>Everything you offered regarding his documentation is pure speculation. None of it has been reviewed or verified by a governing authority. It may be accurate. It may not. Until you can prove it in a court of law, it has no force.
I like the circularity here! [/sarc]
You can’t prove/substantiate ineligibility until an authority decides to review the case; and no authority will review the case until the proof/substantiation has been determined!
Catch 22/FUBAR.
It’s not a catch 22. Get the evidence in front of a grand jury who can investigate or convince enough Congressman to initiate hearings. The eligibility lawsuits aren’t going to work.
Additionally you should be preparing challenges to Obama’s placement on the ballot in 2012 in your state and petitioning your state legislature to require candidates to submit satisfactory documentation of natural born citizenship.
I like the circularity here! [/sarc]
You can’t prove/substantiate ineligibility until an authority decides to review the case; and no authority will review the case until the proof/substantiation has been determined!
Catch 22/FUBAR.
Here in America, we prefer legal issues be decided in a court of law with a plaintiff and a defendant or with a prosecution and a defense, in the case of a criminal proceeding.
In America it is the job of the plaintiff to present evidence of injury or harm and in a criminal proceeding, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is called an adversarial system.
There have been 72 civil lawsuits thus far dealing with Barack Obama’s eligibility. In each of those lawsuits, plaintiffs have submitted legal briefs to judges that lay out the case that plaintiffs would make to go forward to an actual trial. Those legal briefs are exactly what you are asking for: a review of the facts of the case.
The defense then counters with briefs showing why a trial is unnecessary and a waste of the court’s time.
Thus far, “unnecessary and a waste of the court’s time” has prevailed 72 to 0.
Sort of like saying you can’t sue until the electoral vote is certified or the inauguration because no harm has been done yet... but then being told you can’t sue because it’s too late; the harm is already done.
When people use that kind of reasoning you know the fix is in. When the judiciary uses that kind of reasoning you know somebody is stacking the deck; the only question is who, how, and why.
Actually the only question is how you throw their stacked deck back in their face; let them play 52-card pick up. lol