If what you are saying is true, then any candidate can get out of the requirement of the law by simply staging this scenario.
Nothing Obama or the plaintiffs did changes Georgia statute. The candidate MUST be qualified for the position he seeks.
The judge ruled sheerly on “judge’s knowledge” - without ANY EVIDENCE that Obama is qualified. There’s no way any plaintiff could prove a negative.
You try telling a cop, after he’s told you to get out your driver’s license and registration, that he has to prove that you don’t have a driver’s license or proof of registration, and see how far you get. Even take him to court, refuse to show up, and have the judge tell him that it’s now his burden to prove that you don’t have a driver’s license and registration.
It’s just plain absurd. If you’re gonna drive on the road it is your responsibility to be able to prove that you have a license. Nothing the cop does or doesn’t do changes that requirement for you. If your pal showed up and said, “Hey, I know he has a driver’s license because I saw an internet image of it” it wouldn’t change that you have a legal responsibility to be able to document the positive existence of your license.
The law itself is the bugger that will not allow the requirement to simply go away because of lawyerly pussy-footing around. Even if all the lawyers biffed everything, the law would still be the law. And it says that the candidate HAS TO BE QUALIFIED. There is no getting around that.
I think you’re just trying to waste my time. I know lawyers are real good about showing that blue isn’t really blue and truth isn’t really truth. It’s sophistry, a magical way of phenangling words so that “the candidate SHALL be qualified for the position he seeks” really means something else. But that whole piddling around bit just stinks to high heaven. The law means what it says and says what it means. And Malihi was very clear about what it meant when he denied Obama’s Motion to Dismiss: it meant that if Obama was going to be on the ballot he was going to have to qualify, without just claiming he had already done it when he hadn’t presented any legal evidence to anybody.
To this day he hasn’t presented any legal evidence to anybody and the law still says what it says and still means what it says.
You don’t get it. Obama lost - the judge offered a default judgment. The plaintiffs rejected it.