I post the key findings from Obama eligibility related court rulings, verbatim with links to the entire decision so that anyone who might be interested in a particular Trier of Fact’s rationale can read it in full context.
It is not me who has filed more than 200 lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility. It’s not me who has filed more than 90 appeals in state and federal courts and it’s not me who has submitted 25 petitions for Writs of Certiorari and applications for stays, injunctions and extraordinary writs at the Supreme Court of the United States. It is eligibility challengers who have almost exclusively utilized the courts as the place to conduct this fight.
I post how those courts have ruled, others can decide what those rulings mean.
Intelligent people are capable of learning from each defeat how to correct deficiencies in filings and how to present issues in ways that might receive a more favorable hearing.
It is a common fallacy throughout the legal system that "Process" = "Truth." In reality, the "Process" yields so much blatantly wrong decisions that anyone with any intellectual honesty would regard it as a DEFECTIVE process.
You post the deliberations of courts without addressing the salient issue. Are the assumed facts correct? At best, they can be said to be in dispute, but at worst, the assumed facts are wrong. The courts are another manifestation of a garbage machine. Garbage in, yields Garbage out, not truth.
You simply don't care. You are what I regard as a "Process Nazi." Results be d@mned, so long as "process" is followed.
Once again, the three of you have basically the same argument. "We are right because Legal "Authorities" agree with us.
Jeff: "All Legal authorities agree with us. "
Nero Germanicus: "All Legal authorities agree with us."
Kansas Parrot: "All Legal authorities agree with us.'
Yeah, that's some argument you've got there. Among people who know something about logic, it is referred to as a "fallacy."