[sometime lurker]

You really think that any court has even considered the facts? Lawyers are less than pond scum.

Lawyers have argued (and won) District of Columbia v Heller, and McDonald v Chicago. Justice Scalia, for whom I have great respect, was a lawyer before his appointment as a Judge. So lawyers can be helpful or a complete road block.

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.

[Para-Ord.45]

Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment :

” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

Keep your penumbras and emanations that also say the right to kill babies is also written there in the Constitution.

[philman_36]

So what say you?
@Is Jack Ryan trying to punk people or just get more hits?
You have looked into @what I told you, haven't you.
Isn't "Jack Ryan" the screen name of the person who posted to Scribd what you linked?

[itsahoot]

Once that is agreed, the judge is going to follow over 100 years of precedent,

There in lies the problem. The idiot that can look up another idiot's decision can use that to substitute for common sense and rule of law, not men, the very thing that the Founders feared. If the crook you hire is too dumb to look up a dumb precedent that is in your favor, well then you lose, that is Justice? Nope just the lawyers way.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.