If you had read my blog you would know that I am not interested in legal theories.
I am interested in facts. No case can be decided well without an accurate finding of facts. That step has been totally blown off. If you truly have a degree in law you know better than to do that.
But you are finding me guilty because the academic, legal experts haven’t hasn’t already told you that I’m innocent, or that my fact-finding is sound.
That sounds like somebody who would fit right in with Obama’s vision for Amerikka. So much for due process.
Do you understand enough about American law to appreciate the fact that you don't stroll into court with wild supposition and expect that a judge is going to grant a fishing license for you to dig around in defendant's personal records. To date, all these cases have been dismissed because of justiciability defect based on either subject matter jurisdiction, or standing BUT, many of the presiding judges have made comment in their decision granting MTD that plaintiff's have provided no substantiating facts to support their allegations.
You don't walk into court and say "why did the defendant do x, y or z" and expect to survive MTD if that's all you have. Those are not a facts, those are questions. A fact would be sworn testimony, or credible documentary evidence of a foreign birth. To day, NO one has come forward to swear under oath that Obama was born someplace other than HI, and not a single credible document has been unearthed that merits any evidentiary value.
Barack Obama posses prima facie evidence of his HI birth. Of that, there can be no legal dispute. How do I know that? Barack Obama has a US passport and Barack Obama has never been a naturalized citizen.