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.
...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.