Judge applies different standard to Obama than to Orly Taitz

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
"The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii
In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record.
BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.”
It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in.
In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)
.... there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.”
The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.
(See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)
In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”
In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.”

Ms. Taitz bore the burden of proof. The birth certificate proffered by Ms. Taitz not being admissible, there was no basis on which to proceed.

How would you suggest she could have gotten an "admissible" document?

Rember that Obama's cousin Odinga is Chief Thug in Kenya. (Prime Minister, a post created just for him to get his thugs to stop burning, looting and pillaging after he lost the election for President)

And the dhimmi judges are looking for a reason to dismiss, any even tenous reason is all they seek because they are not about honoring their oath to defend the Constitution, they are about enabling the federal oligarchic empowerment. That is the fundamental essence of corrupt judges like Clay Land. Sadly, Orly is going to make herself such a fob that even a not corrupt judge like Carter will have to set her cases and pleadings aside due to her foolishness!

She is a courtroom novice. She she never had a jury trial and her past experience is confined the defending her self in malpractice actions involving her dental practice.

There have to be other lawyers who believe in the Constitution who would be willing to help her.

I have to wonder, though, if she’d accept such help.

Sorry, but the Judge was perfectly correct. Ms. Taitz bore the burden of proof. The birth certificate proffered by Ms. Taitz not being admissible, there was no basis on which to proceed.

Let's call the Obama website "certification of live birth" for what it is-- political campaign literature.

I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that claims made in political campaign literature are about as trustworthy as the claims made about lot clunker autos made by used car salespersons. IOW, claims made in political campaign literature are generally not reliable.

The birth certificate proferred by Dr. (not Ms.) Taitz was accompanied by an affidavit which makes it appropriate-- otherwise why bother with the standard practice of affidavits accompanying copies at all? Was there a birth certificate (not certification) proferred by Obama's attorneys at all, and if so was it accompanied by an affidavit of authenticity, and if not, did the judge take formal judicial notice of internet Obama campaign website literature? If the latter or none of the above, it sounds to me (IANAL) like ample grounds for appeal.

The court IMHO is required to defer to the preponderance of evidence, not take judicial notice of suspect campaign literature from internet website sources that suffer from excesses of plausible deniability in the veracity department.

Just bear in mind that the usurper paid a visit to members of SCOTUS and nothing was reported, hmmm!!!