I don’t care what the plaintiffs did or didn’t do. What matters is what the judge decided, and he decided that Obama was born in Hawaii based on nothing more than an internet image. Dangerous, dangerous precedent, and he and everybody else needs to be made to FEEL IN THEIR GUTS just how dangerous that really is.
I’d like Malihi or any other judge who would accept this standard to face the prospect of a 3-year-old legally performing brain surgery on them because of that standard.
For that matter, I’d like you to face that same prospect so you can fully appreciate the enormity of what you are claiming.
This is from the Georgia ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE:
“(4) Unless otherwise provided by law, the standard of proof on all issues in a hearing shall be a preponderance of the evidence.”
The definition of preponderance of the evidence is:
“The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[4] described it simply as “more probable than not.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence
That strikes me as a very low legal bar to hit. The cumulative effect of the birth certificate plus stipulation of fact plus no effect challenge to his place of birth certainly meets the “more probable than not.” standard.