OBOTS have certainly won the message war by insisting PROOF must be presented before trial.
The truth is that allegations are assumed to be true in a civil matter. Court rules indicate a Judge must read a complaint from the perspective the allegations made by the plaintiff are true. If the case survives a responsive pleading, i.e. Motion to Dismiss, then the defendant must answer the complaint with a denial of the allegations. If the defendant does not deny the allegations, then the Court will find the allegations to be true and proceed to a hearing accessing damages caused by the defendant.
For example, let’s say Orly Taitz complained in Federal Court that Sven Magnussen was not eligible to post on Free Republic because he is using a stolen SSN, did not register for Selective Service and Sven’s real name is Harrison or Harry J. Bounel who’s identity I have stolen according to E-Verify, SSNVS and numerous affidavits from skip tracers and private detectives.
I ignore the complaint and summons to appear. I do not file a responsive pleading or answer to the complaint.
If that is the case, then Orly wins and all of the allegations made in the complaint are considered to be true and factually based. Since Obama and I are too busy and too important to answer civil suits, then Orly will win every time if she could get past the Motion to Dismiss. No proof will be necessary since the allegations in a civil suit are assumed to be true until successfully defended.
None of that was the case in the Georgia Ballot Eligibility Challenge where Obama or his defense team never showed up to confront the allegations made against them. The Judge ruled in team Obama’s favor after the Connecticut SS evidence was presented as well as experts testifying on the stand to explain Obama’s forged birth certificate.
In this Georgia Ballot Eligibility Challenge, Obama was ORDERED to show up for court. Instead, the attorney for Obama attempted to go over the court's head by sending written correspondence to Georgia's Secretary of State telling him that they did not intend to show up and he expected the Secretary of state to throw out the case. The Georgia Secretary of state responded by telling Obama's counsel that they would skip the ballot hearing "at your own peril"
Well Obama did not appear so the Judge offered the plaintiffs a summery judgement. The plaintiffs, assuming they would prevail, wanted the opportunity to present their case.
The judge heard the case and rather than as expected enter a default judgement as is normally be done when a defendant ignores a suepona, found in Obama's favor anyway. I smell something very ROTTEN.
I believe secret night time phone calls were made from on high with threats or promises.