[jamese777]

Claimant. Not defendant. And it is not burden of proof, rather it is that the legitimacy of a claim to a title is disputed. The proofs each EQUAL side must be heard and weighed. See Quit Claims, or Quo Warranto. No such hearing has been granted.

This has been a mockery of law and process of law.

---

Would you be so kind as to link to an Obama eligibility lawsuit that lists Barack Hussein Obama II as a “claimant” and not a “defendant?” Thanks.

For example, here’s the cover sheet for an Obama eligibility quo warranto filing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25988373/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-1-1-Civil-Cover-Sheet-Gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-1-1

And here’s the docket for the first case heard today on appeal at the Supreme Court:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/

And here’s the docket for the original “Obama is ineligible” civil suit:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/

[bvw]

How’s that dissertation coming?

[bvw]

Blackstone uses “defendant” for Quo Warranto, and the process is said to be long and exhaustive, thus we infer that short-cuts like presumption of any significant disputed fact towards one party were not in effect.

Tell me, where does the Article III power to demand that local districts bus young children living on the same block as a school to another school a hour’s drive away?

Where does the Article III power to insist that certain politically defined “racial” groups get preferential treatment in being given contracts and jobs within the government, or in private companies doing business with the same?

Where does the Article III power come to give cause for a Judge to demean the petitioner before him? Is the ruling any more legal for resort to provocative smears? Just wondering...

[bvw]

When Blackstone wrote on Common Law he wrote in the context of a King and subjects. The subject of a Quo Warranto -- the defendant -- has in essence harmed the King. That is not the same in America, the sovereign here is no King, it is instead "We the People of the United States". "We the People", as a people, and "We the People of the United States", that is as represented through our States.

A dispute as to whether a President is eligible to hold the Office is no trifle, and yet the COURTS have treated it as such. While process of law in the US has settled into many constraints, not all are wise, nor is process of law, Law, or is it Justice. Justice has not been had here, people are in states of uproar, that uproar will increase. Should a lawyer or judge love process more than Justice?