Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: L00PY
Originally posted by: Fern
The lawsuit claims that there is an offical BC in the Kenyan hospital where Mrs. Obama lived (his mother) showing Obama was born there. His relatives has supposidly claimed Obama was born in Kenya. etc
I'm confused, when are allegations in a lawsuit evidence of any sort?
Neither you or eskimospy seem familiar with court, law or legal terms etc
"Allegations" are different from "fact". You are confusing terms you are clearly unfamiliar with.
Facts asserted in court are done so in support of an "allegation". Whether or not the allegation is proven (by the facts) is up to the court.
To knowingly assert false claims as facts is purjury, a lawyer cannot lawfully particpate in this. See PA ethics for attorneys
Link
Pennsylvania has clearly stated that an attorney may not assist any unlawful or illegal conduct. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell (1975); Pa. Eth. Op. 95-110 (1995). The recommended punishment for such conduct is disbarment.
And so forth^ (bounce around the site and make yourself happy. Only a idiot could possibly think you can *make up* false info and represent it as fact and not be guilty of perjury/lying to the court. Be aware that lawyers are sworn "Officers of the Court"; what kind of system allows them to lie as to statements of facts with impunity? That's preposterous.
Berg, an attorney in PA (and former Asst AG) is familiar with, and subject to, these rules.
While we in the *laymens world* may believe (and sometimes with good reason I will admit) think lawyers lie, they cannot (or are prohibited from) knowingly submit false info as "facts" to the court. Now, they may take these facts and twist them for their client's benefit, but they cannot outright lie to the courts; if they do so and are caught it's perjury (disbarment and/or jail time)
You guys are accusing this attorney (a former AG) of outright lying to the court. IDK, he may be, but I think you have some burden of proof if you wish to dismiss his professional claims out-of-hand and lable him worthy of disbarment/jail.
Read his court filing and the included claims of proof he's ready to submit to the court; he need not provide you the proof, but IMO the court(s) should examine it as we have no (so far) demonstrable and/or serious system for acertaining a candidates' qualifications for office.
Part of this may arise from my professional background as a CPA; this flimsy/lame crap would never fly in the accounting world where peoples' money is at stake. The burden of proof on us is far greater. That strikes me as wrong given the seriousness of such a high office.
Just because some gov dept says something doesn't make it so without verification. I have posted many times that my non-citizen wife was entered as a registered voter here in the US by the DMV despite her protestations to the contrary. And just earlier tonight I saw a segment on the news where others have been as well. They were found out through a *routine* voter fraud investigation when the voter roles were cross-checked and consequently they were discovered; they're getting deported because they actually voted etc. These things are not unusual, you're often talking about minimum wage, untrained people processing paperwork and inputting stuff in databases. When it becomes important, it needs to be verified ("audited" is the term in my *world*)
Like I said, we aren't allowed to rely on such flimsy *proof* (and dang I hate to use that word in this context) in my profession. I don't see why we should here when reasonable doubt exists (if his mother had never left the country this wouldn't even be a question, but no one disputes that she did, and was out-of-country while pregnant etc).
The burden of proof is upon the candidate, inspite of your desires to the contrary. What's the f'n problem with him producing an original? You guys wouldn't let this fly if it was a *GWB question*, but somehow it's OK here?
Fern
Facebook
Twitter