Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: philman_36

Welden did stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii:

“Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. “

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga

So the judge had in front of him:

1. One plaintiff that stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. And entered a birthcertificate to that effect.

2. Another plaintiff that did not submit any evidence to challenge that stipulation.

3. And the ravings of Orly Taitz.

Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?


79 posted on 02/08/2012 11:09:57 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Harlan1196
I really dislike when portions of what is said is left off.

Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. Dismiss at 8-9. The other Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases contest all these facts.
Plaintiff Welden makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, with the one exception of the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.

If you can't see why each of these cases should have been decided separately, as one Plaintiff's counsel had been informed they would be, then I simply can't help you.

@Mark Hatfield response to Kemp Decision
Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?
He didn't "rule" that he was born in Hawaii, he "considered" that he was born in Hawaii.

104 posted on 02/09/2012 5:12:37 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson