So, let me make sure I’m getting this straight:
0bama’s lawyers have gone to court and gotten all kinds of cases dismissed for whatever spurious reasons, and not even once have they presented any birth-related documents?
If 0bama was born in Hawaii and his (Daily Kos) COLB was legit, a reasonable person would think that would be one of the first pieces of evidence submitted to the court. Since none of his lawyers are willing to use it as evidence, what conclusion should a reasonable person draw from that?
Can't knock success, can you?
If 0bama was born in Hawaii and his (Daily Kos) COLB was legit, a reasonable person would think that would be one of the first pieces of evidence submitted to the court. Since none of his lawyers are willing to use it as evidence, what conclusion should a reasonable person draw from that?
That none of the cases have gone to trial would be one conclusion. None of the cases have gotten even close enough to trial to allow for discovery would be another conclusion. But that's just me.
Because the Obamabots and birther doubters are unreasonable.
No, Obama's lawyers have been called into court because other people have sued. They have responded to those suits following standard procedure. Not one case has made it to a phase where evidence would be called for.
"If 0bama was born in Hawaii and his (Daily Kos) COLB was legit, a reasonable person would think that would be one of the first pieces of evidence submitted to the court. Since none of his lawyers are willing to use it as evidence, what conclusion should a reasonable person draw from that?"
A reasonable person would understand that they might not know enough about court procedures, and then would find out that one doesn't present evidence about something that's not being heard. If any of these cases ever made it to trial, THEN there would be a point where the facts of birth would be presented. None have gotten that far.
Speaking lawyer: Obama's lawyers have made motions to dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction. (So far, every such motion that has been ruled on has been granted.) When a lawyer moves to dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction, he cannot submit any evidence, because that would be conceding that the Court has jurisdiction to consider evidence.
The real question here is, how many real reasonable people do we really have???