IIRC, the court later asked Orly if she had any objection to it receiving those documents. As the court knew (it was a helpful question), she had no objection since the documents happen to serve the objective of her case, which is that the documents were fabricated.
But for the nonappearance by the defense, it would have had an opportunity to examine what was offered and would have been allowed to compare the exhibits with what is depicted at the internet site.
Nonappearance by the defense is based, of course, on the assertion that because the SOS lacks statutory authority to determine the candidate’s eligibility, the hearing officer lacked subject matter jurisdiction - suggesting the defense thought the hearing was a kangaroo court.
Nonappearance by the defense is based, of course, on the assertion that because the SOS lacks statutory authority to determine the candidate’s eligibility, the hearing officer lacked subject matter jurisdiction - suggesting the defense thought the hearing was a kangaroo court.
Au contraire. Nonappearance by the candidate and his counsel is based, of course, on the fact that they have no legal documents from Hawaii indicating that a Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961. Further, none of these participants wanted to enter false testimony into the hearing as evidence...so easy even a caveman could understand it.
Other states sure to follow...bye bye Bari.