What he posted online can’t be proof positive of anything - unless it’s actually at least accurate, and since it’s not genuine we have no way of knowing whether it’s accurate or not.
That’s the concern that Sven has. The attorneys weren’t using an “even if” argument: EVEN IF Obama’s documentation was accurate, he wouldn’t be NBC. It seems to me they were saying that his alleged documentation IS accurate, and that’s the reason for Sven’s concern.
If they presented Obama’s claims as simply being Obama’s claims, then wouldn’t it be the job of the judge to establish the facts of the case before actually deciding the matters of law? I’ve read a case where the judge said that they can’t argue cases on an “even if” basis. The case has to be decided on the basis of findings of facts.
What am I misunderstanding here? Were they arging that “even if” Obama’s BC’s are accurate he wouldn’t be eligible, or were they arguing that SINCE Obama’s BC’s are accurate he’s not eligible?
It’s an important distinction, I think. And it’s why some of us were saying that without a genuine birth certificate the NBC argument couldn’t even be made because there is no evidence that Obama’s father WAS Obama Sr.
Hmmm? I thought the court accepted Obama’s web [of lies] document as if it was fact for the purposes of this case?
Not being a lawyer, I thought that one could “stipulate” facts are accurate for the purposes of continuing an argument to its logical conclusion.
Here's what worries me.,p> Zero has who knows how many lawyers working on this and we need attorneys at the level of Mark Levin/Landmark Legal or other Constitutional scholars to oppose them to even be in the same ball game! Absent that level of talent we don't have a prayer, IMHO.