When one plaintiff stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii, the second does no challenge Obama’s birthplace and the third blows up her case in a spectacular manner, I don’t think the judge is going to spend much time pondering Obama’s birthplace. Especially since Irion and Hatfield were challenging Obama’s eligibility due to his father’s birthplace. The judge rejected their NBC = two citizen parents argument.
And lets not forget that the burden of proof was much less stringent then a criminal trial. The judge simply had to think that the evidence and testimony presently indicated that it was “likely” that Obama was born in Hawaii.
They didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility due to his father’s birthplace, but due to his father’s CITIZENSHIP. And again, the judge can’t arbitrarily decide a piece of evidence is good in one case but not in another. Either the alleged birth certificate has probative value or it doesn’t. Since no CERTIFIED certificate was shown in court, it CAN’T have probative value. The judge’s rejection of the two citizen parent argument has no legal foundation. The court’s job is to say what the law is, not what he thinks it should be by playing connect the dots.