Replies

The facts before the Georgia court were pretty simple - some of the plaintiffs submitted the COLB and agreed that 0bama was born in Hawaii. Once that is agreed, the judge is going to follow over 100 years of precedent, and rule him natural born. Anyone who thinks differently is allowing his wishes to corrupt his thinking process.

And yet we are told the facts submitted in one case, do not bind a separate case, which Orly's was. Given that the authenticity of the image file downloaded from the Internet was disputed as proof in Orly's case, (the third of three) How can evidence submitted in the first two cases, affect the determination of fact in the third case?

Say what you will about how the law works, but you cannot dispute this inconsistency in the ruling. It isn't proof unless it is authenticated by the certifying Authority. An Image file is proof of nothing. Since a certified copy of the original didn't show up, the judge should not have claimed a fact not in evidence.