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 ...
You show me the reply and we'll test your theory.
Were the original laws altered?
I am more then willing to sit back and let the courts figure this out.
If you are right then the Georgia Appeals Court will set everything right.
If I am right Obama will be on the ballot in November.
We have both laid out our arguments - lets wait and see who was right.
Persistence is a good trait too. Do you want a cookie?
How about this one...And didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
The judge(s) would point you to that long section in WKA that detailed the evolution of NBS to NBC. There is a reason that so much of WKA was devoted to that particular subject.
Didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
Just lay them out point by point. You don’t need me to tell everyone what you believe.
Complex thought are not a big strength of yours, are they?
If you think that complex supreme court decisions can be captured in a single sentence, you are wrong.
He didn’t have to refute anything. He had to apply existing law. Which he did.
You disagree - I got it. The courts will soon tell us which of us is right.
Were the original laws altered?
Did Malihi refute the definition of NBC in Minor and state why he did so?
Since when has a State case ever held precedent over a SCOTUS case?
And didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
And no, you have not answered my questions so don't go claiming you have.
And though not a question...you show me the reply and we'll test your theory.
You don’t need me to tell everyone what you believe.
I'm trying to find out what you believe, newbie!
Since when has a State case ever held precedent over a SCOTUS case?
And didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
Could really be. Ayers and Dohrn hated the USA that much. And when white-talking, cocoa-colored Obama showed up at their protests in NY, they must have been drooling like foxes when a plump chicken stumbles into the foxhole. Finally, a way into the White House, not through explosives, but waltzing in through the front door.
And, of course, their plan worked.
Here, let me help you out...
@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
Didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
Yet all those judged interpret WKA and Arkeny as saying that NBC = born in America. Imagine that.
Perhaps there is more to the ruling then that single statement?
As the appeals go further, do you think the courts will agree with you? Are you excited that the end is in sight?
Why? I think he will be upheld every step of the way.
@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4
@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
How could the court make such an error?
I don’t want a laundry list of questions.
Just lay out your arguments. Explain why you think the judge was wrong.
Just lay it out and we will come back later to see if your were right.
I believe that I am right, you are wrong and the Georgia Court of Appeals will reject your arguments.
Didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
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.