Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record.”
The genius birthers introduced President Obama's birth certificate into evidence themselves. By doing so, they proved the president is a natural born citizen. The judge had no choice but to accept the document. So in essence, the birthers are upset with the judge for using their own evidence against them. You can't make up stuff this funny.
The Coach is Right in reporting this. Judge Malihi was inept in his decision making when it came to determine if Obama was qualified to be on the state ballot in Georgia. In fact he made his decision based on a faulty case opinion. In this article it states the reasons why.
Judge Malihi should not have made a decision at all for the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction; which renders his ruling a nullity. If the decision is appealed, the case should be dismissed.
Dear Betty,
You look so fantastic and full of energy, I can’t believe you’re 90 years old. In fact, I don’t believe it.
That’s why I’m writing to ask if you will produce a copy of your long-form birth certificate.
Thanks, and happy birthday, no matter how old you are.
Judge Malihi should not have made a decision at all for the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction;...
it was my understanding that it was simply a recommendation from the judge to the SOS, not a formal ruling. the final decision laid with the SOS ( and he agreed with malihi's recommendation ).
How about giving a link to the judges' ruling and not someone's opinion of it?
How about letting us make up our own minds? Is that too much to ask?
Here you go. Its straight forward, cites established law as well as precedent (despite what the apuzzo/donofrio clowns claim), and that what we have all been saying since the beginning; that there has never been a 2 citizen parent requirement:
"For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama's father was never a United States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States.The Court does not agree."
What does he base it on?
Quote:
"In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ("Indiana Court") addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. A[r]nkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. Id. at 681. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that "there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of A[r]nkeny persuasive."
And what did the judge think of Orly's faux experts?
Quote:
The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. 3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; investigatory sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or in Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses' testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved).
None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive."
In a nut-shell, birthers destroyed their own case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hmm...
