Sheriff Joe may be effective and may give the project another shove in the correct direction--we can be hopeful.
As to ballot access--my comments on this thread have been based on a limited review of the papers in two of the five cases. I don't see the global remedy of getting him off the ballot in both the primary and the election but it may be there in papers I have not seen.
The reason you might proceed on only the primary is because you think you have a better shot at avoiding creating a federal question. Maybe you can proceed on the general as well without creating a federal question although the Supreme Court didn't have a problem getting in to the case in Bush v. Gore.
It isn't clear how many states you need to remove him from the ballot on to affect his ability as a candidate. It might be enough to just get him off the primary ballot in half the states to cause the Dem's to decide he is a problem.
In fact, I think something like that is at least being discussed in DC at present and it may well bear fruit if we see more progress.
As a judgment proposition, I don't think he can afford to lose very many of these arguments and remain an effective candidate.
When you are as divisive a political factor as Obama has been, you tend to attract adversaries who increase the level of problems you have being effective.
I would feel better about our chances if we had more effective and better coordinated legal help. But the Georgia case at present at least is moving in the right direction.
David, this is the third time I have asked you this question below in this thread and you have refused to respond. It should be a very simple question for you to answer since you are a lawyer. I present it to you again for the third time. I would appreciate a answer. Here it is:
If you were the attorney handling these ballot challenge hearings for plaintiffs, what cases would you cite to declare Barack Obama ineligible for Article 2 Section 1?
Thanks for your follow-up posts. Please excuse my spouting-off posts they were not directed at you personally and most likely confirm your point about the lack of sophistication required to deal with the courts.
I have a question. You say:
“The cover up and fraudulent record we have seen here almost certainly involves criminal conduct. But it isn’t likely that you get effective relief until you have resolved the ultimate issue.”
Don’t lawyers swear an oath to the US Constitution and their state Constitutions?
They may know he was born somewhere in the US (not HI) and conclude he is a NBC but how are they not aiding and abetting fraud with regards to the forged birth certificates instead of just defending him?
Also, if they know he was born outside of the US with to a non-citizen father aren’t they aiding and abetting Obama?