[jamese777]

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.

---

Are you originally from the former Soviet Union? It sure sounds like you prefer the Soviet judicial system: guilty whether there is actual evidence of guilt or not.

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.

[OneWingedShark]

>Are you originally from the former Soviet Union? It sure sounds like you prefer the Soviet judicial system: guilty whether there is actual evidence of guilt or not.

Um, wow; please point out where on this thread I have said that Obama’s guilt [or anyone else’s] is independent of any evidence.
In fact, please show ANYWHERE on this thread where I have said that Obama *shouldn’t* be given a trial.

>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.
>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.

And yet you’re here complaining that Obama’s eligibility cannot be investigated as part of the defense for Col Larkin despite Art 46:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=142#142

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I figure there are probably more than 72 corrupt judges.

[danamco]

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.

Yeah, little cool-aid drinker jamese, like when the whole Central and S.American nations are going after Arizona, WOW???