The judge was correct, you guys fail to understand how things work. You expect the court to do your investigating. You have to present a case *first*, then you might get to discovery. You can't just walk into court and say I *think* he might not be qualified so can we force discovery to find out?
The birthers have no case, so they aren't able to present one in court. They only have suspicions, and those are mostly irrational ones.
The burden of proof is always on the accuser.
“You expect the court to do your investigating.”
The trouble is that BHO’s control of the evidence (the BC) prevents the plaintiff from being able to obtain said evidence.
You are incorrect.
Such a ruling cannot be made, in good faith, without discovery. After discovery, then it can be determined whether there is merit in the claim.
This judge’s rulings, and actions, will be irrelevant as long as the case filed in California proceeds.
Go to hell!
Unfortunately, your well-reasoned logic will be lost on many that stalk these threads. You'll be branded an Obot, a moron a liar and probably worse. Gird your loins.
Hmmm, by this rationale anyone can become President and refuse to prove where they were born as long as no one else can prove they were foreign born.
They don't want the court to do their investigating, they want the court to provide access to the information that would allow them to prove their case. After all what's discovery for if not to provide information supporting your case. Sure you have to have some information, but not all the final proof.
Absolutely spot on. I’m a lawyer myself and I am stunned this is the first time Dr-Lawyer Taitz has been threatened with Rule 11 sanction. For the Laymen, Rule 11 requires that all pleadings filed by a lawyer be signed by them, and that by signing the pleading they are certifying that they personally have investigated the facts they are pleading and found them to be non-frivolous nor being presented for an improper purpose. In most of the courts I’ve practiced in, that forged “Republic of Kenya” BC would have been enough for HEAVY sanctions and possible disciplinary proceedings.
I am personally of the opinion that Dr. Taitz is a con artist playing on the credulity of people here who choose to engage in wishful thinking rather than facts (remember those fine folks at the “African Press Institute” and that video they were supposedly going to release if ONLY they could get a little more money? How many here I wonder, ponied up money to them as well?
Here are the simple facts from a legal perspective
1) These cases will NEVER be heard because of the “Standing” problem. The proper place to raise these issues was in a mandamus action before the various State Elections boards and or Secretaries of State. Once they put his name on the ballot, the question of his eligibility to be there was essentially waived. Even if you could get around that, his election by the Electoral College, The enrollment of their results without any objection by the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice administering the Oath, all mean that legally, he IS the president, and Constitutionally, he can only stop being the president by election or impeachment
and
2) more importantly, even if you COULD get around the standing problem and get the case considered on the merits rather than the procedural question, the Supreme Court’s “political question doctrine” means that they WOULD NOT decide the case any more than they cases they refused to decide that sought to have the Vietnam War declared illegal