Replies

“’His situation is unique,’ the official insisted. ‘The president couldn’t have used the DC exchange’s website because the databases these sites use to confirm insurance eligibility wouldn’t contain those sorts of records about him.’"

In a civil suit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the defendant denies the allegations.

In an Presidential eligibility civil suit, it would be expected Obama would present his BC as proof he's eligible. The plaintiff can request discovery. In discovery, the plaintiff can subpoena primary witnesses for original documentation proving Obama has not maintained his natural born citizenship status throughout his life.

In the event a defendant or supporters of the defendant successfully scrub incriminating documents, the plaintiff can call rebuttal witnesses. The plaintiff does not have to identify the rebuttal witness or the evidence the rebuttal witness has available prior to trial. This prevents the defendant or supporters of the defendant from "Fuddying" the rebuttal witness.

It is left up to the jury after that. Does the jury believe the defendant has nothing to hide, so he scrubbed all incriminating documents? Or does the jury believe the rebuttal witness.

Perhaps, but the process at hand not an eligibility lawsuit, but a FOIA request for SocSec information for deceased citizen Harry Bounel — data previously recognized to exist, but now said to be “not found”, which evades the question of existence or alternative location. The “official” promoting Obama’s fake ObamaCare signup now tells us the Secret Service scrubbed all data relating to Mr. President. If the allegation that Obama has used Bounel’s SSN is true, the SS likely would have “scrubbed” Bounel’s SocSec records. Therefore, direct an FOIA request for the data to the correct agency: the Secret Service. And amend the request to the Social Security Agency to include any records or references of information about Obama “removed or blocked” by the Secret Service or other government agency. These fish are hard to land, but you have to at least drop the hook in the right spot.

In a civil suit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the defendant denies the allegations.

I don't know from where you get you information on civil procedure and evidence, but this statement is flat-out wrong.

In an Presidential eligibility civil suit, it would be expected Obama would present his BC as proof he's eligible.

Isn't the actual based-in-experience expectation at this point that any Presidential eligibility civil suit brought by someone NOT named Mcain, Palin, Romney or Ryan will be tossed out due to lack of standing?

The plaintiff does not have to identify the rebuttal witness or the evidence the rebuttal witness has available prior to trial.

Again, you're spouting nonsense here. It is standard discovery practice to ask the opposing party to identify both the witnesses expected to testify at trial and the documents which will be offered at trial. Often this information is made part of a pretrial order signed by the judge. Failure to disclose this may be grounds for excluding the witness or the documents from being used.