PDA

View Full Version : Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes




lynnf
02-05-2011, 08:15 AM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=259901

A lawsuit that was filed over the absence of documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office and claims a precedent was set for removing ineligible candidates when an underage Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...

Zippyjuan
02-05-2011, 02:24 PM
Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: "The petition for review is denied."

Read more: Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259901#ixzz1D7NYVkaX

Going nowhere. Supreme Court won't even hear it.

lynnf
02-05-2011, 06:22 PM
Going nowhere. Supreme Court won't even hear it.

you're probably right, Zip. they've continually refused to do their job all along. so much for a society based on laws.


lynn

Zippyjuan
02-06-2011, 02:12 PM
It is the burden of the accuser to show that a law has actually been broken. They haven't been able to do that. This is why the cases keep getting tossed out.

lynnf
02-07-2011, 03:35 AM
It is the burden of the accuser to show that a law has actually been broken. They haven't been able to do that. This is why the cases keep getting tossed out.

this just shows that you don't know zip, Zip. law doesn't have to be broken for a civil suit. try coming back with something intelligent to say.

lynn

Zippyjuan
02-07-2011, 01:19 PM
I see- so Constitutional cases are civil issues.

Examples of civil lawsuits: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law


Landlord/tenant disputes, divorce proceedings, child custody proceedings, property disputes (real estate or material), etc.

Read more: Civil Law vs Criminal Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law#ixzz1DIm6JRXE

Outcome of civil suits:


A defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. Losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant’s behavior. Either party (plaintiff or defendant) can be found at fault.


So to win a civil lawsuit, you have to show that you suffered a personal loss and remedy is being repaid for that loss. Where somebody was born does not cause any personal loss to another person needing compensation- thus it would not be subject to a civil case. The person filing charges still has to prove harm done. They still have to provide a "preponderence of evidence".

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/civil-versus-criminal-law/Federal/what-is-the-difference-between-criminal-law-a.html

Civil law involves a private lawsuit between two or more parties. Examples of civil cases include personal injury and business disputes. Criminal matters involve a matter between the state or federal government and a citizen or corporation who has been accused of committing an act that has been classified as a crime by statute. A Criminal action is a public action because the state or federal government prosecutes crimes on behalf of the general public in the jurisdiction they serve. In criminal law, the action is initiated by the state or federal government through a prosecutor rather than being initiated by the victim, as it is in civil law. The burden of proof is also different in civil and criminal law. Plaintiffs in a civil law suit only need to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is 51% or more liable (responsible) for the damages. In a criminal matter the defendant does not have to prove that he is innocent. But rather, the prosecutor has to prove to the judge or jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. This burden is very high.

Lastly, the remedies in civil court are generally limited to money damages. The remedies in criminal court may involve a money fine and/or a prison sentence.

lynnf
02-08-2011, 04:13 AM
I see- so Constitutional cases are civil issues.

Examples of civil lawsuits: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law


Outcome of civil suits:


So to win a civil lawsuit, you have to show that you suffered a personal loss and remedy is being repaid for that loss. Where somebody was born does not cause any personal loss to another person needing compensation- thus it would not be subject to a civil case. The person filing charges still has to prove harm done. They still have to provide a "preponderence of evidence".

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/civil-versus-criminal-law/Federal/what-is-the-difference-between-criminal-law-a.html

why, Zip, you surprised me, you did reply with a semi-intelligent though flawed, as usual, answer. but it wouldn't surprise me if those bad judges were applying the same flawed logic to deny justice. remember, one of them even used twitter as an excuse, saying the issue had been decided on twitter. (since when has twitter been defined as a tool of justice?)

lynn

jmdrake
02-08-2011, 06:15 AM
It is the burden of the accuser to show that a law has actually been broken. They haven't been able to do that. This is why the cases keep getting tossed out.

Not at every stage. On motion to dismiss the burden is on the defendant to show there is no genuine issue of fact or law that is in dispute under which the plaintiff could possibly win. In the Obama birth certificate debate there is a fact in dispute.

However the way the California court of appeals ruled in this case should be concerning to birthers and non birthers alike.

Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: "The petition for review is denied." That would have left standing a decision from the California Court of Appeals that if a qualified political party presents a candidate's name for inclusion on the ballot, the California secretary of state must include it.

So if the GOP decides to put Ronald Reagan's corpse on the ballot the California secretary of state must include it? Really? :rolleyes: I'd have to read California law to see if that's really an appropriate decision, but if it is that's just messed up.

That said, the supreme court has full total discretion on what to grant cert to. It's got nothing to do with who the burden of proof is on though.