The issue was not one of Georgia law; it is a question of federal constitutional law. An Indiana decision on a federal issue is not binding precedent in a Georgia court, but it is certainly persuausive precedent that a judge is entitled to consider.
I beg to differ. Each state is responsible for it's own eligibility requirements. (bear in mind, we are electing electors, not the President directly.) It is also my understanding that Georgia had a specific statute regarding the eligibility of candidates, and that was used to get this hearing in the first place.
In any case, the courts have become such that a judge feels entitled to consider anything he d@mn well pleases! As someone once said, it is the exercise of raw judicial power.
Pulling Obama's PDF from the internet is utter bullsh*t. The Judge should have refused to consider anything as evidence EXCEPT for a certified copy of the real thing with some sort of chain of custody. If a judge was looking at a case for any OTHER person, do you think he would accept an internet document as proof?