Replies

"Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status.”—US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, Rhodes v MacDonald

This judge has absolutely no clue what electoral quo warranto means nor how it is applied. It is truly astounding how many justices and attorneys in this nation either a) ignore the laws or b) do not understand the laws.

Being elected is not a right. Like driving, it is a privilege, one requiring the person holding the license or title to prove themselves worthy of holding that privilege.

Just to note that I had not read your post before I responded right below that post, some time later. That is we both identified the obvious failing of Mr. Land’s ruling independently. And it is so terrible a failing of a ruling that I refuse to use Judge rather than “Mr.”

This judge has absolutely no clue what electoral quo warranto means nor how it is applied. It is truly astounding how many justices and attorneys in this nation either a) ignore the laws or b) do not understand the laws.

Being elected is not a right. Like driving, it is a privilege, one requiring the person holding the license or title to prove themselves worthy of holding that privilege.

When Orly Taitz attempted a quo warranto claim against Obama in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in his opinion: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Judge Lamberth dismissed the quo warranto claim on the grounds of not meeting the requirements of standing under Article III of the Constitution.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0