On the contrary. It has been pointed out several times. One of the attorneys entered a copy of 0bama's birth certificate into evidence, using it to support that BHO Sr. wasn't a citizen. None of the other attorneys present objected.
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.
The fact that one of the attorneys entered a copy of Obama’s BC into evidence doesn’t mean a thing!! It could have been a crayon drawn BC for all the weight of factual evidence it carried as to Obama having been born in Hawaii!!!! It was NOT an original BC. And as long as originals are said to exist, only they can be presented as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. At least one of the plaintiff attorneys subpoenaed the original BC and Malihi ruled the subpoena must be honored. Had it been and an original brought to the court as evidence, Malihi could have used it for his factual claim that Obama was born in Hawaii.