You have this backwards.
Judge Malihi quoted Haynes v. Wells in the O’Brien v. Gross.
Yes, and how does O'Brien v. Gross have anything specifically to do with Obama?? Start there. I don't want a game of connect-the-dots-that-aren't-really-connected but a direct quote by Judge Malihi himself saying that Obama had the burden of proof.
Orly cited O’Brien v. Gross in a letter to the GA SoS as an appeal to overturn Judge Malihi and in an appeal to GA Superior Court.
Yes, I've already talked about this when I said: "What happened is that Orly tried to use this citation to put the burden of proof on Obama."
She should have cited the O’Brien v. Gross in a Motion for Summary Judgement to Judge Malihi and have Obama declared ineligible for GA ballot placement.
Thanks for proving my point when I said: "The actual decision in Georgia was not based on putting ANY burden of proof on Obama, as I already noted." If she "should have" cited that quote, then you're admitting that she did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama in the actual GA ballot decision.
You can’t admit it, but you’re wrong.
You just proved me right. Can you admit that?? Show us.
You seem to have a problem with this statement posted by me ...
“The only time a case on Obama’s eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.”
You’re demanding proof of a written order by Judge Malihi stating the burden of proof was on the candidate, Obama, after the Court denied the candidate’s motion to quash subpoena.
I have reviewed the APA and it’s associated case history concerning ballot challenges. It’s clear to anyone who has done the research a candidate assumes the burden of proof after signing an attestation they are qualified for and can prove they are qualified for the office they are seeking. You incorrectly interpreted my statement concerning the Court putting the burden of proof on Obama to mean Malihi wrote an order for it. In fact, it is a standard for the challenged candidate to prove eligibility after the GA Supreme Court ruled in the Haynes v. Wells case.
I tried to explain this to you by citing Malihi’s quote in O’Brien v. Gross concerning a ballot challenge and then you demand I explain why this has anything to do with Obama. Go back to the original statement. Orly chose to adjudicate the case after the Court put the burden of proof was on Obama. The Court has put the burden of proof on the challenged candidate in a ballot challenge. The case history of Haynes v. Wells isn’t waived because Malihi didn’t specifically cite it in an order. Plaintiffs waived it after plaintiffs rejected an offer for a default judgement.
Obots believe an attestation is proof of fact and the burden of proof to the contrary is on a challenger after the challenger submits verified, certified and corroborated evidence to the contrary before a challenge can be heard.
The truth is an attestation is assumed to be proof of fact unless it is challenged by a person with sufficient interest. In a GA ballot challenge, a person with a sufficient interest is a registered voter in the candidate’s district. Once a successful challenge to the attestation is made, the burden shifts to the candidate who has attested he/she is qualified.
You’re wrong on burden of proof for candidates accused of ineligibility and you’re attempting to spread misinformation to protect Obama. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit it.