How can a judge offer to say that Obama is not eligible and then, on the basis of anything other than actual evidence to support the change, all of a sudden say instead that Obama is definitely eligible? Obama added no evidence so what would justify the change in his decision?
I should not have responded to this post of yours because I am still waiting for you to answer:
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Irion case, and if so what probative evidence did he present?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Hatfield case, and if so what probative evidence did he present?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Taitz case, and if so what probative evidence did he present?
To qualify as probative evidence according to Full Faith and Credit standards Malihi had to see a paper document with the proper certifying statement and the legally-prescribed raised seal. When in that hearing was Malihi handed a paper birth certificate with those authenticating marks? When did he certify the provenance of the document, including the chain of custody?
Irion and Hatfield challenged Obama’s eligibility on one issue - that Obama’s father was not a US citizen. They didn't challenge Obama’s citizenship so it was not an issue to be address in court. Irion stipulated that Obama was citizen and Hatfield did not present evidence challenging Obama’s citizenship.
If the copy of Obama’s BC was good enough for the plaintiffs then it was good enough for Obama. Either it was accepted as true or it was not - since it was central to Irion’s case, he stipulated that it was true accurate and the judge therefore accepted it as true and accurate.
I think you are making up the requirement that the BC had to have a proper certifying statement and the legally-prescribed raised seal to be considered probative evidence. Can you provide a specific legal citation from the Georgia legal code?
As for Orly, she was so incompetent that she destroyed her own case.