in “O’BRIEN v. GROSS, Judge Malihi wrote:
Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.”
from Obamaconspiracy.org
In the cited case, Wells challenged the candidacy of Haynes after Haynes attested he was eligible. The burden of proof shifted to Haynes because he swore he was eligible and could prove it if he was challenged on the issue.
Haynes was challenged by Wells and the burden of proof shifted to Haynes.
It’s very similar to Obama’s OLFBC where Obama’s mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator attested to the registrar of HDOH the information on the vital record presented to the registrar was true and they could prove it if they were challenged on the issue.
The registrar of HDOH “ACCEPTED” the attestation on Aug 4, 1961. Later, BHO Sr. challenged the Soetoro adoption in Hawaii Family Court and Obama’s mother testified BHO Sr. was not the father in order to preserve the Soetoro adoption. The Court ruled BHO Sr. was the father, the Soetoro adoption was annulled, Barry Soetoro’s legal name will now be Barack Hussein Obama II and ordered the HDOH registrar to file a vital statistic record backdated with a “DATE FILED Aug 4, 1961.”
Generally, when an adoption is annulled, the Court orders OLFBC unsealed from the archives and re-filed as the vital record for the child. The Adoption vital record is sealed and archived.
Since Obama’s mother refused to support her 1961 attestation, the Court order the Soetoro vital record sealed and archived with the OLFBC and a new vital record created to be filed with a date of Aug 4, 1961.
Obama wasn't involved in O'Brien v. Gross. Your earlier comment was that the court put the burden of proof on Obama, but this isn't the case. What happened is that Orly tried to use this citation to put the burden of proof on Obama. The rest of your post is irrelevant. The actual decision in Georgia was not based on putting ANY burden of proof on Obama, as I already noted.