To: philman_36
“Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant? “
He CONSIDERED an argument made by the plaintiffs. He rejected it, writing:
“CONCLUSION
President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012.”
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.
Remember, in the previous section of his decision, the judge wrote, “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”
36 posted on
02/04/2012 12:22:34 PM PST by
Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
To: Mr Rogers
38 posted on
02/04/2012 12:26:59 PM PST by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Mr Rogers
The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born.
39 posted on
02/04/2012 12:29:57 PM PST by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Mr Rogers; Doc Conspiracy
Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obamas 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 Plaintiffs allegations. Surely, the court did not use those insufficient documents as evidence of Obamas 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 anyones 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?
42 posted on
02/04/2012 12:37:41 PM PST by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Mr Rogers
BTW...
If I was the defendant, Id be pretty happy. Id have preferred the decision go the other way, but then, Im 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.
45 posted on
02/04/2012 1:27:20 PM PST by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Mr Rogers
None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. By deciding this matter on the merits...
46 posted on
02/04/2012 1:29:47 PM PST by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson