Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919

You seem to have a problem with this statement posted by me ...

“The only time a case on Obama’s eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.”

You’re demanding proof of a written order by Judge Malihi stating the burden of proof was on the candidate, Obama, after the Court denied the candidate’s motion to quash subpoena.

I have reviewed the APA and it’s associated case history concerning ballot challenges. It’s clear to anyone who has done the research a candidate assumes the burden of proof after signing an attestation they are qualified for and can prove they are qualified for the office they are seeking. You incorrectly interpreted my statement concerning the Court putting the burden of proof on Obama to mean Malihi wrote an order for it. In fact, it is a standard for the challenged candidate to prove eligibility after the GA Supreme Court ruled in the Haynes v. Wells case.

I tried to explain this to you by citing Malihi’s quote in O’Brien v. Gross concerning a ballot challenge and then you demand I explain why this has anything to do with Obama. Go back to the original statement. Orly chose to adjudicate the case after the Court put the burden of proof was on Obama. The Court has put the burden of proof on the challenged candidate in a ballot challenge. The case history of Haynes v. Wells isn’t waived because Malihi didn’t specifically cite it in an order. Plaintiffs waived it after plaintiffs rejected an offer for a default judgement.

Obots believe an attestation is proof of fact and the burden of proof to the contrary is on a challenger after the challenger submits verified, certified and corroborated evidence to the contrary before a challenge can be heard.

The truth is an attestation is assumed to be proof of fact unless it is challenged by a person with sufficient interest. In a GA ballot challenge, a person with a sufficient interest is a registered voter in the candidate’s district. Once a successful challenge to the attestation is made, the burden shifts to the candidate who has attested he/she is qualified.

You’re wrong on burden of proof for candidates accused of ineligibility and you’re attempting to spread misinformation to protect Obama. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit it.


38 posted on 01/31/2013 3:16:07 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: SvenMagnussen

bump to follow and learn


39 posted on 02/01/2013 12:33:47 PM PST by freebird5850 (The only good thing about Barry getting re-elected is now we get to see him fall from a higher place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: SvenMagnussen
You seem to have a problem with this statement posted by me ...

“The only time a case on Obama’s eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.”

I do have a problem with it. It's not true. Now, YOU have a problem with admitting that it's not. And you're trying to overcompensate by babbling.

You’re demanding proof of a written order by Judge Malihi stating the burden of proof was on the candidate, Obama, after the Court denied the candidate’s motion to quash subpoena.

No, I didn't demand that at all. I said the DECISION does NOT place the burden of proof on Obama. You've tried to come up with previous decisions, but you haven't shown where those decisions were applied to Obama in ANY form or fashion by the court. Why is it so hard to admit that?? It's one thing to say the court didn't follow its own precedents, but you're pretending like it did. Why??

You’re wrong on burden of proof for candidates accused of ineligibility and you’re attempting to spread misinformation to protect Obama.

The administrative court already acted to protect Obama. My explanation that the court did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama is a fact. It's not misinformation and it does NOTHING to protect him. What a stupid, stupid thing to suggest. Sounds like you're projecting your own strategy.

40 posted on 02/01/2013 9:45:52 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson