"Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of
proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to
prove his "natural born" status. Thus, Plaintiff's counsel, who
champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use
the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of
the United States, to "prove his innocence" to "charges" that are based
upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would
readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon
which our Country was founded in order to purportedly "protect and
preserve" those very principles."
proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to
prove his "natural born" status. Thus, Plaintiff's counsel, who
champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use
the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of
the United States, to "prove his innocence" to "charges" that are based
upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would
readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon
which our Country was founded in order to purportedly "protect and
preserve" those very principles."
"Plaintiff's complaint is not plausible on its face," Land concludes. "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."
Note to my readers:
I knew I was playing with fire posting this item, but I’m focusing on bad lawyering. Personal feelings about the subject matter aside, when you go into court, you’d better have FACTS.
I’ve received some highly-political comments but, forgive me, I’m not going to post them because this isn’t a political blog and I don’t want to turn it into one.
Perry