During the hearing in Grinols v Electoral College, the Court observed the inadequacy of evidence and experts ‘presented’ by Orly. Calling them ‘simple allegations’, but not credible.
THE COURT: […] And the same goes to a certain extent with the claims of forgery, et cetera, et cetera. If there is a claim of forgery or anything else, you don’t come to this court and ask for any type of redress. If that’s the case, you would bring it to a local official in the executive branch, such as the district attorney. Or if it’s at a federal level, you bring it to the United States Attorney, who would then bring it before a United States grand jury — and the U.S. Attorney would bring it before the grand jury and seek an indictment.
Courts do not deal with what are just simply allegations. There has not been one credible allegation of a piece of evidence presented other than what is hearsay and people that quite frankly the plaintiffs believe are experts. Plaintiffs don’t determine who experts are, the court does. And not one person that has been presented to come forward has been shown even closely reassembling an expert. They are simply citizens who have their own opinion, which they are free to express, and I respect that opinion. But that does not mean that their, quote/unquote, evidence is admissible.
The only admissible evidence is that which is under the rules of evidence. And at this point, the indication and the notification from secretary — or from Hawaii, let’s see, the director of the Hawaii State Department of Health has indicated and stated that the birth certificate of President Obama is accurate, is acceptable. That’s —
MS. TAITZ: You don’t have —
THE COURT: Stop. Do not speak. You’re done.