Simply put, a review of the record in my clients' above -captioned cases reveals no evidence of Defendant's place of birth and no evidence of Defendant's mother's citizenship at the time of Defendant's birth. My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of Defendant Obama's purported birth certificate in these cases.
@Irion and Hatfield conceded that he was born in Hawaii because the Minor 2 citizen parent theory is based on being born in the US. February 04, 2012
Welden did stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii:
“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. “
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga
So the judge had in front of him:
1. One plaintiff that stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. And entered a birthcertificate to that effect.
2. Did not submit any evidence to challenge that stipulation.
3. And the ravings of Orly Taitz.
Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Welden did stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii:
“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. “
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga
So the judge had in front of him:
1. One plaintiff that stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. And entered a birthcertificate to that effect.
2. Another plaintiff that did not submit any evidence to challenge that stipulation.
3. And the ravings of Orly Taitz.
Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?