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.
“Otherwise provided by law” - would that be, for instance, the state laws which say that a birth certificate is only probative if it has the raised seal and certifying statement? Or the Act of Congress which codified the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution by saying that one state is required to accept the acts and records of another state when those acts and records are submitted having the certifying statement and raised seal to prove their genuineness?
So that if a document was submitted without those things the law would require them to be REJECTED as non-genuine.
IOW, vital records are required by LAW to be genuinely certified in order to be probative. Where there isn’t a law about it - say, for instance, if you were talking about evidence regarding forgery, somebody failing e-verify, somebody actually refusing to appear in court as ordered and submit to that court a record they claimed they had 2 certified copies of.... that kind of stuff would go under the “preponderance of the evidence” rule. Which Malihi didn’t obey, because he simply ignored all that stuff.
But the one thing hewas REQUIRED BY LAW to reject was a non-certified vital record. And that is what he presumed to be true.
Bass-ackwards.
And extremely DANGEROUS.
Also, Harlan, I’ve noticed that you’ve not answered some very critical questions:
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Taitz case, and if so using what probative evidence?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Irion case, and if so using what probative evidence?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Hatfield case, and if so using what probative evidence?
If Irion had presented the online Kenyan BC and stipulated it as accurate, and Obama conceded the truth of it by his failure to show up or contest that evidence, would Malihi have been required to accept the Kenyan BC as probative?
I really hate lawyerly two-steps, and I’m not going to waste any more time with you unless and until you answer those questions. Everybody here can see you’re avoiding those questions like the plague, and I’d bet that most people know exactly why you’re avoiding them.
The same reason Obama avoided appearing in court even though he had nothing on his schedule for that day and had been ordered to appear.