Do you really think the judge's mind works like yours? Either the birth certificate is valid or it is not. And when on top of it, Welden’s attorney stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii then you get the verdict you got.
Are the rules of evidence the same for a hearing as they are for a trial?
The court didn't see any genuine birf certificate from Obama. and the plaintiffs for Hatfield and Taitz did not stipulate it was Fogbutt. Only a corrupt or stupid judge would accept the crap from Obama on the Internet.
Attorney Hatfield states,
"Defense counsel, in fact, never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.
However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial."
What?? We see a dishonest OBot Jablonski submitted bull crap through the backdoor.
And more from Hatfield Foggyhead.
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
The judge failed in so many areas that the only logical conclusion is that he is corrupt just like the turds who lurk and sleaze at theFogbow.com