If we could find just one judge anywhere in America to agree with you.
Six state and federal courts have ruled that Obama IS a natural born citizen:
Tisdale v Obama-US District Court Eastern District of Virginia
Rhodes v MacDonald-US District Court Middle District of Georgia
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto)-US District Court for the District of Columbia
Allen v Obama-Arizona Superior Court for Pima County
Ankeny v Governor Daniels-Indiana Court of Appeals
Farrar-Swensson-Powell & Welden v Obama-Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings & Georgia Fulton County Superior Court.
This is important because judges are prone to follow the precedents established in earlier trials on the exact same issue. There needs to be some decisions to counter-balance these pro-Obama decisions.
IIRC, those cases were dismissed, true, but because of a lack of standing of the plaintiff or some other procedural defect. This conveniently enabled those courts to dodge the natural born citizen issue because they didn't have to reach it.
Furthermore, in so far as I recall, the SCOTUS has never in its history had a case where the definition of "natural born citizen" in Article II of the United States Constitution was dispositive. Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen" (and did so in accordance with Vattel) but that case did not concern eligibility for the presidency.
All of those based on ZERO evidence. Now the HI state registrar has revealed that there IS NO legally valid HI BC for Obama. This means that the burden of proof has shifted to Obama. All those court cases operated under the presumption that the birth claims on Obama’s posted forgeries were true and that the HDOH’s 1960-64 birth index was a list of VALID BC’s. Now both those legal presumptions are out the window, since the 1960-64 birth index has been proven to contain non-valid BC’s, and Onaka has verified that Obama’s HI BC is non-valid.
Those court cases are all rendered moot by Onaka’s disclosure, since they put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs, when LAWFULLY the burden of proof now has to fall on the defendant. The defendant who has posted 2 forgeries off the record (as now confirmed by Onaka, as well as the forensic evidence from Arpaio and Zullo) and nothing on the record in those cases.