Irion was the only attorney in that case and he presented the evidence. How do you stipulate that the facts in your own evidence are correct? Stipulations are for those who DIDN’T present the evidence, and Obama did not stipulate in court that the facts on the “birth certificate” were accurate. None of the other attorneys were a party in his case so they didn’t even have an opportunity to contest it, as you well know.
Furthermore, where is that birth certificate right now, that Irion submitted? When did Malihi see and feel the seal on it? When did Irion validate the chain of custody - explain how he got that certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate, and who all had had custody of it before him?
Malihi invalidated Orly’s “expert witnesses” because they were not properly certified. And he argued that even a paper copy of a Passport Office document was not legally probative. So tell me what steps either Irion or Malihi did to authenticate any birth certificate for Obama that was presented as evidence. Show me in the procedure where the provenance of the document, the custody of it, the authenticating features such as a raised seal, etc were dealt with at that hearing.
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, when you enter a document into evidence, you are agreeing as to its validity unless you state at the time to the contrary. In this situation, Irion was using the certificate to make his case.
So at least one plaintiff agreed to the validity with no objections from the other attorneys present as to the validity of the document. Perhaps one of the freeper lawyers could enlarge upon this?
On the other hand, the rules are that expert witnesses must be certified as expert.