Nowhere does he explicitly ACCEPT the other plaintiffs evidence. The alleged birth certificate would be the same no matter who entered it as evidence. Orly was the last attorney to present her case, yet hers was the first to be addressed in the judge’s decision. It makes ZERO sense to reject ALL of her evidence but accept the same evidence simply because it was presented by a different attorney, and especially when the judge NEVER references ANY evidence leading to a conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii. Ankeny never declared where Obama was born, so Malihi did NOT get it from that decision.
When one plaintiff stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii, the second does no challenge Obama’s birthplace and the third blows up her case in a spectacular manner, I don’t think the judge is going to spend much time pondering Obama’s birthplace. Especially since Irion and Hatfield were challenging Obama’s eligibility due to his father’s birthplace. The judge rejected their NBC = two citizen parents argument.
And lets not forget that the burden of proof was much less stringent then a criminal trial. The judge simply had to think that the evidence and testimony presently indicated that it was “likely” that Obama was born in Hawaii.