So you’re saying that paternity was conceded based on Obama’s CLAIM that these BC’s were genuine? That it wouldn’t matter if the documents were fake as long as they were accurate - and Obama admits against his own interest they are accurate? So the claim of BHO as Obama’s father was made by the plaintiffs and Obama never rebutted that claim, as evidenced by his claim that the BC’s listing BHO as father were genuine.
Does that sum up what you’re saying? The plaintiffs never proved (or attempted to prove) that BHO was the father, but they did prove that BHO wasn’t contesting the claim so it would be considered admitted as a fact.
“Does that sum up what you’re saying? The plaintiffs never proved (or attempted to prove) that BHO was the father, but they did prove that BHO wasn’t contesting the claim so it would be considered admitted as a fact.”
Not exactly. The plaintiff's uncontested claim in the first two non-Orly cases was that the two BCs were genuine. The judge had to issue a default ruling in favor of the evidence presented in the pleadings and testimony. Orly's claim that the same images of Obama’s BCs were fakes was also not contested due to Jablonski being no-show. So today in different cases the same court accepted on motion of the plaintiffs as undisputed evidence Obama’s two BC images as being BOTH factual and faked, IMO.