But the law in this case says that the burden of Proof rested with Obama. It was up to him to prove that he was eligible. Not the other way around. No docs by him means that no proof was offered. This decision was rigged for one or several reasons. No doubt about it.
From the judges decision:
“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”
The plaintiffs asked that the court decide solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence. They are the ones that shifted the burden of proof by asking the judge to decide purely on their evidence. The judge found their case without legal merit.
From the judges decision:
“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”
The plaintiffs asked that the court decide solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence. They are the ones that shifted the burden of proof by asking the judge to decide purely on their evidence. The judge found their case without legal merit.
“But the law in this case says that the burden of Proof rested with Obama. It was up to him to prove that he was eligible.”
______
What law are you citing?
From the ruling I read, the plaintiffs were offered a default judgement when defendant blew off the subpoena but refused the victory and instead wanted the judge to rule on their evidence. The judge weighed their evidence and found it to be so weak that he found they had raised no authentic issues, ie. no reason for defense to answer such a weak accusation. This was stupid on plaintiff’s part. They had a victory in hand and threw it away.
Article 9 of the Jay Treaty is still in effect. That treaty recognizes dual citizenship for British subjects and United States citizens. A natural born citizen is a citizen born of two citizen parents who owes no allegiance to any other country than the United States from the moment of his birth. The United States legally recognizes the dual citizenship of Barack Obama from his birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen owing to the fact that he owed allegiance to at least three different nations from his birth.
Article 9 of the Jay Treaty is still in effect. That treaty recognizes dual citizenship for British subjects and United States citizens. A natural born citizen is a citizen born of two citizen parents who owes no allegiance to any other country than the United States from the moment of his birth. The United States legally recognizes the dual citizenship of Barack Obama from his birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen owing to the fact that he owed allegiance to at least three different nations from his birth.