[Harlan1196]

So why does Hatfield seem to have accepted that it was a valid stipulation? It was one of main reasons he wanted his case separated from Irion’s.

Perhaps Hatfield knows more about law then we do? Or are you saying he doesn’t understand what a legal stipulation is. I accept his competence as a lawyer.

[philman_36]

So why does Hatfield seem to have accepted that it was a valid stipulation?
Where has Hatfield done so?

Perhaps Hatfield knows more about law then we do?
I would hope so.

Or are you saying he doesn’t understand what a legal stipulation is.
Upon what basis do you presume that I am?

What does "considered" mean in Section II?

[philman_36]

Speaking of reading "ALL" of the documents in this case I direct you to this to dissuade you from your idiotic "stipulation" argument regarding Hatfield...
@Powell-Swensson vs. Obama, Attorney Hatfield's Letter Brief to Georgia Secretary of State Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

Snip...

Simply put, a review of the record in my clients' above-captioned cases reveals no evidence of Defendant's place of birth and no evidence of Defendant's mother's citizenship at the time of Defendant's birth. My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of Defendant Obama's purported birth certificate in these cases. (emphasis in original)

That was his letter after the hearing. Surely if Hatfield had made any "stipulations" before the hearing he would have stated so.