jbjd wrote:
WH Counsel Bob Bauer wouldn't even mention that on-line image in federal court, in Hollister, let alone produce any document resembling the image. Instead, in his Motion to Dismiss, he merely asked Judge Robertson to take judicial notice, his client, Defendant Obama, had publicly produced a birth certificate, indicating he was born in HI. (Mr. Bauer never said, this production consisted of posting a heavily redacted facsimile on his FTS web site.) (If this document could be said to establish Mr. Obama was actually born in HI, even he said on FTS, this would only establish he is a "native," anyway.) Further, Mr. Bauer assured the court his client was telling the truth, also asking Judge Robertson to take judicial notice, (AP)FC (Annenberg Political Fact Check) said, they saw the original document. Not surprisingly, Mr. Bauer withheld any such document from the Court. [snip]
So, when it comes to a proffer of proof from a representative of the D's that Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS and, therefore, may have his name on the ballot (in applicable states, that is, states with ballot eligibility laws), Mr. Bauer has already discounted the value of that COLB (and Nancy Pelosi's Official Certifications of Nomination).
jbjd, you never answered realist's question: Does the "jd" in your screen name mean that you are a lawyer? Well, I can answer that question for realist.
No. If jbjd were an attorney, then jbjd would not have written the crap above.
I highlighted certain terms in your argument, jbjd, to demonstrate the fallacy. It is obvious that you lack an understanding about the legal device of a Motion to Dismiss. Contrary to your understanding, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)
does not involve the submission of evidence. In fact,
it cannot involve the submission of evidence or else that would convert the 12(b) procedure into a premature Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Bob Bauer was absolutely correct in not offering the COLB at that nascient stage of the
Hollister case.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to
test the plaintiff's pleading. It is
not a test of the evidence that would later be offered if the case were to survive dismissal --
it is a test purely of the adequacy of the plaintiff's allegations. The whole thing rides upon whether (1) the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to establish the court's jurisdiction over the case, (2) whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded cognizable (i.e., recognized by law) claims for which he could be granted the relief sought, and (3) assuming the plaintiff has asserted cognizable claims, whether the facts he has alleged -- and assuming he could prove those facts at trial with admissible evidence that he produced -- sufficiently satisfy each and every element of the claims he has raised.
Because the purpose of the 12(b) motion is to test
allegations only,
there is no proffer of proof. Bauer did not withhold the COLB from the court, because it was premature to offer any evidence. In considering a motion to dismiss, the court assumes that the parties will be able to produce the evidence that they allege exists. Bauer, therefore, was doing exactly what every other skilled litigator would do: He averred to the court that a COLB exists that establishes Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. He further averred that, by posting a digital copy of the COLB on the internet during the campaign, the voting public was informed that Obama was born in Hawaii. For purposes of ruling on the motion, Judge Robertson properly accepted these averments as true.
jbjd, as a member of the PJ community, you have the ability to tap into a the expertise of a number of legal professionals and others who have an intimate understanding of the law and legal procedures. Rather than construct pseudo-legal arguments are easily debunked, why don't you ask questions here and learn something? If you had done so, you could have avoided spewing that pseudo-law shit about "judicial notice" on Dr. Kate's show 10 days ago.
Login
Register
FAQ
x 3 
x 21