[El Gato]

If you think he's not eligible, first you have to present some sort of verified, substantiated, certified proof of ineligibility to get the court, or Congress, to act.

So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?

Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.

Not one of these lawyers, least of all Taitz, has done that.

No judge had yet looked at any evidence. AFAIK, all the cases have been thrown out on "standing" or "jurisdictional" grounds.

[browardchad]

So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?

Yes. You do.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

You have to proof that your case has some merit.

For example, I decide that I want to sue El Gato for assault and battery because I think you broke into my house last night and beat me up in my sleep.

I have no proof of this. And you live 1000 miles away.

But I suspect that you bought a plane ticket.

The only way to confirm you bought a plane ticket is through discovery because I need to see your credit card records.

I bring a suit.

Should the judge allow discovery?

Keep in mind that I actually have stated a cause of action and am seeking damages in the amount of $10,000.00.

In no birther case, has anyone actually named any damages yet as far as I can tell. They are essentially asking for equitable relief in the form of Obama’s removal from office.

[awake-n-angry]

“Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?

Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.”

________________

Trials are not intended to allow you to fish for evidence. Trials are a forum in which you present your evidence.

Taitz ia a nut and this gets consistently sillier everyday.

[Non-Sequitur]

So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?

If you can present no evidence to support your claims then why should there be a trial in the first place?

Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.

To weigh the evidence presented for and against the defendant.

No judge had yet looked at any evidence. AFAIK, all the cases have been thrown out on "standing" or "jurisdictional" grounds.

What evidence do they have to offer?

[browardchad]

So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?

No, you have to prove that you actually have a case.

A Kenyan BC, attested by a dodgy source who admits to obtaining the cert by bribe; wild accusations, with no proof, that Hawaii issued BC's to the foreign-born; and a random internet database printout of SS numbers don't convince judges that there is a case.

Where's the beef? Judges need beef.