Birthers Hail Judgeâs Decision That Could âDeposeâ Obama
- Thread starter Mvector
- Start date
orly taitz brief seems to have a very nice statement on the law.
And it seems this judge has already had a holding on the issue of the burden of proof. What idiots you loons have been.
Pretending to know the law. Pretending the burden was on the birthers.
You never knew your asses from your elbows but you were spouting misinformation anyway.
The case of Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking
to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their
eligibility. This holding relied upon O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-
MALIHI, at 12 (2008) "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish
affirmatively his eligibility for office" id.
Defendant defaulted by not showing up.
Administrative Rule of Procedure 616-1-2-30(1) "A
default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of the
proceedings, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply
with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge."
616-1-2-.30(2) "After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as
necessary, to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such
limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine
all issues in the proceedings, including those affecting the party in default."
she also made an interesting run down of precedent.
she rightly stated that while the NBC issue would be a case of first impression for the court... minor v. happersett and others may be useful.
The second part relates to all other Presidents, who were born after the adoption of the
Constitution. This means that the defendant needs to be a "natural born citizen". The
Constitution does not provide a definition of what a natural born citizen is. Such definition needs
to be drawn from multiple extraneous sources, available at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution. Just as in a recent case of U.S. v Heller 554 U.S.570(2008), where the courts had
to deduct the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms from the framers intent; the
case at hand requires such reconstruction of the framers' intent. To this extent, this is a case of
first impression, as no court ever ruled directly on the point of the meaning of "natural born
citizen', as it applies to the U.S. President. The closest the courts came to the determination of
natural born, is in a precedent of Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 163 (1875)
And it seems this judge has already had a holding on the issue of the burden of proof. What idiots you loons have been.
Pretending to know the law. Pretending the burden was on the birthers.
You never knew your asses from your elbows but you were spouting misinformation anyway.
The case of Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking
to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their
eligibility. This holding relied upon O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-
MALIHI, at 12 (2008) "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish
affirmatively his eligibility for office" id.
Defendant defaulted by not showing up.
Administrative Rule of Procedure 616-1-2-30(1) "A
default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of the
proceedings, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply
with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge."
616-1-2-.30(2) "After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as
necessary, to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such
limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine
all issues in the proceedings, including those affecting the party in default."
she also made an interesting run down of precedent.
she rightly stated that while the NBC issue would be a case of first impression for the court... minor v. happersett and others may be useful.
The second part relates to all other Presidents, who were born after the adoption of the
Constitution. This means that the defendant needs to be a "natural born citizen". The
Constitution does not provide a definition of what a natural born citizen is. Such definition needs
to be drawn from multiple extraneous sources, available at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution. Just as in a recent case of U.S. v Heller 554 U.S.570(2008), where the courts had
to deduct the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms from the framers intent; the
case at hand requires such reconstruction of the framers' intent. To this extent, this is a case of
first impression, as no court ever ruled directly on the point of the meaning of "natural born
citizen', as it applies to the U.S. President. The closest the courts came to the determination of
natural born, is in a precedent of Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 163 (1875)
This just confirms that you are quite clueless.
You seem to be one of those who think that anything they say must be always be correct.
What ARE you trying to argue? Do you even know?
I've already said anyone can question a candidates eligibility. That is the law as it stands and is how the law is applied. People are perfectly free, as they should be, to look to law for remedy in any situation where they have reason to understand a candidate from any party is ineligible.
It's whether they have good reason, whether a claim has grounds, has standing , is valid, or even sensible and not just some wingnuttery like the birthers claim is, which is the point here.
As to the second part of your confused argument, by which it is clear you haven't got a hold on any of this really, is about Administrative procedure. It does not change anything of the law in Georgia where an Administrative Judge will apply to the superior court if they wish to enforce anything they have ordered, whether in the form of a default order or a compulsion to say, testify, for example.
I suggest instead of trying to jump fences not reached yet , you go reference that particular part of Georgia code.
You say you were a lawyer yet it took me 5 or 6 trys until I taught you to spell cite not site, since when you do not repeat that error of ignorance.
I now suggest if you are going to keep quoting law, you apply your attention to the order in which law is applied and works and stop missing the relevent steps that control the one which follows. I have a feeling that is going to take you a lot more than 6 attempts.
Unlike Taitz and other birthers, I would also suggest you try understand what argument you want to make by first understanding the facts that surround it.
However it does seem as a hot headed slow witted birther you much prefer to just jump straight in.