

I didn't ask the question, Mario Apuzzo did.

[philman_36]

Let's get the whole thing in...

Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, (here is where you start the quote you posted with quotation marks, despite the sentence having started earlier than you've indicated) Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.
By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

What's that?! He decided the matter on the merits and not the merits and evidence? There must not have been any evidence since he states quite clearly that the matter was decided on the merits alone.

[philman_36]

BTW...
If I was the defendant, I’d be pretty happy. I’d have preferred the decision go the other way, but then, I’m not the defendant.
That reply in no manner addresses the question I asked.

Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant?

One of two choices...considered or decided, not @Yakety Yak, don't talk back.

[philman_36]

“None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony.

By deciding this matter on the merits...

[Mr Rogers]

“That reply in no manner addresses the question I asked. “

Yes, it does. You are just too stupid to figure it out.

[philman_36]

If that’s your story I suggest you stick with it.

[Mr Rogers]

That is right. The plaintiffs had such a terrible case that they lost without the defendant even offering an argument, or showing up.

Your beliefs have so little legal merit that you couldn’t win even when your side was the only one presenting ‘evidence’. That is pretty pathetic.

I wish Georgia had ruled Obama ineligible, but apparently your side has even less merit than I believed. How sad is that?

[philman_36]

Here's a clue...the Decision ends on page 3.

By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

Those are the last sentences on page 3.
Footnote 1 on page 2 is most interesting... This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell

Page 4 begins with...I. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al

Yep, decided on the merits of the arguments, not upon any evidence.

[philman_36]

Here's a clue...the Decision ends on page 3.
Well, technically, it's 10 pages long. Pages 1-3 and page 10 are the real important ones.

Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section II applies to all Plaintiffs.

[patlin]

As I've repeatedly said, until the 14th Amendment is corrected to mean born owing only one allegiance, and that being to the United States per the 1868 Expatriation Act, all efforts to uphold A2S1C5 are futile. One doesn’t clean up manure by spraying the area with deodorizer 1st. Until the manure is taken away, no deodorizer is going to have any lasting affect.

[philman_36]

What was it that you once told me about dicta?
Oh, yeah...

@The opinion IS dicta.

[LucyT]

Check out # 3 , # 4 , # 5.

Thanks,danamco.

SP Alert.

[LucyT]

Also check out Seizethecarp's comments on this thread.

.

[philman_36]

You say potato,
I say potato.
I say opinion,
Synonym of decision.

[Eastbound]

You mean there is a race horse without a head running loose at Sportsman's Park this week?

[freepersup]

SNIP >>> Their case was so weak <<<

... that the judge RUSHED the Plaintiff’s time to enter evidence into the court record, because of the pending default judgement.

You DO remember that exquisite bum rush technique don’t you?

[FARS]

FYI

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2012/02/iranian-origin-judge-rules-obama.html

[Mr Rogers]

You mean the evidence that he obviously concluded was being submitted by nuts?

When someone tries to argue that Minor gave a formal and exclusive definition of NBC, it is really hard to take them seriously. Frankly, the plaintiffs were doing fine until they tried to make arguments...