[SeaHawkFan]

Cases involving strictly questions of law are determined by a judge. Once Obama is forced to prove he is a natural born citizen, the facts will be established. Juries determine the facts of the case and apply those facts to the law.

In a criminal case, the jury, despite a judge telling them they have to apply the law as he gives it to them, have a constitutional right to determine if a law is just or if the application of the law in a particular case is just.

In short, Taitz does not have a right to a jury trial in this case. Besides, given the behavior and statements by Judge Carter, why would any intelligent person want a jury.

On top of all that, even if Taitz was entitled to a jury trial, she was required to demand it when she filed her initial complaint.

[Sibre Fan]

On top of all that, even if Taitz was entitled to a jury trial, she was required to demand it when she filed her initial complaint.

---

Taitz’s Amended Complaint says “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED,” so she DID do that. However, she appears to only seek declaratory judgment in the body of the complaint?