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.
The Twitter argument should equally apply to the authenticity of the so called COLB. I.e. it is widely held as fraudulent.
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)
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.