[Harlan1196]

Irion and Hatfield did not contest Obama’s birthplace. Irion went as far as to stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii and entered Obama’s BC into evidence. Hatfield did not contest Obama’s birthplace - both cases argued that Obama was ineligible because Obama Sr was not an American citizen.

These two plaintiffs challenged Obama’s eligibility on a very specific point - his father's citizenship. As they had the burden of proof, they had to prove their case. Which, ironically they did successfully as they proved that Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Unfortunately for them the judge rejected the “NBC = two citizen parents” argument.

So from the judges perspective the only issue in front of him was the citizenship of Obama’s father. Obama’s birthplace was stipulated in one case and ignored in the other. So there was no requirement for Obama to prove where he was born.

As for Orly, her massive incompetence in presenting her witnesses and evidence made anything she had to offer irrelevant.

[Danae]

Hatfield et al. didn’t offer Obama’s birth certificate as evidence. They offered a copy of it which is NOT prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii.

Hatfield et al. did not CHALLENGE the idea he was born in Hawaii, there is a specific legal difference in that.

[philman_36]

As they had the burden of proof, they had to prove their case.
Not according to Georgia law. The person desiring to be placed on the ballot has to prove their eligibility. Shall I cite that particular law or do you already know it?

[plenipotentiary]

“As for Orly, her massive incompetence in presenting her witnesses and evidence made anything she had to offer irrelevant.”

Ha Ha! You Obots are so scared of Orly.
Why aren’t you scared of having the imposter, traitor Obama as pResident?