Show me from the transcript where Irion certified any birth certificate as evidence, above and beyond anything Orly did with the documents she submitted.
Malihi gave no reason for rejecting the written evidence submitted by Orly. He merely said it was not probative. ON what basis? He never bothered to say why he rejected the probative value of each piece of evidence.
Nor did he EVER cite any probative document as the source for his “belief” or “consideration” that Obama was born in Hawaii. If he was making the case that you claim he’s making, then point out to me what words he used to actually make the case that there was a probative “birth certificate” which proved Obama’s birth facts. Quote me the words from his decision where he claims that; that would be the CENTRAL claim of his entire decision so it should be pretty easy to find.
Provide that, and then we can talk. Without it, you’ve got no leg to stand on.
Malihi’s statement that he “considered” Obama to be born in Hawaii and it being his “belief” that Obama was born in Hawaii are admissions that he has nothing besides “judge’s knowledge” to substantiate what he is claiming.
If you have a problem with me bringing up the whole “judge’s knowledge” standard that Malihi used in this decision, take it up with Malihi. Maybe you can get him to explain what probative evidence from the record he based his “belief” and “consideration” on.
What was Plaintiff’s exhibit 1 in Welden v Obama?
Transcript here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb
“At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses 2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the
testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)—(9). The weight
to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10). The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’
allegations. 3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or
fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of
their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved). None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”
If she had properly qualified her experts then her evidence would have been ok.
Obama’s birthplace was not an issue for Hatfield and Irion. They contended that Obama was ineligible because of his father. Obama did not have to answer non-existent charges. He had no obligation to say “I know my birthplace is not an issue but here is my BC anyway.”
When one lawyer stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii and the other does not challenge it or provide evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, then what reason would the judge have to question the BC that was presented? To question it would be to suspect that Irion committed a felony by knowingly representing false information as true to make his case. I guess the judge thought Irion looked like a honest man and took his word for it.