“You said: “But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States.””
No, I did not. Mario Apuzzo wrote that. And he was being either dishonest or stupid.
In the section discussing the requirement to be a NBC, the judge wrote, “For the purpose of this section’s analysis, the following facts are considered: 1)Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama’s father was never a United States citizen.
Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the timeof his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.”
Having reviewed the evidence (or lack thereof) for Obama being born out of country in section 1, the judge now dealt with the complaint that stipulated that Obama was born in the US, but that he was still disqualified. The judge merely repeated what the plaintiff had agreed to beforehand, and then discussed why NBC would still apply to Obama (using the Indiana decision & WKA).
But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law.
Truly sad!