HA! That’s exactly what some Obot argued regarding Royce Lamberth’s refusal to address Orly’s cited precedents regarding his sanction of her. The poster here said that he couldn’t address Orly’s cited cases because they weren’t Georgia cases; that he could only use GEORGIA precedents.
I’m not defending Orly’s competence; she’s obviously made some pretty bad mistakes. But if she’s incompetent for making that argument then so is the Obot who was arguing with me about that very point.
Malihi was wrong, though, to say that his decision was based on only the evidence presented at the hearing and the law. Ankeny is not law. And the opinion expressed by the judge in that case was not even binding in any way, since it was associated with a case that was dismissed because there WAS NO case. If Malihi was going to base his decision on the law he had to go to legally-binding decisions regarding the definition of “natural born citizen”.
But the whole thing was a sad joke anyway because he had to legally determine the FACTS of the case before he could rule on how the law applies to those facts, and he had no probative evidence of any facts. He even stated that what he had was his BELIEF regarding the facts - which he would have had no need to say if he had acutally had any probative evidence of those “facts” he believed.
The law that Malihi was asked by Brian Kemp to apply is the Georgia statute that says that a candidate on the ballot MUST BE QUALIFIED for the position they seek. Malihi ruled that Obama was qualified, even though the only evidence of that was an internet image of disputed provenance and genuineness (having no raised seal on it as required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution), and in spite of official records from 2 vital records offices (the Passport Office and social security’s e-verify) which indicated problems with Obama’s records and claims.
Really, really dangerous decision.
And while Ankeny may not be law, the core of Ankeny is law - the WKA Supreme Court decision. Pick your poison - you still end up at the same place.
Lets not forget that the legal burden of proof was: “more probable than not.” If Orly had not botched her case so badly, then perhaps some doubt could have been cast on the birth certificate. But all the judge had was a plaintiff provided BC and a stipulation of fact.
The plaintiffs should have accepted the default judgment.
BTW - you keep saying that the BC needed a raised seal on it as required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Can you cite some actual regulations or case law?