Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Irion made the stipulation. Hatfield used that stipulation to request that his case be severed from Irion’s. I know Hatfield made no stipulation.
Ok. So tell everyone here how I am wrong. Show everyone what you know about the US Navy and how they don’t have divisions.
Don’t need to. Believe me, I know more than a fraction of what you’ll ever know about all the branches of our military.
Keep on trolling, loser. ;-)
We used English terminology but created a uniquely American common law. The finest justice system in the world.
No it was’t. Each lawyer independently submitted the evidence for their case. And don’t forget - what got Orly in trouble was that she ignored state law in presenting her witnesses and evidence.
Since Irion independently submitted Obama’s BC He was not effected by the Orly train wreck.
He explicitly rejects Orly’s evidence. Nowhere does he explicitly reject the other plaintiffs evidence. A reasonable assumption is that he accepted it. But in any case, the judge explicitly.rejected their legal argument. They both tried to.show.that Obama’s father was not.a US citizen. The judge thought that because of Ankeny that fact was irrelevant. No evidence in the world.will fix a fundamentally flawed legal argument.
Please do. Glancing at what you have written below, precision is not something I would accuse you of.
At no time was Bellei an NBC,
No one alleged he was NBC, I pointed out that he was a "born citizen", which he was.
since he was not born in the USA, nor was he born abroad of two citizen parents - the definition of NBC recognized in WKA,
Wong Kim Ark did not use the term "natural born citizen." It used the term "citizen." One can only surmise this was intentional. Minor v Happpersett used the term "Natural born citizen", and defined it as the Children of American Parents born here.
based on both the NBC clause
The "natural born citizen" clause does not define it. It is not positive law in this regard.
and the 14th Amendment.
Neither did the 14th Amendment. It only defined "citizen", not "natural born citizen." Natural born citizens existed prior to, and had no need of, the 14th amendment.
Thus his case fell under the laws of Congress, rather than a Constitutional right.
THAT part I agree with. He was a citizen by statute. The rest of your comment I accept as proof of that point.
The only similarity between him & Obama is that Obama was eligible for UK citizenship, but refused to claim it - which, when it transferred to Kenya, he would have needed to do by his 18th birthday.
If that is Kenyan law, the U.S. takes no notice of it's requirements. It is obviously not U.S. Law. But here is a question for you. Were Barack Obama living in Kenya prior to and after his 18th birthday, could he have been drafted into the Kenyan Army?
Could he have been drafted if he were a "natural born citizen" of the United States under the same residency circumstances?
Show me where and when.
@Link to all the filings to date
Hatfield used that stipulation to request that his case be severed from Irion’s.
Show me where and when.
@Article II Super PAC
The second is refered to as a Common Law That is the type of justice system America has.
in all your 57 states?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvXGJ8eP1B0
Reminds me of what Churchill said about Democracy:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
It may be the best in the world, but I see much room for improvement in procedure and methodology. Lawyers should be required by law to inform the court if their clients have in fact admitted guilt.
A Justice system is best served when it renders JUSTICE, not when it gets off the guilty or punishes the innocent because the "Procedure" says we must do things this way.
Both prosecution and defense should understand that getting to the truth is their primary duty.
You're doing the same thing! Look at what you just said!
In order for him to be eligible in the first place he had to qualify as one able to do so. A natural born citizen would never qualify much less be eligible to either claim or refuse it!
You've also just established that he has dual nationality, whether it was claimed or not, and isn't a natural born citizen.
Correct. And such a ruling is in perfect keeping with the philosophy of Judicial Restraint. Such was also demonstrated in Minor: "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to resolve those doubts."
Nowhere does he explicitly ACCEPT the other plaintiffs evidence. The alleged birth certificate would be the same no matter who entered it as evidence. Orly was the last attorney to present her case, yet hers was the first to be addressed in the judge’s decision. It makes ZERO sense to reject ALL of her evidence but accept the same evidence simply because it was presented by a different attorney, and especially when the judge NEVER references ANY evidence leading to a conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii. Ankeny never declared where Obama was born, so Malihi did NOT get it from that decision.
Given that Barry's mentor Frank M Davis was KGB operative and a close associate of his grandfather who raised, Barry would never have passed the CIA security clearance...especially given his college Marxist associates, drug use and homosexuality. Also, Barry would never have passed the mandatory CIA lie detector testing, IMO.
So?
Ooooh...three amphib officers, 2 XO (Cmdr), 1 CO (Cmdr)
A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts (i.e. receives) pre-independence English law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states, except Louisiana, have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statutes
Examples of “reception statutes”
Virginia, Va. Code §§ 1-200, 1-201, www.state.va.us/cmsportal3/government_4096/codes_and_laws.html
§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.
The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)
Virginia’s 1776 statute stated: [The] common law of England, [and] all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first . . . shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.
North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 (1999), www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/Statutes.asp
§ 4 1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)
Alabama, Ala. Code § 1-3-1 (1975), www.alabama.gov/portal/index.jsp
Common law of England adopted.
The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)
http://faculty.samford.edu/~medebow/ReceptionStatutes.html
A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts (i.e. receives) pre-independence English law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states, except Louisiana, have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statutes
Examples of “reception statutes”
Virginia, Va. Code §§ 1-200, 1-201, www.state.va.us/cmsportal3/government_4096/codes_and_laws.html
§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.
The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)
Virginia’s 1776 statute stated: [The] common law of England, [and] all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first . . . shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.
North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 (1999), www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/Statutes.asp
§ 4 1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)
Alabama, Ala. Code § 1-3-1 (1975), www.alabama.gov/portal/index.jsp
Common law of England adopted.
The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)
http://faculty.samford.edu/~medebow/ReceptionStatutes.html
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.