“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.
So as long as Irion “looked honest”, Malihi would have had to accept the Kenyan birth certificate.
Harlan, do you really expect anybody to take what you’re saying seriously?
Everything you’re saying reinforces my point: that Malihi decided this based on his own whims - that is “judge’s knowledge”.
Malihi couldn’t “an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of
their qualifications” - and yet he claimed to make an objective threshold determination of OBAMA’S ELIGIBLITY without ANY knowledge of his qualifications.
Double standard. The fact that he obeyed legal evidentiary standards for Taitz’ WITNESSES (though he also discounted the written documents submitted, one of which was from the Passport Office, which is supposed to have some probative value...) shows he knows what the law is. The fact that he didn’t do the same for Obama shows that he knowingly violated legal evidentiary standards.
He didn’t use “judge’s knowledge” to decide Orly’s case. He did use it to decide Irion’s.
It’s not lawful, and it stinks to high heaven. You’ve refused to answer my questions but even what you’ve said shows Malihi’s corruption.