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.
Actually, now watch birthers throw Malihi under the bus, claiming that since he is an Administrative Court Judge, why should his opinion on NBC of Obama matter. That should only be decided by the Supreme Court.
Oh, you know that this is going to happen. First they claim that he will make a decision that will be precedent for all the US state ballot challenges. Now that he has ruled against them, watch them claim that his decision doesn't matter.
I saw Ike thrown under the bus on another thread; apparently only Vlad the Impaler is radical enough for the current GOP.
The evidence was the testimony of the witnesses. And that testimony wasn't probative because, as the judge actually said, the witnesses were not court-acknowledged experts in the fields on which they were testifying.
Nice try at lying (again) about what the judge said.
The plaintiff witnesses were crappy and orly failed to qualify them as experts. They might be great experts but becuz orly is a crappy lawyer and didn't have a clue how to question her witnesses about their qualifications and then ask the court to accept them as an expert..... Probably was surprised the judge actually allowed the hearing to go forward and wasn't prepared to present the case.
In other words, another rejection due to a technicality (establishing the witnesses' qualification in court), with still no ruling on the evidence itself.
In other words, another rejection due to a technicality (establishing the witnesses' qualification in court), with still no ruling on the evidence itself.
No, not at all. Try reading the ruling, the merits of the case were addressed, the single parent-dual parent issue, ruled on, history. The natural born citizenship of obama, ruled on, history.
The only birfer issue left is the bogus claims the BC is phony. Enjoy....
Last edited by buzzards27; 02-03-2012 at 04:43 PM..
No, not at all. Try reading the ruling, the merits of the case were addressed, the single parent-dual parent issue, ruled on, history. The natural born citizenship of obama, ruled on, history.
I think what Little A is trying to say is that the Judge dismissed the issue of "forgery" and "fake SSN" because the witnesses that Orly had, were not presented as experts to make such judgement. The Judge didn't rule on the substance of their claims and instead focused on them not being experts to begin with.
What I don't think she/he realizes is that the Judge did do exactly that. He looked at the testimony provided by the witnesses, and found that their "findings" were not backed by any weight of the person making the claim.
That evidence of forgery was not proven to the degree that would satisfy the court
That the evidence of a fake SSN (or stolen SSN) was not proven to the degree that would satisfy the court.
I only wished the Judge ruled on the illegal access of the db's used by Orly's witnesses (eVerify and SSN records) and made a recommendation the transcripts and order be transferred to the federal courts for investigation. .
I think what Little A is trying to say is that the Judge dismissed the issue of "forgery" and "fake SSN" because the witnesses that Orly had, were not presented as experts to make such judgement. The Judge didn't rule on the substance of their claims and instead focused on them not being experts to begin with.
What I don't think she/he realizes is that the Judge did do exactly that. He looked at the testimony provided by the witnesses, and found that their "findings" were not backed by any weight of the person making the claim.
That evidence of forgery was not proven to the degree that would satisfy the court
That the evidence of a fake SSN (or stolen SSN) was not proven to the degree that would satisfy the court.
Correct.
The judge said that the lawyer did not present the witnesses' qualifications before him in the hearing. And he cited two previous Georgia cases where it was ruled that such evidence from witnesses who were thus "unqualified", was useless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. 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 in birth records, forged documents, or document manipulation.
Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general.
Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses' testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, the judge said flatly that their lawyer blew it, even mentioning "Ms. Taitz" by name.
He never said anything about whether the evidence would have persuaded him, if the people presenting it had first had their credentials presented.
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.
