Below in context when Dr. Conspiracy says “It is quite possible that there are strong tactical reasons not to create a situation where there is a litigated set of facts subject to court appeals”...the subtext seems to be that he suspects that Obama doesn’t actually have a certified BC:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/burden-of-proof-in-georgia/
Dr. ConspiracyJanuary 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm (Quote)#
“I’ve been watching birthers for over 3 years now and I find that there are two groups: those that can be satisfied and those who cannot. In the former group there are those who are hung up on one thing. The biggest “thing” was the long-form birth certificate “if he has nothing to hide then …” The number of birthers dropped precipitously after the long form release. Well, there are, I speculate, another group that could be satisfied if an official document was ever submitted in court.
“And as I said in the article, Judge Malihi has once rejected Respondent arguments that the challenge is invalid. The Judge has placed the burden of proof on the Respondent before. It would seem very risky not to present some proof.
“Further I think it would be better to establish a precedent NOW than later.
“Expelliarmus: Jablonski is extremely well qualified and knows what he is doing.It is quite possible that there are strong tactical reasons not to create a situation where there is a litigated set of facts subject to court appeals.”
Can you break it down ? I don’t understand the meaning of the setting up facts for litigation subject to appeals. They’re supposed to present facts right? I’m confused.