Replies

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.

Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

Right there. He is saying in effect that council is asking for Obama's B/C even though, in the judges opinion, his short-form b/c has been made public.

I don't see how that sentence can be taken as anything other then the judge believes what has been released online is Obama's authentic short-form B/C. The judge is in effect saying "Obama's b/c is online and is good enough for me!"

This is where my question comes from. Shouldn't the judge have determined if the image released on the net is in fact genuine before stating it is Obama's short-form B/C? Does that make more sense?