Posted on 07/06/2011 7:29:22 AM PDT by wintertime
Sorry, but this is nonsense. One way to file a motion to dismiss is called "Motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence" where the documentary evidence "establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law." In one of Obama's cases, his defense advised judicial notice of the factlack dot org website, which is odd because they could have submitted the actual birth certificate as an exhibit.
When Senator McCain and the Republican National Committee were sued on the grounds that John McCain’s birth in Panama made him ineligible, neither lawyers representing Senator McCain nor the Republican Party submitted his birth certificate to the Court.
McCain's birth certificate was irrelevant to the motion because Hollander's complaint was that McCain was not an NBC regardless of whether he was born in Colon Hospital or at the hospital on the submarine base. This is different than Obama's sitatution because his place of birth would make a difference while McCain's would not.
“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court defined the term “natural born citizen” to mean, without doubt, a person born to two citizen parents. The subject of their decision, woman’s suffrage, is irrelevant. Their definition stands to this day. Their reasons for turning down cases have not had anything to do with dispute over this definition but the standing of the plaintiffs to seek redress.”
You are correct that plaintiffs’ attorneys have not been able to present a lead plaintiff in any of the eligibility lawsuits who would be granted standing to sue.
However there are no issues of standing on the criminal side of the Justice system. A grand jury investigation of Zero for election fraud and forgery is the way to go.
“Whereupon the Supreme Court resorted to the other sources to determine that “natural born citizen” mean a person who is born to two citizen parents. Barry’s defenders have no support whatsoever in Minor v Happersett.”
However Zero’s attorneys have used Minor v Happersett in conjunction with US v Wong Kim Ark and other Supreme Court decisions to make their case for eligiblity.
If you haven’t already been there, check out this pro-Zero is eligible blog and scroll down to the “Supreme Court cases” section and read what Zero’s lawyers use as their precedents to get challenges to Zero’s eligibility thrown out.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/#Supreme
Sorry, but this is nonsense. One way to file a motion to dismiss is called “Motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence” where the documentary evidence “establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law.” In one of Obama’s cases, his defense advised judicial notice of the factlack dot org website, which is odd because they could have submitted the actual birth certificate as an exhibit.
“McCain’s birth certificate was irrelevant to the motion because Hollander’s complaint was that McCain was not an NBC regardless of whether he was born in Colon Hospital or at the hospital on the submarine base. This is different than Obama’s sitatution because his place of birth would make a difference while McCain’s would not.”
The fact remains that McCain and the RNC did not submit a birth certificate in evidence in Hollander v McCain. They too went for a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Why play a high hole card on the first round of betting?
AAARRRGGGHHH - - their => they’re
What exactly is NOT simple about submitting a document that is self-authenticating in a motion to dismiss that would respond directly to all or at least part of the legal challenge??
As a defendant, Zero doesn’t have to prove his eligibility, plaintiffs have to prove his ineligibility.
This proposes that a plaintiff should prove a negative or an "absence of evidence." Under most states' ballot nomination procedures, candidates only provide a signature. It's pretty easy to point this out in court or point to the newspaper stories that reported Obama was Kenyan-born. Without any legal evidence to show otherwise, this would be sufficient to put the burden of proof back on Obama ... unless, of course, he successfully dodges the issue by hiding behind legal standing.
The fact remains that McCain and the RNC did not submit a birth certificate in evidence in Hollander v McCain. They too went for a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
McCain's birth certificate was irrelevant to the legal question, although it's interesting to note how that plaintiff had no problems getting copies of birth certificates while no plaintiffs have been able to get copies of Obama's. McCain's MTD made several arguments based on being born within U.S. territory/sovereignty to TWO citizen parent in order to meet the definition of NBC. A birth certificate wasn't necessary because McCain didn't dispute the location of his birth.
Why play a high hole card on the first round of betting?
To ensure a better chance of winning. Why hold it back unless that document doesn't help??
“What exactly is NOT simple about submitting a document that is self-authenticating in a motion to dismiss that would respond directly to all or at least part of the legal challenge??
This proposes that a plaintiff should prove a negative or an “absence of evidence.” Under most states’ ballot nomination procedures, candidates only provide a signature. It’s pretty easy to point this out in court or point to the newspaper stories that reported Obama was Kenyan-born. Without any legal evidence to show otherwise, this would be sufficient to put the burden of proof back on Obama ... unless, of course, he successfully dodges the issue by hiding behind legal standing.
McCain’s birth certificate was irrelevant to the legal question, although it’s interesting to note how that plaintiff had no problems getting copies of birth certificates while no plaintiffs have been able to get copies of Obama’s. McCain’s MTD made several arguments based on being born within U.S. territory/sovereignty to TWO citizen parent in order to meet the definition of NBC. A birth certificate wasn’t necessary because McCain didn’t dispute the location of his birth.
To ensure a better chance of winning. Why hold it back unless that document doesn’t help??”
Either a plaintiff has Article III standing or he doesn’t. The defendant doesn’t decide that, the judge does.
Every standing dismissal was upheld on appeal. That’s 21 appeals that were dismissed.
It is the responsibility of those challenging in a civil action to present plaintiffs who can demonstrate injury in fact.
The issue presented in the Syllabus for Hollander v McCain was stated as: “Issue: Whether Senator John McCain is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be the President of the United States under the provisions of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.”
I count 74 Obama lawsuits dismissed in original jurisdiction courts, Obviously “standing” has been a successful legal strategy that has been duplicated over and over again.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
“What exactly is NOT simple about submitting a document that is self-authenticating in a motion to dismiss that would respond directly to all or at least part of the legal challenge??
This proposes that a plaintiff should prove a negative or an “absence of evidence.” Under most states’ ballot nomination procedures, candidates only provide a signature. It’s pretty easy to point this out in court or point to the newspaper stories that reported Obama was Kenyan-born. Without any legal evidence to show otherwise, this would be sufficient to put the burden of proof back on Obama ... unless, of course, he successfully dodges the issue by hiding behind legal standing.
McCain’s birth certificate was irrelevant to the legal question, although it’s interesting to note how that plaintiff had no problems getting copies of birth certificates while no plaintiffs have been able to get copies of Obama’s. McCain’s MTD made several arguments based on being born within U.S. territory/sovereignty to TWO citizen parent in order to meet the definition of NBC. A birth certificate wasn’t necessary because McCain didn’t dispute the location of his birth.
To ensure a better chance of winning. Why hold it back unless that document doesn’t help??”
Either a plaintiff has Article III standing or he doesn’t. The defendant doesn’t decide that, the judge does.
Every standing dismissal was upheld on appeal. That’s 21 appeals that were dismissed.
It is the responsibility of those challenging in a civil action to present plaintiffs who can demonstrate injury in fact.
The issue presented in the Syllabus for Hollander v McCain was stated as: “Issue: Whether Senator John McCain is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be the President of the United States under the provisions of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.”
I count 74 Obama lawsuits dismissed in original jurisdiction courts, Obviously “standing” has been a successful legal strategy that has been duplicated over and over again.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
A defendant has to consider whether Art III standing is going to be sufficient grounds in filing a motion to dismiss. There's no reason to play only one card when a self-authenticating document could help negate the legal claim against the defendant. McCain's legal team did NOT rely only on a legal-standing argument in his MTD. They addressed the merits of Hollander's eligibility claim. A birth certificate was not necessary or relevant to their response to the elibility question in the MTD. Obama probably wouldn't have had 74 lawsuits to contend with if he had filed a legal birth certificate as evidence in the first MTD.
“A defendant has to consider whether Art III standing is going to be sufficient grounds in filing a motion to dismiss. There’s no reason to play only one card when a self-authenticating document could help negate the legal claim against the defendant. McCain’s legal team did NOT rely only on a legal-standing argument in his MTD. They addressed the merits of Hollander’s eligibility claim. A birth certificate was not necessary or relevant to their response to the elibility question in the MTD. Obama probably wouldn’t have had 74 lawsuits to contend with if he had filed a legal birth certificate as evidence in the first MTD.”
I think you’re forgetting that for an Article III standing dismissal, the judge must accept all of the plaintiff’s allegations as true.
Therefore all of the judges and justices who have ruled on standing have stipulated that Obama is ineligible; was not born in Hawaii; surrendered his American citizenship when adopted by Lolo Soetoro and never reinstated it; is ineligible because his father was a Kenyan; and/or is ineligible due to his own birth outside the US, et cetera.
In spite of those stipulations, the judge has to determine whether the plaintiff suffered injury-in-fact; did the plaintiff state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does the court have jurisdiction over the matter at hand.
Standing determinations precede dismissals on evidentiary grounds.
Many of the eligibility lawsuits that were dismissed on standing grounds did not sue Obama directly so the 74 lawsuit number is the total number of rulings whether Obama was a defendant or not.
Sorry, but you seem to be drifting pretty far from your original argument. If the judge “must accept all of the plaintiffs allegations as true,” then it makes even less sense for Obama to NOT submit a legal birth certificate as evidence in an MTD.
Sorry, but you seem to be drifting pretty far from your original argument. If the judge “must accept all of the plaintiffs allegations as true,” then it makes even less sense for Obama to NOT submit a legal birth certificate as evidence in an MTD.
This was your original comment:
Any court of law in the land will accept a certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a state/county/city as long as it contains the official state/county/city Seal and an authorizing signature of an official of the state/county/city.
This statement doesn't mean a whole lot given that Obama had plenty of opportunities to present his birth certificate to several courts of law and refused.
It would be redundant to submit any defense evidence on a motion to dismiss on standing grounds.
We've already discussed that it's not since one of the ways to file a MTD is based upon documentary evidence that deals with the specific legal question being invoked. We've also noted that Obama's defense has pointed to non-documentary evidence while it would have been much easier to present an actual LEGAL certificate, if one really exists. And we've already noted that there likely wouldn't have been 74 lawsuits if Obama had simply showed legal evidence in the very first lawsuit. There's no need to make excuses for hiding whatever documentary evidence he might have ... unless it's not valid.
That’s interesting. Hang in there!
Please don’t be mean to albatrosses.
Obama’s installation and performance in office is the phenomenon unchecked by any rationality and honest accountability. His behavior in office has been criminal, craven and venal, seditious, and treasonous.
It is almost certain, using only the observed MO once he gained the office, that he also gained that office by fraud.
He is a man of habits.
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.