Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. Dismiss at 8-9. The other Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases contest all these facts.
Plaintiff Welden makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, with the one exception of the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.
If you can't see why each of these cases should have been decided separately, as one Plaintiff's counsel had been informed they would be, then I simply can't help you.
@Mark Hatfield response to Kemp Decision
Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.
Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?
He didn't "rule" that he was born in Hawaii, he "considered" that he was born in Hawaii.
You have to play the hand you are dealt. Hatfield had a default judgment in hand and threw it away. The judge was going to recommend that Obama be taken off the ballot - hubris and legal incompetence is a bad combination.