[Brytani]

Basically the judge in his footnotes states a short form b/c has been made public and uses this as rational for part of his ruling in Rhodes. Yet, the very evidence he is alluding to has been brought up in multiple cases as a fake, insufficient to prove eligibility etc.

Not being a lawyer I may not understand why a judge would rely upon a .jpg on a website to reach a decision when the validity of the image is in question.

By relying on the image, isn’t the judge giving credence and authenticity to both the website and an image that appears on it without holding any hearing to determine if the image is authentic in the first place?

[Sibre Fan]

Basically the judge in his footnotes states a short form b/c has been made public and uses this as rational for part of his ruling in Rhodes.

What part of his ruling is based on that rationale? I just don't see that. He mentions this in the background section of the opinion, then moves to a discussion of the reason for his dismissal - the abstention doctrine. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya (or Equatorial New Guinea) is utterly irrelevant to the abstention doctrine -- which means that "evidence" about the birth -- whether they be jpgs of a COLB published by Obama, or jpgs of two "Kenyan documents" submitted as evidence by Orly -- is irrelevant. So, I am honestly not understanding what you're trying to say.