[butterdezillion]

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.

[SvenMagnussen]

Can’t get on Post and Email for a recap, but found this quote from Sharon Rhondou at Fogbow:

“Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation. She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.” Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?” She then stopped speaking.”

[holden]

Did we not read report of the lawyers for the non-Orly cases leaving the courtroom? I understand these were separate cases that were heard juxtaposed for the ALJ's benefit. Though there would be one recommendation from Malihi to GA SoS, it doesn't follow to me that the cases became one. If there were intertwining and dependencies of evidence affecting the proceedings as if there was only one case, it would seem foolish for the lawyers to have left the courtroom before everything that might affect their case was presented (by Orly or her witnesses).

IANAL, but it seems to me the cases will be kept separate, and something that was not under dispute in one case does not imply it was not avalailable to be disputed in another case.

Sven is just trying to dishearten us, IMHO.

HF