In a trial court, the attorney for either side can challenge evidence. In an appeal, the court can review the trial judge’s ruling. I’ve got an 800 page book on my shelf discussing the federal rules of evidence, so it isn’t quite as easy as just reading a sentence off of the Internet and becoming an expert.
However, there is no indication the trial judge considered ANY birth certificate in deciding the case. The reports I’ve seen indicated the ruling was made on lack of jurisdiction, so the case was dismissed with prejudice.
This is another of one of your typical and pointless logical fallacies. Nobody claimed to be an "expert" by reading a sentence off the the Internet. You're presuming that the language is too complicated to be understood by laypeople, but this is nonsense. The language is simple and speaks for itself. Also, your possession of an 800 age book doesn't support the conclusion you've made. You haven't shown that you've even read the book, much less have any understanding of it.
However, there is no indication the trial judge considered ANY birth certificate in deciding the case. The reports I’ve seen indicated the ruling was made on lack of jurisdiction, so the case was dismissed with prejudice.
I haven't argued otherwise. All I've done is point out the facts. The ADP attached photocopies of the LFBC and an LOV, presuming it would bolster their motion. There was a response that challenged the authenticity of the first document. And NOW the ADP has backed off the rationale for submitting those documents and have insisted that the court dare not consider Obama's eligibility. That should be telling. There's no reason to back off from the LFBC if it is indeed genuine.