How about this? Haskins agreed to stipulate Obama was born in Hawai’i on Aug 4, 1961. In the pre-trial conference, the Judge told the attorneys and plaintiffs a default judgement would be entered for plaintiffs because the defendant didn’t show up.
Haskins printed out Obama’s website COLB and Long form BC and entered them as evidence. The Judge accepted it as evidence after Haskins stipulated Obama was born in Hawai’i on Aug 4, 1961. Once entered into the Court record, it’s considered undisputed fact.
The Judge was dismissive and eventually cut Orly off when she tried to proved the website COLB and long BC were fraudulent. Why? Because he just accepted printouts of those documents as undisputed facts.
Obots are thrilled with today’s proceedings. They made the entire eligibility issue about Obama’s BC and it just got entered into Court as an undisputed fact.
It wasn’t Haskins though. Was it Irion and Hatfield?
What exactly did they stipulate about what was printed off? I just can’t see any judge accepting that as proof of the facts of birth, since the rules of evidence don’t allow a computer image of a vital record to be considered as prima facie evidence. Did the lawyers use an “even if” argument? Like null and void said, they qualified it as being true for the purposes of that particular argument even if it’s not factually true?
We really need a transcript of what was said when that was admitted as evidence.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous. Quit thinking with knee jerk emotions like a liberal and use your brain and common sense.