He explicitly rejects Orly’s evidence. Nowhere does he explicitly reject the other plaintiffs evidence. A reasonable assumption is that he accepted it. But in any case, the judge explicitly.rejected their legal argument. They both tried to.show.that Obama’s father was not.a US citizen. The judge thought that because of Ankeny that fact was irrelevant. No evidence in the world.will fix a fundamentally flawed legal argument.
Nowhere does he explicitly ACCEPT the other plaintiffs evidence. The alleged birth certificate would be the same no matter who entered it as evidence. Orly was the last attorney to present her case, yet hers was the first to be addressed in the judge’s decision. It makes ZERO sense to reject ALL of her evidence but accept the same evidence simply because it was presented by a different attorney, and especially when the judge NEVER references ANY evidence leading to a conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii. Ankeny never declared where Obama was born, so Malihi did NOT get it from that decision.