Hospital Won't Back Obama Birth Claim

[Modbert]

roflmnao..

You're such a fucking super-douschebag...

 

[geauxtohell]

[q
what difference does it make it to you, the board, this discussion? what do you do for a living?

Well, if we are discussing issues of legalities, and you are a lawyer, that would suggest some expertise in the area of the law.

I am a medical student.

IOW, my neg rep spoke the truth.....and if you dont' care....and you admit all i said asshole...why bring up.....

Because, when people act like children, I tend to point it out. Seriously throw a temper tantrum if you want, it just re-iterates that you are a child.

you're dead wrong....you're talking vote recounts vs. producing a one sheet of paper....

The issues is still standing as a venue to challenge an election. The issue is, just who can challenge the legitimacy of an election and what ramifications will that have if it is opened up to every single citizen in the country (as opposed to the "harmed" party, which the courts have deemed begins and ends with the other candidate).

You keep getting sidetracked about how Obama just has to produce that one magic piece of paper.

I don't blame him for not given in to the demands of the fringe right.

Why?

Because it won't end there.

you again are dead wrong...mccain.....threw everything he had on the table to convince people....and that got resolved real quick.....obama, doesn't want to provide information.......

Actually, and not ironically, the lawyers for the GOP in the McCain case argued "standing" as well:

Lawyers for John McCain and the state and national Republican Party on Thursday asked a federal judge in San Francisco to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the candidate's place on California's Nov. 4 ballot.

................

But lawyers for the GOP and McCain wrote Thursday that Robinson lacks standing to sue and is asking the courts to tread where the Constitution forbids.

California lawsuit questions McCain's Eligibility for Presidency

why is that? why the openess of the mccain....why does obama not do the same thing...they both were challenged and only one rose up and met the challenge....obama is still hiding information as compared to mccain

that is a fact

And ultimately, your arguement boils down to a whine fest about why the President of the United States won't capitulate to the demands of a group of people that are never going to be satisfied either way.

You want to see Obama's "vault" copy, and I want to win the powerball.

Wish in one hand and shit in the other.......

The only relevant thing is the law.

And you guys can't seem to win a single motion.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Thread Moved

ROFLMNAO..

You're such a fucking super-douschebag...

Enjoy your vacation.

 

[Yurt]

QUOTE=geauxtohell;1329663]

[q
what difference does it make it to you, the board, this discussion? what do you do for a living?

Well, if we are discussing issues of legalities, and you are a lawyer, that would suggest some expertise in the area of the law.

I am a medical student.

i hope you gain some common sense....i don't come on this board as a lawyer......when you're along in your alleged med studies, just remember the time you bitched about some lawyer on a website when you're just shooting the shit with your pals and they say.........hey, you're a doctor, anything you say can and will be held against you......

you have a lot to learn about life

[

quote]e]
IOW, my neg rep spoke the truth.....and if you dont' care....and you admit all i said asshole...why bring up.....

Because, when people act like children, I tend to point it out. Seriously throw a temper tantrum if you want, it just re-iterates that you are a child.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
and you want to be a doctor....sad

The issues is still standing as a venue to challenge an election. The issue is, just who can challenge the legitimacy of an election and what ramifications will that have if it is opened up to every single citizen in the country (as opposed to the "harmed" party, which the courts have deemed begins and ends with the other candidate).

You keep getting sidetracked about how Obama just has to produce that one magic piece of paper.

tool, it is not a "magic" piece of paper....are you in magic med school, harry potter school of medicine?

venue....dude, no one has ever brought up venue....wtf are you even talking about?

I don't blame him for not given in to the demands of the fringe right.

Why?

Because it won't end there.

yes, that is why all courts should deny standing, because it just won't end there....

Actually, and not ironically, the lawyers for the GOP in the McCain case argued "standing" as well:

yes they did......

did mccain produce

yes or no

did obama produce

yes or no

 

[Care4all]

mccain did not have to produce anything yurt....

he was born in panama, 1 year before the law was written and passed, that made children born in the canal zone to American citizen parents, citizens at birth.

the Senate, gave a "sense of the Senate" vote, a nonbinding vote, that supported Mccain's eligibility to become President even though, at the time of his birth and according to our Laws at the time, he WAS NOT a citizen of the United States at birth, but naturalized as one later....well if you are a naturalized citizen, you are not able to be President, making mcCain ineligible....

The Senate said that this law that was passed to make those born in Panama canal zone to citizens, citizens themselves at birth, was RETROACTIVE and covered McCain....is my understanding of the entire ordeal.

Mccain's certification of birth is Panama and has always been Panama, there was nothing new regarding such and as said there was absolutely nothing new that McCain had to "put on the table" so I am uncertain what you mean on that?

Obama has shown his birth place to be Hawaii via his State's Certification of his Live Birth there...

THERE IS NOTHING to put on the table to question his citizenship at birth....he has no birth certification that says Kenya, as mccain had one that said Panama....his birth certificate, says Hawaii and Hawaii State officials double verified such....so, there is nothing to be put on the table by Obama, unless he is holding a Kenyan birth certification in his pocket?

Care

 

[Care4all]

mccain did not have to produce anything yurt....

he was born in panama, 1 year before the law was written and passed, that made children born in the canal zone to American citizen parents, citizens at birth.

the Senate, gave a "sense of the Senate" vote, a nonbinding vote, that supported Mccain's eligibility to become President even though, at the time of his birth and according to our Laws at the time, he WAS NOT a citizen of the United States at birth, but naturalized as one later....well if you are a naturalized citizen, you are not able to be President, making mcCain ineligible....

The Senate said that this law that was passed to make those born in Panama canal zone to citizens, citizens themselves at birth, was RETROACTIVE and covered McCain....is my understanding of the entire ordeal.

Mccain's certification of birth is Panama and has always been Panama, there was nothing new regarding such and as said there was absolutely nothing new that McCain had to "put on the table" so I am uncertain what you mean on that?

Obama has shown his birth place to be Hawaii via his State's Certification of his Live Birth there...

THERE IS NOTHING to put on the table to question his citizenship at birth....he has no birth certification that says Kenya, as mccain had one that said Panama....his birth certificate, says Hawaii and Hawaii State officials double verified such....so, there is nothing to be put on the table by Obama, unless he is holding a Kenyan birth certification in his pocket?

Care

 

[Againsheila]

mccain did not have to produce anything yurt....

he was born in panama, 1 year before the law was written and passed, that made children born in the canal zone to American citizen parents, citizens at birth.

the Senate, gave a "sense of the Senate" vote, a nonbinding vote, that supported Mccain's eligibility to become President even though, at the time of his birth and according to our Laws at the time, he WAS NOT a citizen of the United States at birth, but naturalized as one later....well if you are a naturalized citizen, you are not able to be President, making mcCain ineligible....

The Senate said that this law that was passed to make those born in Panama canal zone to citizens, citizens themselves at birth, was RETROACTIVE and covered McCain....is my understanding of the entire ordeal.

Mccain's certification of birth is Panama and has always been Panama, there was nothing new regarding such and as said there was absolutely nothing new that McCain had to "put on the table" so I am uncertain what you mean on that?

Obama has shown his birth place to be Hawaii via his State's Certification of his Live Birth there...

THERE IS NOTHING to put on the table to question his citizenship at birth....he has no birth certification that says Kenya, as mccain had one that said Panama....his birth certificate, says Hawaii and Hawaii State officials double verified such....so, there is nothing to be put on the table by Obama, unless he is holding a Kenyan birth certification in his pocket?

Care

Yep, McCain didn't qualify to be president and so he said nothing about Obama's lack of qualification for the same reason. neither one of them is a natural born citizen of this country. we have once again been duped. Like PT Barnum said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"

 

[Yurt]

care,

seriously, what is wrong with you? this issue has clouded your reasoning and for the life of me i can't figure out why. i never, ever said he had to produce anything....he CHOSE to produce everything he could to put the issue entirely behind him so that he and the country could move forward....

mr. transparency has done the exact opposite, he has fought everything and produced as little as possible and i've given you links that detail numerous inconsistencies on where obama was born (hospital)....why is the harm in simply producing a copy of the original like mccain did so we can all move on....you arguing against that is irrational.

 

[jvn]

Just a quick note here because the misuse of legal terms drives me NUTS!

Here is the definition of Prima Facie:

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail.

So, the Certification of Live Birth which says that it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated thereon is saying that it is sufficient to "establish the fact in question unless rebutted."

Get that?

It doesn't mean that it ISN'T certified evidence, it doesn't mean that it ISN'T proof unless presented in a court of law, it means that the information on the certification IS TO BE TAKEN AS FACT UNLESS REBUTTED IN COURT!!!!

So this establishes two things.

First, the President HAS submitted written documentation establishing his birth in Hawaii in August 1961, and

Second, that the burden of proof here is on those who claim that he is not eligible to be President because he was born in Kenya or wherever else but the US.

Has anybody seen any proof of THAT? I haven't seen anything that even remotely indicates that...

i've already explain this in detail to care, and this is exactly why i tire of discussing this issue with her...and if you claim i have misused the word you're dead wrong.

why haven't you seen proof.....because no court has allowed them access to a copy or the original....or to bring their claim in court

all they want is their day in court to rebut the evidence.

it is simple really, if obama releases a copy of the original, it goes beyond a presumption....

If you have "explained this in detail," you must have explained your incorrect usage of the phrase because it's pretty clear that your understanding of what "prima facie" means is about 175 degrees from what it really means, especially since you state that the COLB "is only prima facie proof..." (Emphasis mine).

The fact is that "prima facie" evidence is sufficent to establish the data on the COLB as a legal FACT unless rebutted.

It is that supposed rebuttal evidence that I want to see AND THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

Let's suppose that I file a lawsuit against you, claiming that you have cheated me out of millions of dollars. I ask the judge to force you to give me access to every financial record, ever, that relates to you or your wife or any corporations that you have ever been involved with because without that information I have no evidence of the damage you have caused to me beyond my "strong belief" that you have cheated me.

Do you think any judge would grant my discovery motion in the absence of evidence from me that corroborated my claims?

Should he?

Now change that scenario and I am in court filing a lawsuit that claims that you have cheated me, as a citizen of the United States, because you have cheated on your taxes for years. I raise a discovery motion asking to see every tax form and document you have ever filed, but I am willing to "settle" for just last year's information.

You move to dismiss, first because you don't think I should be able to sue you for that because my claim for damages is specious at best, and second you tell the judge that the federal government, the IRS and the Justice Department have never raised this issue with you and that you've paid your taxes.

Which motion will the judge approve?

 

[Yurt]

Just a quick note here because the misuse of legal terms drives me NUTS!

Here is the definition of Prima Facie:

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail.

So, the Certification of Live Birth which says that it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated thereon is saying that it is sufficient to "establish the fact in question unless rebutted."

Get that?

It doesn't mean that it ISN'T certified evidence, it doesn't mean that it ISN'T proof unless presented in a court of law, it means that the information on the certification IS TO BE TAKEN AS FACT UNLESS REBUTTED IN COURT!!!!

So this establishes two things.

First, the President HAS submitted written documentation establishing his birth in Hawaii in August 1961, and

Second, that the burden of proof here is on those who claim that he is not eligible to be President because he was born in Kenya or wherever else but the US.

Has anybody seen any proof of THAT? I haven't seen anything that even remotely indicates that...

i've already explain this in detail to care, and this is exactly why i tire of discussing this issue with her...and if you claim i have misused the word you're dead wrong.

why haven't you seen proof.....because no court has allowed them access to a copy or the original....or to bring their claim in court

all they want is their day in court to rebut the evidence.

it is simple really, if obama releases a copy of the original, it goes beyond a presumption....

If you have "explained this in detail," you must have explained your incorrect usage of the phrase because it's pretty clear that your understanding of what "prima facie" means is about 175 degrees from what it really means, especially since you state that the COLB "is only prima facie proof..." (Emphasis mine).

The fact is that "prima facie" evidence is sufficent to establish the data on the COLB as a legal FACT unless rebutted.

It is that supposed rebuttal evidence that I want to see AND THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

Let's suppose that I file a lawsuit against you, claiming that you have cheated me out of millions of dollars. I ask the judge to force you to give me access to every financial record, ever, that relates to you or your wife or any corporations that you have ever been involved with because without that information I have no evidence of the damage you have caused to me beyond my "strong belief" that you have cheated me.

Do you think any judge would grant my discovery motion in the absence of evidence from me that corroborated my claims?

Should he?

Now change that scenario and I am in court filing a lawsuit that claims that you have cheated me, as a citizen of the United States, because you have cheated on your taxes for years. I raise a discovery motion asking to see every tax form and document you have ever filed, but I am willing to "settle" for just last year's information.

You move to dismiss, first because you don't think I should be able to sue you for that because my claim for damages is specious at best, and second you tell the judge that the federal government, the IRS and the Justice Department have never raised this issue with you and that you've paid your taxes.

Which motion will the judge approve?

*shakes head*

you just proved my point moron...if i don't allow you access to evidence to rebut the prima facie evidence, a judge should and will force me to give you the evidence to allow you to rebut....in many cases the only evidence lies with the prima facie party, that is why courts routinely have status conferences, motions to compel evidence etc....because most times the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption lies with the other party.

the second has nothing to do with prima facie evidence, it is a standing question...seriously, stop thinking you're some legal scholar, its embarrassing

 

[geauxtohell]

i hope you gain some common sense....i don't come on this board as a lawyer......when you're along in your alleged med studies, just remember the time you bitched about some lawyer on a website when you're just shooting the shit with your pals and they say.........hey, you're a doctor, anything you say can and will be held against you......

LOL. Assuming you are a lawyer; no one is asking you to do pro bono work. We are just trying to see if you have a level of expertise. Furthermore, no one is going to "hold anything" againt you. The standard of your alleged profession is to be able to argue all sides of a case, even unpopular ones.

you have a lot to learn about life

Oh, this is a second career for me, so I've been around the block a few times. I doubt I am going to learn much about life from a person whose only recourse against those who disagree with him is to start name calling.

I am pretty sure that's the mark of a bad lawyer.

and you want to be a doctor....sad

Yes, I wouldn't be in medical school if I didn't want to be a doctor.

tool, it is not a "magic" piece of paper....are you in magic med school, harry potter school of medicine?

No, but it would be fucking awesome if I were. Medicine plus magic powers? Talk about your dynamic combo! I could charge people to heal them or cast a spell on people they don't like!

venue....dude, no one has ever brought up venue....wtf are you even talking about?

Did I miss-use a legal term? Why don't you tell me. Straighten me out with your expertise.

yes they did......

LMAO. So if the reasons these cases have been getting tossed is due to standing, and you are bitching about that, why would you cite a case where your side used standing as their legal arguement?

did mccain produce

yes or no

did obama produce

yes or no

Graciously answered by another poster.

 

[geauxtohell]

the second has nothing to do with prima facie evidence, it is a standing question...seriously, stop thinking you're some legal scholar, its embarrassing

From the poster that won't confirm or deny that he is a lawyer.

LMAO!

Are you a legal scholar, or can you tell us?

 

[Yurt]

i called you a name because of your condescending attitude....your posts above are meaningless and offer nothing to the discussion....i don't claim to be an expert here and your insistence on this is stupid and irrelevant...

even if i was a lawyer, that does not necessarily make me an expert in this area of the law. why don't stop obsessing about what i do for a living....

and i did not cite a case, you did

fact: mccain produced, obama did not

 

[geauxtohell]

i called you a name because of your condescending attitude....your posts above are meaningless and offer nothing to the discussion....i don't claim to be an expert here and your insistence on this is stupid and irrelevant...

Oh, I've got the attitude? Face it, "condescending attitude" is anyone that doesn't buy your fanciful conspiracies. If the "birth certificate issue" is your "product", you are a lousy salesman.

If your solution is to start calling people who disagree with you idiots, morons, and assholes, you're movement is never going anywhere.

You have successfully marginalized yourself.

even if i was a lawyer, that does not necessarily make me an expert in this area of the law. why don't stop obsessing about what i do for a living....

It would make you more knowledgeble of any legal issue than a bunch of laymen. Additionally, when you point your finger at people and tell them they are not "legal scholars", it begs the question "are you?".

and i did not cite a case, you did

fact: mccain produced, obama did not

LMAO. Backpeddle, backpeddle, backpeddle. The legal issue is still standing. McCain's lawyers argued it. Apparently it has merit. I can see the merit to the arguement, and have explained it.

Short of being able to respond to that, you resort to insisting that Obama capitulate to a fringe group of people who can't win a case in court.

Surely, you are aware that there is no burden on the other side to give in to the demands to the losing party in a court case?

 

[Yurt]

Oh, I've got the attitude? Face it, "condescending attitude" is anyone that doesn't buy your fanciful conspiracies. If the "birth certificate issue" is your "product", you are a lousy salesman.

you show your ignorance and condescending attitude right here....i'm a lousy salesman....what? i'm not selling any conspiracy, yet here you are telling me i'm a lousy salesman...and you wonder why i call you a moron...

If your solution is to start calling people who disagree with you idiots, morons, and assholes, you're movement is never going anywhere.

You have successfully marginalized yourself.

i call them that when they deserve it, for instance misrepresenting what i said or flat out ignoring what i say repeatedly or your attitude above...if someone is going to tell me repeatedly i am wrong on prima facie and their explanation actually proves them wrong....they're an idiot, one time ok, repeatedly, no

It would make you more knowledgeble of any legal issue than a bunch of laymen. Additionally, when you point your finger at people and tell them they are not "legal scholars", it begs the question "are you?".

still obsessing about me....get a life and debate what i have said, not my qualifications to say so. i said that about the person above because they wrongfully keep insisting my use of prima facie is wrong and they do so in a way that they think they are a legal scholar....why you are whining about what i say to someone else is bizarre....

LMAO. Backpeddle, backpeddle, backpeddle. The legal issue is still standing. McCain's lawyers argued it. Apparently it has merit. I can see the merit to the arguement, and have explained it.

there is absolutely no back peddle, you're flat out lying, you said above that i cited the mccain "case"....you're wrong, i cited mccain handing out the information...you actually are bolstering my argument for obama producing a copy...mccain, despite fighting it in court on standing and winning, still produced a plethora of evidence, including a copy of his original birth certificate....why won't obama....

Short of being able to respond to that, you resort to insisting that Obama capitulate to a fringe group of people who can't win a case in court.

Surely, you are aware that there is no burden on the other side to give in to the demands to the losing party in a court case?

you again miss the point, i believe the court is wrong. in fact many here who believe obama is a citizen also feel it is wrong that the court does not grant standing to citizens. your argument is that because a court said so, i can't have an opinion on the matter is the most ignorant comment i've probably ever heard. mccain produced evidence, mr. transparency is not. thats a fact, mccain went all out to put the issue behind him and the country, obama is not.

you can call it fringe, but just look at how many threads and posts there on the issue. you calling it fringe is copout

 

[jvn]

*shakes head*

you just proved my point moron...if i don't allow you access to evidence to rebut the prima facie evidence, a judge should and will force me to give you the evidence to allow you to rebut....in many cases the only evidence lies with the prima facie party, that is why courts routinely have status conferences, motions to compel evidence etc....because most times the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption lies with the other party.

the second has nothing to do with prima facie evidence, it is a standing question...seriously, stop thinking you're some legal scholar, its embarrassing

Well, this answers some questions.

First, you are not a lawyer.

Second, this issue has pushed around the bend.

You are claiming that a judge would grant a motion allowing someone suing you for damages access to all of the financial records ever associated with you based entirely on the word of the plaintiff that you had caused him damage?

See, the first part of any lawsuit is the plaintiff showing the damage caused and evidence that establishes that claim. NOT the plaintiff making an unsupported claim and then being given access to information so he or she can go hunting for evidence that might support the claim.

The real problem here is that this is not an issue that can be settled by the courts.

The Congress is the final constitutional arbiter of the outcomes of presidential elections. There are procedures in place to look into questions like this when they perform that duty the first week in January following a presidential election.

By their vote certifying the election of President Obama without objection they settled this issue. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution has been followed and the appropriate authorities have certified not only his eligibility, but have sworn him into office.

I doubt that the courts could even remove him from office now if they wanted to. If he was charged with crimes, the Congress would have to impeach and remove him.

You may think it would be "nice" for the President to show you his original birth certificate, but he doesn't have to. I suggest that you not vote for him in 2012 because that's your only recourse at this point...

 

[Againsheila]

*shakes head*

you just proved my point moron...if i don't allow you access to evidence to rebut the prima facie evidence, a judge should and will force me to give you the evidence to allow you to rebut....in many cases the only evidence lies with the prima facie party, that is why courts routinely have status conferences, motions to compel evidence etc....because most times the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption lies with the other party.

the second has nothing to do with prima facie evidence, it is a standing question...seriously, stop thinking you're some legal scholar, its embarrassing

Well, this answers some questions.

First, you are not a lawyer.

Second, this issue has pushed around the bend.

You are claiming that a judge would grant a motion allowing someone suing you for damages access to all of the financial records ever associated with you based entirely on the word of the plaintiff that you had caused him damage?

See, the first part of any lawsuit is the plaintiff showing the damage caused and evidence that establishes that claim. NOT the plaintiff making an unsupported claim and then being given access to information so he or she can go hunting for evidence that might support the claim.

The real problem here is that this is not an issue that can be settled by the courts.

The Congress is the final constitutional arbiter of the outcomes of presidential elections. There are procedures in place to look into questions like this when they perform that duty the first week in January following a presidential election.

By their vote certifying the election of President Obama without objection they settled this issue. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution has been followed and the appropriate authorities have certified not only his eligibility, but have sworn him into office.

I doubt that the courts could even remove him from office now if they wanted to. If he was charged with crimes, the Congress would have to impeach and remove him.

You may think it would be "nice" for the President to show you his original birth certificate, but he doesn't have to. I suggest that you not vote for him in 2012 because that's your only recourse at this point...

As I said before, the problem comes when it's discovered that he wasn't eligible to become president, a precedent will have been set. What then?

 

[jvn]

As I said before, the problem comes when it's discovered that he wasn't eligible to become president, a precedent will have been set. What then?

What has been "established" is that someone born in the United States, who, under the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the USSC is a citizen at birth is a "Natural Born Citizen."

That has not really been in question despite the rantings of some to the contrary.

The Congress simply certified that in January.

Granted, if someone offered proof that he wasn't born in the United States there might be some issues, but this really isn't setting precedent at all because most everyone understands that being an NBC means just that, that you are a naturally born citizen of this country, and, besides, the Congress certified the constitutionality of that definition.

 

[Yurt]

*shakes head*

you just proved my point moron...if i don't allow you access to evidence to rebut the prima facie evidence, a judge should and will force me to give you the evidence to allow you to rebut....in many cases the only evidence lies with the prima facie party, that is why courts routinely have status conferences, motions to compel evidence etc....because most times the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption lies with the other party.

the second has nothing to do with prima facie evidence, it is a standing question...seriously, stop thinking you're some legal scholar, its embarrassing

Well, this answers some questions.

First, you are not a lawyer.

Second, this issue has pushed around the bend.

You are claiming that a judge would grant a motion allowing someone suing you for damages access to all of the financial records ever associated with you based entirely on the word of the plaintiff that you had caused him damage?

See, the first part of any lawsuit is the plaintiff showing the damage caused and evidence that establishes that claim. NOT the plaintiff making an unsupported claim and then being given access to information so he or she can go hunting for evidence that might support the claim.

The real problem here is that this is not an issue that can be settled by the courts.

The Congress is the final constitutional arbiter of the outcomes of presidential elections. There are procedures in place to look into questions like this when they perform that duty the first week in January following a presidential election.

By their vote certifying the election of President Obama without objection they settled this issue. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution has been followed and the appropriate authorities have certified not only his eligibility, but have sworn him into office.

I doubt that the courts could even remove him from office now if they wanted to. If he was charged with crimes, the Congress would have to impeach and remove him.

You may think it would be "nice" for the President to show you his original birth certificate, but he doesn't have to. I suggest that you not vote for him in 2012 because that's your only recourse at this point...

i never said simply because i bring a claim, your dishonesty is appalling...of course i would have to have some indication of a cause of action. if our agreements were entirely oral, then it is my word against yours. if i can get around the SOF, then you're damn right i can request any and all financial records as it relates to our dispute. you're missing the picture entirely.

here, they have brough plausible evidence of discrepencies about where obama was born. obama holds the key evidence, the original birth certificate. in this case, which is completely opposite of what you're discussing, not allowing the plaintiff to see a copy of the original birth certificate is illogical. what harm is there to defendant? none. he claims what he posted is valid, so the original will only contain the additional information of the hospital, the doctor....how is that private when obama has stated which hospital he was born in, which btw appears to conflict with other reports of which hospital.

IMO, this gives rise to a colorable claim that can easily be resolved by access to the original or a copy thereof. you're not making any sense by talking about fishing expeditions because in this case all that is requested is one specific document.

you proved again you have no idea what you are talking about. and whether you think i am lawyer or not is irrelevant to your incorrect conclusions and statement of law.

 

[jvn]

*shakes head*

you just proved my point moron...if i don't allow you access to evidence to rebut the prima facie evidence, a judge should and will force me to give you the evidence to allow you to rebut....in many cases the only evidence lies with the prima facie party, that is why courts routinely have status conferences, motions to compel evidence etc....because most times the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption lies with the other party.

the second has nothing to do with prima facie evidence, it is a standing question...seriously, stop thinking you're some legal scholar, its embarrassing

Well, this answers some questions.

First, you are not a lawyer.

Second, this issue has pushed around the bend.

You are claiming that a judge would grant a motion allowing someone suing you for damages access to all of the financial records ever associated with you based entirely on the word of the plaintiff that you had caused him damage?

See, the first part of any lawsuit is the plaintiff showing the damage caused and evidence that establishes that claim. NOT the plaintiff making an unsupported claim and then being given access to information so he or she can go hunting for evidence that might support the claim.

The real problem here is that this is not an issue that can be settled by the courts.

The Congress is the final constitutional arbiter of the outcomes of presidential elections. There are procedures in place to look into questions like this when they perform that duty the first week in January following a presidential election.

By their vote certifying the election of President Obama without objection they settled this issue. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution has been followed and the appropriate authorities have certified not only his eligibility, but have sworn him into office.

I doubt that the courts could even remove him from office now if they wanted to. If he was charged with crimes, the Congress would have to impeach and remove him.

You may think it would be "nice" for the President to show you his original birth certificate, but he doesn't have to. I suggest that you not vote for him in 2012 because that's your only recourse at this point...

i never said simply because i bring a claim, your dishonesty is appalling...of course i would have to have some indication of a cause of action. if our agreements were entirely oral, then it is my word against yours. if i can get around the SOF, then you're damn right i can request any and all financial records as it relates to our dispute. you're missing the picture entirely.

here, they have brough plausible evidence of discrepencies about where obama was born. obama holds the key evidence, the original birth certificate. in this case, which is completely opposite of what you're discussing, not allowing the plaintiff to see a copy of the original birth certificate is illogical. what harm is there to defendant? none. he claims what he posted is valid, so the original will only contain the additional information of the hospital, the doctor....how is that private when obama has stated which hospital he was born in, which btw appears to conflict with other reports of which hospital.

IMO, this gives rise to a colorable claim that can easily be resolved by access to the original or a copy thereof. you're not making any sense by talking about fishing expeditions because in this case all that is requested is one specific document.

you proved again you have no idea what you are talking about. and whether you think i am lawyer or not is irrelevant to your incorrect conclusions and statement of law.

Sorry, there is no "plausible evidence or discrepancies" about where the President was born, except for maybe the tempest in a teapot about what local people called the medical center where he was born. Certainly you would agree that there is no evidence that he was born anyplace else but Hawaii.

The problem you are facing is summed up in this sentence you just wrote: "IMO, this gives rise to a colorable claim..." Yes, in your opinion it does, but since Congress has already certified that information, unless you can find some judge who agrees with your opinion, that's all this remains, your opinion.

I suspect that to find such a judge you would need to produce some evidence that the President was not born in Hawaii. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SPECULATION. Proof, evidence that he was born elsewhere. Are you aware of any?