Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Do let me know when you get to those “dreadful, horrible” posts of mine.
Maybe you should get back to work, instead of cheating your employer out of the time that he is paying you for. ;-)
I set my own hours. Maybe you should KMA.
You can believe anything. That's easy.
What you are attempting to do here is get in a position where a legal resolution by a court with jurisdiction would have the affect of making zero ineligible to hold the office of President and set the foundation to remove him from office.
Anybody who thinks a court is going to found a decision holding him ineligible on the fact that his "father was not an American citizen at the time of [his] birth" just doesn't understand how cases like this are decided by the courts.
How right you are.
Ladies shouldn’t talk like that, butt in any case, we all know that y’all like to FReep from work.
I’m on Spring Break vacation with my family, genius.
Let's remove any “sitting” perspective and view it solely in terms of eligibility as a candidate.
Do you think there is no likelihood of a state court agreeing that based on its need to maintain the integrity of its election process, a state has a compelling interest in assuring that its presidential candidates are natural born citizens?
Let’s assume at the state level that interest is limited to confirming, via credible evidence, that a candidate has a U.S. birthplace.
like I said, y’all.
When Sean Hannity talks about witnessing the pure vitriol and nasty personal attacks that prompted him and other conservative icons to stop participating at FR, people like you are exactly who he means.
You do a disservice to Jim and your fellow FReepers by demonstrating exactly the behavior to which Hannity refers. People like you and your comrades on the previous thread are an embarrasment to conservatism. You damage the credibility and influence of the this fine forum with every personal attack you make.
Now, until you and Miss Lucy can produce the evidence to support the claims you both made, I won’t be responding to you further. So that means never.
Do you think there is no likelihood of a state court agreeing that based on its need to maintain the integrity of its election process, a state has a compelling interest in assuring that its presidential candidates are natural born citizens?
Let’s assume at the state level that interest is limited to confirming, via credible evidence, that a candidate has a U.S. birthplace.
That's a perfect set of questions--nothing wrong with any of that. Further, I would not restrict the issue to exclude the sitting--I think if a state could conclude or provide evidence to a 51-49 probability or better that a sitting President was not eligible to hold the office, the state would have a remedy by resort to the Courts and I have a fair idea how that could be effectively done.
As to the ballot question, also no doubt--a state has a legally protectable interest in confirming that a person who seeks the states approval of designation of electors to a National Convention by access to the State's ballot process is eligible to hold the office.
So where did we go wrong in Georgia?
Throughout the course of the last fifteen plus years, zero has gone around telling people (including our own Race Bannon) in various settings--some one to one; sometimes in coffee hour campaign settings; many places; that he was born in Mombasa Kenya.
There are, I understand, affidavits from such persons (evincing their testimony to such statements) scattered around in the various court files of litigation that has been filed seeking access to judicial process on the issue.
Those statements come in as evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule for statements against interest. They are evidence probative of and tending to prove that the person making such statements, zero, was in fact born in Kenya.
At present, those statements are the only evidence of zero's place of birth.
Forget the question of whether he was born in Kenya or not--this is a real lawyers description of how you reach the merits.
The Administrative Law Judge thought the digital image of a birth certificate was evidence. I don't know what kind of a job counsel did with the evidence on that issue--I know that the image is not evidence and believe that competent counsel should have had no difficulty putting sufficient evidence in the record that the image is not evidence of anything except fraud in process--certainly not evidence of birth or birthplace.
In very short order I would have the case to the ALJ on the basis of an argument that the only evidence places his birth in Kenya.
At that point, he could appear and argue that he was born somewhere else and would then have the burden of producing his own evidence of such birth elsewhere. If he didn't appear, and in the George case he did not, the ALJ should rule him off the ballot.
And if the ALJ did not rule him off the ballot, and the Secretary of State did not reverse the ALJ and rule him off the ballot, an appellate court would reverse the decision in a fairly peremptory way.
Simple case. I seldom venture to guarantee results in litigation but in this case, that is how the case should have been approached and would have been won.
This is kind of part of teaching people to think about these legal issues the way you need to analyze them in order to see how to get an effective remedy.
See the answer to that is "so what"? That's really not relevant to the conversation. So he was being groomed for the Presidency? So what? I was groomed for the Presidency--I just didn't get elected. Who cares?
What does that have to do with where he was born? Or his eligibility to hold the office of President? What does that have to do with the legal issue of "natural born".
...competent counsel...
Taitz's ranking is a matter of record, not sure about Orion but presumably, local attorney Hatfield is an experienced litigator.
So where did we go wrong in Georgia?
Perhaps by at least one of the parties not taking the offered default; of course, the effort may continue in GA.
...he could appear and argue that he was born somewhere else and would then have the burden of producing his own evidence of [a U.S. birth]..."
IMO, there ought to be room to argue he appeared when his counsel copied the ALR and all parties between hearings with its letter to the SOS that included a copy of a BC. It may be helpful later if it can be established that there is now in the GA court system a bogus, or at least highly questionable birth document which was offered by defendant's counsel.
'...competent counsel...'"
--------------
I don't see anybody in this group I would hire to take on Perkins no. ---------------------
IMO, there ought to be room to argue he appeared when his counsel copied the ALR and all parties between hearings with its letter to the SOS that included a copy of a BC. It may be helpful later if it can be established that there is now in the GA court system a bogus, or at least highly questionable birth document which was offered by defendant's counsel.
I am sure you value your opinion--you are certainly welcome to think whatever you like.
Thank you for your courtesy. Although I will concede my post may have sounded too opinionated and not designed to elicit a give and take conversation.
Let me avoid any issue regarding the mobility of exhibits between one action and another.
When defendant transmitted his BC to the ALJ, it was the closest we have come to that being before a court, if not in fact.
Perhaps it will be enough in GA in an action regarding the general election that its SOS is in possession of a public record formally delivered by the defendant. A public record that many believe is not authentic.
Would that not play a role in the approach you advocate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.