Announcement

**bsteadman** · 02-13-2012, 02:20 PM

Hmmmmmm!

The following is an excerpt from COMMENT #6 by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

"The measure you use to judge others will be the measure used to judge you. Turnabout is fair play. If Obama’s online HI BC has to be accepted as probative if stipulated as genuine by a plaintiff, then so does Obama’s online KENYAN BC if so stipulated by a plaintiff... (bold and underline emphasis added)

Obama is messing with our entire way of executing justice. This is not some little game of “chicken”. We will either be America, or we will be Iran. And we had BETTER be choosing that very, very carefully."

The following is an excerpt from COMMENT #44 by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

"One other point: If Irion had presented a Kenyan BC it would NOT be a legally contested “fact”, because nobody at that hearing would have contested it. It would be an admitted fact, that the defendant had admitted by not refuting it. That’s the danger of not showing up to a hearing.

So if an online image of a Kenyan BC had been admitted as evidence it would be UNCONTESTED evidence, just like Orly’s evidence was UNCONTESTED."

**bsteadman** · 02-13-2012, 03:00 PM

The following is an excerpt from Comment #46 by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

"I have spent literally thousands of hours of my life investigating this issue and I could talk longer than anybody has the patience to listen, describing why I believe that everything this usurper has done is a big fat lie.

Orly Taitz entered into the record a US Passport Office document indicating that a dependent by the name of Soebarkah was removed from Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro’s passport. The document was actually an official record submitted by the Passport Office in a previous court case. Malihi rejected that piece of paper as not having probative value. It was an uncontested piece of evidence of known authentic provenance submitted to his court, and he rejected it. Obama has never contested anything on that document; it was in no way “controversial” since Obama has never spoken publicly about it. And even if he had it would have to be assumed that it was not controversial because it was never LEGALLY CONTESTED even after Obama had been ORDERED to appear in Malihi’s courtroom. By ANY measure of “controversy” that document would be considered non-controversial.

Yet Malihi rejected that paper document as having any legal significance whatsoever.

That totally blows away everything you’re saying. Taitz and Obama were both in agreement about that “Soebarkah” name on that legal document. If what you’re saying is true then Malihi HAD to consider that document probative. But he didn’t.

Why didn’t he?

And don’t tell me it’s because Strunk wasn’t certified as an expert witness. You don’t have to be an expert witness to provide a legal record in a hearing. If that WAS the requirement, then Irion would have first had to certify himself as an expert on Obama’s birth certificate, birth facts, etc before he could present even an online image of a birth certificate at that hearing.

The fact is that Malihi ignored anything he didn’t like and accepted anything he wanted to, and the LEGAL EVIDENTIARY VALUE of what was presented made absolutely no difference to him. Whether the fact at issue was “controversial” or refuted made no difference to him, as I’ve just demonstrated.

He ignored all legal standards for weighing the value of evidence and went with “judge’s knowledge”. He never said in his decision that he had determined the facts. He said he BELIEVED the facts to be such-and-so. This is either a “judge’s knowledge” decision, or else it is an acceptance of the equivalent of a crayon drawing of a birth certificate as if that had some kind of probative value - which is an affront to our entire judicial system.

And as I’ve said before, I hope that Georgians make Malihi lie in that bed he has made, by presenting online images of birth certificates for Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse and demanding that the State of Georgia call those images probative just like they did with Obama’s online BC. I hope somebody presents an online image of a CRAYON BIRTH CERTIFICATE for Mickey Mouse and expects it to be accepted according to Malihi’s new precedent for legal evidentiary standards.

And I hope they do it in such large numbers that the judge who hears the appeal of Malihi’s decision sees crayon birth certificates in his sleep at night, knowing that if he upholds Malihi’s decision that is all Georgia will ever get for documentation any more. I hope Terry Lakin presents an online image of a GA medical license to practice BRAIN SURGERY at the hospital where that judge would go in an emergency. I hope 3-year-olds show online images of birth certificates showing them to be 45 years old, and electrician’s licenses in bids for the wiring of the courthouse that the judge works in.

We are not talking piddles here, and I want that GA judge to realize what is at stake here. If he lets this go, the precedent is set that anybody can say anything and there is no legal way to measure the truth of the claim. That is serious, serious stuff. You don’t just screw the whole system of truth and accountability and think that the people of Georgia - or the US - are going to act as if it’s nothing."

Comment #47 by 'butterdezillion':

"And if it has to have the element of a fact being “stipulated” and uncontested by the other party, then we need to have a lawsuit where two parties agree that a 3-year-old is really a 45-year-old electrician or brain surgeon, based on an online image of birth certificate and license to practice.

Of course, if the judge accepts it as a legal fact that the cherub-faced person whose feet can’t reach the floor from the courtroom chair and who hasn’t yet learned to count to 100 is really a 45-year-old licensed/certified brain surgeon, that means that person’s qualifications are a legally-proven FACT.

I’m sure the whole State of Georgia will be praising Michael Malihi for the wisdom of his precedent..."

Announcement

Whose Law Did Judge Malihi Use to Make His Ruling? -- Free Republic Thread

Whose Law Did Judge Malihi Use to Make His Ruling? -- Free Republic Thread

Comment

Comment