Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia eligibility challenge returns!
World Net Daily ^ | 02/07/12 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by Pfesser

An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints....

Appeals of the decision already are in the works, ... Hatfield ... told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote....

He noted since Obama and his lawyer “failed to appear” and “failed to submit any evidence,” the determination by Malihi in the cases brought by his clients appears to be unsubstantiated.

Hatfield also explained that Malihi failed to decide the burden of proof.

“The defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional … If the defendant did, as plaintiffs contend, bear the burden of proof in these cases, then defendant can in no way be said to have satisfied his burden, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.”

He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.

While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that automatically conferred “natural born citizenship” on him, that “is an incorrect statement of the applicable law,” Hatfield said.

“The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett … is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen’ refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”

He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified....

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abovethelaw; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama; teflon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last
Still trying to see the light in a dark tunnel. Keep the hope alive.
1 posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:28 AM PST by Pfesser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

The job of the defense is not to prove that Obama is innocent, it is job of the defense to make the prosecution prove that he is guilty. Go prosecutors go!!!! DO NOT give up.


2 posted on 02/08/2012 10:15:26 AM PST by Mr. Wright (N\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

I love ANYTHING that is a thorn in Obama’s side

I hope this distracts the heck out of him, and costs him $$$$


3 posted on 02/08/2012 10:16:43 AM PST by Mr. K (Were the Soviet-Era propogandists as gleefully willing as our Lame-stream Media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

You know, I wonder if Orly Ditz hadn’t introduced the birth certificate into evidence (saying it was a forgery), if the judge would have HAD to rule against Obama. If she hadn’t done that, he would not have even had any evidence, even bogus evidence, that said Obama was born in the US. Because Taitz introduced the forged birth certificate, that gave him the option to claim Obowmao was born in Hawaii, and thus rule as he did.


4 posted on 02/08/2012 10:19:58 AM PST by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

In Before the Disparaging Hussein Heads.....


5 posted on 02/08/2012 10:20:19 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser
Why the Hell have they failed to introduce the 1948 British Nationality Act which clearly made “Jr.” a British Citizen at birth? (because of Sr.’s UKC Passport)
6 posted on 02/08/2012 10:23:01 AM PST by WellyP (REAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WellyP
Why the Hell have they failed to introduce the 1948 British Nationality Act which clearly made “Jr.” a British Citizen at birth?

Because foreign law doesn't matter when it comes to whom the US considers to be or not to be a citizen.

7 posted on 02/08/2012 10:56:04 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Scutter

A bizarre thought came to me about this “natural born” issue. What about sperm donations...who knows where that originates? Naturally, the mother (sometimes a single parent) using the sperm donation would probably be natural born, but who and what is the nationality of the Daddy? Don’t suppose it would matter in a surrogacy situation, as the woman carrying the child is basically just hatching it. The “natural born” issue I am afraid is going to go by the wayside, being assailed as it is on all sides. Both Romney and Santorum have questions in this regard, as does Jindahl & Rubio if they have future Presidential aspirations, that I can think of offhand...not to mention the offender in chief, Obozo in the White House.


8 posted on 02/08/2012 11:21:48 AM PST by kiltie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

There are no prosecutors involved. It was not a criminal trial but rather an administrative hearing. The plaintiffs made specific charges - and failed to convince the judge that they were legal valid arguments.


9 posted on 02/08/2012 11:29:10 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scutter

There were 3 separate cases...


10 posted on 02/08/2012 11:29:40 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

I was referring to a case that may be brought in front of a Federal Judge - not a Federal Administrative Law Judge.


11 posted on 02/08/2012 11:40:28 AM PST by Mr. Wright (N\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

But the law in this case says that the burden of Proof rested with Obama. It was up to him to prove that he was eligible. Not the other way around. No docs by him means that no proof was offered. This decision was rigged for one or several reasons. No doubt about it.


12 posted on 02/08/2012 11:41:00 AM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser


Obama and Arnold naturalized in the same year, 1983.
13 posted on 02/08/2012 11:55:22 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WellyP

I thought Frank Marshal Davis was an American. At least by birth.


14 posted on 02/08/2012 11:58:28 AM PST by River_Wrangler (Nothing difficult is ever easy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Scutter

Actually it was Hatfield and Irion who submitted the forged BC as evidence and did not contest its genuineness. Orly contested the genuineness but did so incompetently, without certifying her “expert witnesses”.

But no judge could accept an internet image as if it was a genuine vital record; it simply doesn’t meet the legal standards for admissible evidence.


15 posted on 02/08/2012 12:20:56 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

The State Department has updated the Foreign Affairs Manual again:

7 FAM 1292 Loss of Nationality and Minors i. (3) (CT:CON-361; 03-01-2011)

Interviewing a minor: When conducting the initial interview with a minor and during the renunciation procedure, you should have at least one other person present. The parents and guardians should not be present. As noted, the interview should take place in the presence of the consular officer and a witness, preferably another consular officer, another Foreign Service officer (nonconsular) or locally employed staff (LE staff). You should alswo explain that upon reaching the age of 18, the minor has a six-month opportunity to reclaim U.S. nationality. See FAM Exhibit 1291, A Sample Letter to Accompany CLN for Minor Renunciants, which should be provided to minor renunciants together with an approved CLN;


16 posted on 02/08/2012 12:28:30 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

OK, I read the whole WND article and Hatfield says that he DIDN’T submit any birth certificate for Obama. There’s nothing like that in the record for his case.

Hatfield takes issue with Malihi combining these 3 cases again, even though it was granted at the request of the plaintiffs that they would be 3 separate cases. Malihi “considers” that Obama was born in HI to a US citizen mother, but neither Hatfield nor Taitz presented any evidence that would justify finding that as a fact.

Malihi is just pulling this stuff out of his rear end. “Judge’s knowledge”. One of the big differences between the sharia obeyed in Iran and the legal evidentiary requirements of the free world including the USA.


17 posted on 02/08/2012 12:48:43 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
"Why the Hell have they failed to introduce the 1948 British Nationality Act which clearly made “Jr.” a British Citizen at birth?"

Because foreign law doesn't matter when it comes to whom the US considers to be or not to be a citizen.

False

It DOES matter. Read what the drafters of the 14th Amendment (the Senate Judiciary Committee) have to say about that:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Congressional Globe

18 posted on 02/08/2012 1:11:22 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]




Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono


Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!


Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

19 posted on 02/08/2012 1:12:24 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Revel
The judge offered a default judgement. How can it be rigged when he offered what they wanted?

From the judges decision:

“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”

The plaintiffs asked that the court decide solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence. They are the ones that shifted the burden of proof by asking the judge to decide purely on their evidence. The judge found their case without legal merit.

20 posted on 02/08/2012 1:19:03 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Revel
The judge offered a default judgment. How can it be rigged when he offered what they wanted?

From the judges decision:

“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”

The plaintiffs asked that the court decide solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence. They are the ones that shifted the burden of proof by asking the judge to decide purely on their evidence. The judge found their case without legal merit.

21 posted on 02/08/2012 1:19:28 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

It would have been interesting if another plaintiff just challenged simply on the age requirement and nothing else.

The remedy to that would be easy - a certified, verified, on real security paper with a real seal BC - either flavor.

But they will not let those frauds into court. Or no real attorney would be caught presenting them in a court.

I wonder if Malihi ‘considers’ Obama over the age of 35 - since no evidence of even that requirement was presented.


22 posted on 02/08/2012 1:27:48 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

I doubt there is any judge sitting who does not have family that he does not wish to see harmed. No judge is going to rule against the kenyan.


23 posted on 02/08/2012 1:31:41 PM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revel

“But the law in this case says that the burden of Proof rested with Obama. It was up to him to prove that he was eligible.”
______

What law are you citing?

From the ruling I read, the plaintiffs were offered a default judgement when defendant blew off the subpoena but refused the victory and instead wanted the judge to rule on their evidence. The judge weighed their evidence and found it to be so weak that he found they had raised no authentic issues, ie. no reason for defense to answer such a weak accusation. This was stupid on plaintiff’s part. They had a victory in hand and threw it away.


24 posted on 02/08/2012 1:42:11 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Why do you keep claiming Obama is a naturalized citizen? If there was ANY evidence of that, he would be removed from office as ineligible.


25 posted on 02/08/2012 2:08:16 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

26 posted on 02/08/2012 2:12:21 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

27 posted on 02/08/2012 2:14:52 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

Between the appeals on this case and the investigation report Sheriff Arpaio will release in 3-4 weeks, this is not over by a long shot.

Flick yer Bics, freepers!


28 posted on 02/08/2012 2:51:00 PM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

Between the appeals on this case and the investigation report Sheriff Arpaio will release in 3-4 weeks, this is not over by a long shot.

Flick yer Bics, FReepers!


29 posted on 02/08/2012 2:51:13 PM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
It DOES matter.

Okay, then here's my case: My great-grandfather immigrated from Italy 100 years ago. My grandfather was born here before my great grandfather became a US citizen. Under Italian law, Italian citizenship was passed to my grandfather, who never renounced it (since he didn't even know he had it), to my mother, and to me. If I come up with the documentation of that chain--birth records, marriage records, naturalization papers--I can get an Italian passport. So, I'm born in the US. My parents were born in the US. My grandparents were all born in the US. But under Italian law, I'm an Italian citizen. Are you saying that I'm not a natural born US citizen?

30 posted on 02/08/2012 3:07:22 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Ping for your reading pleasure.

Okay, I know it's just WND, but worth putting in your files anyway.

31 posted on 02/08/2012 3:23:31 PM PST by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Okay, then here's my case: My great-grandfather immigrated from Italy 100 years ago. My grandfather was born here before my great grandfather became a US citizen. Under Italian law, Italian citizenship was passed to my grandfather, who never renounced it (since he didn't even know he had it), to my mother, and to me. If I come up with the documentation of that chain--birth records, marriage records, naturalization papers--I can get an Italian passport. So, I'm born in the US. My parents were born in the US. My grandparents were all born in the US. But under Italian law, I'm an Italian citizen. Are you saying that I'm not a natural born US citizen?

Claims on Italian citizenship are only possibly valid for descendents down to the second degree. Your grandfather born in the U.S. could have inherited Italian citizenship from his Italian citizen father, and your mother could have inherited it from your grandfather, but you are past the second degree and are therefore ineligible.

More, here: Italian Governement: Citizenship FAQ

And here: Consulate General of Italy

Even a second degree descendent would have to serve in the Italian armed forces, become an employee of the Italian Government, or live in Italy for at least two years after reaching legal age to be eligible for Italian citizenship.

32 posted on 02/08/2012 3:41:12 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
You are not a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens. A natural born citizen is a Kind of citizen. Those who immigrated from Southern Europe do not fit into this Kind. Photobucket
33 posted on 02/08/2012 3:48:47 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Ref post 32:

'Atsa' right.

D.C.

34 posted on 02/08/2012 3:52:03 PM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Here's what the website of the Italian consulate in Miami says:
Who is entitled - categories
If you were born in the United States or a Country other than Italy you can be recognized an Italian citizen if any one of the categories listed below applies to you: 1) your father was an Italian citizen at the time of your birth and you never renounced your Italian citizenship;
2) your mother was an Italian citizen at the time of your birth, you were born after January 1, 1948, and you never renounced your Italian citizenship;
3) your father was born in the United States or a country other than Italy, your paternal grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of his birth, neither you nor your father ever renounced your the Italian citizenship.
Your mother was born in the United States or a country other than Italy, your maternal grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of her birth, you were born after January 1, 1948 and neither you nor your mother ever renounced your Italian citizenship;
4) your paternal or maternal grandfather was born in the United States or a country other than Italy, your paternal or maternal great grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of his birth, neither you nor your father or mother, or your grandfather ever renounced your/their Italian citizenship. Please note: a grandmother born before 1/1/1948 can claim Italian citizenship only from her father and can transfer it only to children born after 1/1/48.

35 posted on 02/08/2012 4:06:17 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
4) your paternal or maternal grandfather was born in the United States or a country other than Italy, your paternal or maternal great grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of his birth, neither you nor your father or mother, or your grandfather ever renounced your/their Italian citizenship. Please note: a grandmother born before 1/1/1948 can claim Italian citizenship only from her father and can transfer it only to children born after 1/1/48.

Your grandfather naturalized as a U.S. citizen with his father. Naturalization as a U.S. citizen renounces any other citizenship.

Naturalization Oath

36 posted on 02/08/2012 4:22:25 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Right. Obama has presented no proof of ANYTHING.

And how is somebody supposed to prove a negative? Of COURSE the burden of proof is on the candidate, just as Malihi implied when he told Obama that being an incumbent didn’t mean he didn’t have the requirement of being qualified. Being an incumbent doesn’t count as being qualified because a person can be incumbent without having proven anything, if nobody happened to challenge eligibility when they ran before.


37 posted on 02/08/2012 4:26:41 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
From your Miami Consulate link: "For recognition of Italian citizenship you must produce evidence that everybody in the ‘Italian line’ of your direct ascendants uninterruptedly maintained their Italian citizenship."
38 posted on 02/08/2012 4:27:08 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Osama Bin Laden tries to get on the GA ballot. His pal, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) challenges it in court, presents an online image of a driver’s license for Bin Laden and says, “Bin Laden is ineligible because he’s over six feet tall!” The judge says it’s an irrelevant argument and therefore Bin Laden no longer has to prove that he’s eligible - and thus has to be eligible. Never mind that the driver’s license wasn’t valid and Bin Laden never presented anything that WAS valid to prove his eligibility. He’s off totally scott-free because his friend KSM biffed the court challenge.

Makes no sense at all, Harlan1196.

There is no way to shift the burden of proof when the LAW puts the burden of proof on the candidate. Regardless of what happens in the hearing, the candidate still has to prove eligibility BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE. Nothing those plaintiffs did has the power to change the law.


39 posted on 02/08/2012 4:34:35 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Your grandfather naturalized as a U.S. citizen with his father.

My grandfather was born in the United States and was always a citizen. He didn't naturalize, never had a green card, and was 23 years old when his father naturalized. Oh, by the way, that was a few months after my grandfather's brother was killed in Normandy. I guess to you he wasn't a citizen either when he died for this country.

Naturalization Oath

Maybe you can point to the part of your link that says your adult children are also naturalized by this oath.

40 posted on 02/08/2012 4:47:17 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
...uninterruptedly maintained their Italian citizenship.

Which only means that they never went into an Italian consulate and renounced their citizenship.

Here's another site that explains the documentation required:Italian Dual Citizenship

41 posted on 02/08/2012 5:00:40 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“uninterruptedly maintained”

In the US English language that is the adjective “born”.

A standard definition of “born” means having that charactistic “FROM BIRTH” - not “AT birth”.

The Italians may not drive cruise liners very well but the know what it takes to be a citizen.

But so did the founders.

a natural born Citizen could also be classified as a ‘natural Citizen’ and a ‘born Citizen’. Had the ‘term’ been something unique in the Consitution it would have been all capitalized - “Natural Born Citizen”. But it was not. So we merely need to look at the adjectives.

And ‘born’ means ‘from birth’.

When Obama left for Indonesia he was considered Indonesian - by the US. To leave Indonesia he had to be claimed by his father in 1971. So then he become Kenyan. But dear old dad was not taking him back to Kenya - so he is dumped on Grandma and Gramps. Who then dump him on Frank Marshall Davis for ‘mentoring’.

When he reaches majority he can reclaim his US citizenship - he did retain that right to reclaim it. But legally - he lost it during the Indonesia years. His namesake father was likely used to eliminate the Indonesia ties but that made him a Kenyan in 1971 or early 1972.

So he is not a ‘born Citizen’ since he failed to retain the citizenship ‘FROM birth’. And thus he is not a ‘natural born Citizen’.

Indonesia and 1971....the wormhole of Obama’s citizenship.


42 posted on 02/08/2012 5:17:51 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Obama initially lost, remember? The judge offered a default judgment, remember?

So guess what happens when a plaintiff rejects a default judgment and asks the judge to rule based purely on the merits of their arguments and evidence? The defendant is now out of the picture - he has no burden whatsoever. Their case now has to stand completely on its own - the defendant's case has already been judged.

43 posted on 02/08/2012 5:24:48 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
You are not a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens. A natural born citizen is a Kind of citizen. Those who immigrated from Southern Europe do not fit into this Kind.

So, in order to be a natural born citizen, and thus eligible to serve as President, you have to be able to trace your lineage back to an original citizen from 1776 (or 1788, if you want to go by ratification)??

44 posted on 02/08/2012 5:32:31 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
When Obama left for Indonesia he was considered Indonesian - by the US.

How? Under what law did Obama lose his US citizenship by going to Indonesia?

45 posted on 02/08/2012 5:36:52 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
"...uninterruptedly maintained their Italian citizenship.

Which only means that they never went into an Italian consulate and renounced their citizenship."

----------------

Incorrect

Italians have only been able to keep their Italian citizenship (in some but not all cases) when voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship since 1992. Your great-grandfather and grandfather naturalized way before that and consequently lost their Italian citizenship.

Since 15 August 1992 the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship no longer leads to automatic loss of Italian citizenship. Italian Government Citizenship FAQ

46 posted on 02/08/2012 5:36:55 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Italians have only been able to keep their Italian citizenship (in some but not all cases) when voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship since 1992.

My grandfather, my mother and I didn't voluntarily acquire US citizenship. It was bestowed on us at birth.

Your great-grandfather and grandfather naturalized way before that and consequently lost their Italian citizenship.

Again, my grandfather never naturalized as a US citizen. He was born a US citizen, and his father's naturalization, when my grandfather was 23 years old, had no effect on his status in any way.

47 posted on 02/08/2012 5:42:49 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

If what you are saying is true, then any candidate can get out of the requirement of the law by simply staging this scenario.

Nothing Obama or the plaintiffs did changes Georgia statute. The candidate MUST be qualified for the position he seeks.

The judge ruled sheerly on “judge’s knowledge” - without ANY EVIDENCE that Obama is qualified. There’s no way any plaintiff could prove a negative.

You try telling a cop, after he’s told you to get out your driver’s license and registration, that he has to prove that you don’t have a driver’s license or proof of registration, and see how far you get. Even take him to court, refuse to show up, and have the judge tell him that it’s now his burden to prove that you don’t have a driver’s license and registration.

It’s just plain absurd. If you’re gonna drive on the road it is your responsibility to be able to prove that you have a license. Nothing the cop does or doesn’t do changes that requirement for you. If your pal showed up and said, “Hey, I know he has a driver’s license because I saw an internet image of it” it wouldn’t change that you have a legal responsibility to be able to document the positive existence of your license.

The law itself is the bugger that will not allow the requirement to simply go away because of lawyerly pussy-footing around. Even if all the lawyers biffed everything, the law would still be the law. And it says that the candidate HAS TO BE QUALIFIED. There is no getting around that.

I think you’re just trying to waste my time. I know lawyers are real good about showing that blue isn’t really blue and truth isn’t really truth. It’s sophistry, a magical way of phenangling words so that “the candidate SHALL be qualified for the position he seeks” really means something else. But that whole piddling around bit just stinks to high heaven. The law means what it says and says what it means. And Malihi was very clear about what it meant when he denied Obama’s Motion to Dismiss: it meant that if Obama was going to be on the ballot he was going to have to qualify, without just claiming he had already done it when he hadn’t presented any legal evidence to anybody.

To this day he hasn’t presented any legal evidence to anybody and the law still says what it says and still means what it says.


48 posted on 02/08/2012 5:52:51 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
My grandfather was born in the United States and was always a citizen. He didn't naturalize, never had a green card, and was 23 years old when his father naturalized.

How was your great-grandfather in the U.S. for more than 23 years before becoming a U.S. citizen?

And if your mother never applied for her Italian citizenship, she wasn't an Italian citizen - not to mention the fact that she probably never met the additional requirement of serving in the Italian armed forces, becoming an employee of the Italian Government, or living in Italy for two years after reaching legal age. There would have been no Italian citizenship for her to maintain.

49 posted on 02/08/2012 5:55:45 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
How was your great-grandfather in the U.S. for more than 23 years before becoming a U.S. citizen?

He was a resident alien. He came to the US in 1913 and became a citizen in 1944, shortly after one of his sons was killed in Normandy. My grandfather was born in 1920.

And if your mother never applied for her Italian citizenship, she wasn't an Italian citizen...

I realize that you're trying to hang on to any thread here, but there's a wide variety of sources that say you're wrong.

Italian Citizenship from: MOTHER - GRANDFATHER - GREAT GRANDFATHER

Mother - Grandfather - Great Grandfather: Your maternal grandfather was born in your native country, your maternal great grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of his birth, you were born after January 1st, 1948, and neither you nor your mother nor your grandfather ever renounced your right to Italian citizenship. If citizenship is acquired by birth in your country and you meet all these conditions, you qualify for Italian citizenship jure sanguinis"link

Nothing there about my mother serving in the Italian army.
50 posted on 02/08/2012 6:10:06 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson