Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Greenperson

It was an administrative hearing, not a trial. The judge was not restricted to the information provided by the plaintiffs. He simply researched the applicable case law. While the plaintiff’s case was not disputed by the defendant, that does not automatically make it true. The judge compared the plaintiffs case to existing case law and found it lacking.


348 posted on 02/03/2012 8:18:21 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies ]


To: Harlan1196

This same judge, in a previous ballot issue, stated that the onus is on the CANDIDATE to PROVE eligibility. Obama did not and never has proved his eligibility. We simply do not know who he is. If he is eligible, then WHY does he continue to hide his proof?

It is not up to the plaintiffs to prove that he’s not eligible. In the same way that someone doesn’t automatically get a job without supplying proof of qualification, like college transcripts, references, proof of experience, test results, etc.


362 posted on 02/03/2012 8:48:18 PM PST by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson