[SpaceBar]

My big problem with this whole thing, and the judge’s statements in particular is that for every job, license, identification, security check, or proof of eligibility for various professional capacities we have in our country, the only one that seems to have shifted burden of proof on the investigators and not the investigated is the office of President as it pertains specifically to one Barack Hussein Obama. They changed the rules just for him.

[normanpubbie]

Your point is well-taken. But note that the Constitution lists requirements to be President, Senator, and Representative but does not explicitly require candidates for these offices to prove that they are qualified.

As I understand civil and criminal jurisprudence in this country, the plaintiff always has the burden of proof. So I agree with the judge here.

I also agree with the judge's complaint about Taitz's grandstanding. Calling Obama a 'usurper?' He may be, but does conduct like that have a place in any court of law? Taitz may get headlines, but she doesn't get results for her client, which is what an attorney is supposed to do.