Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
Yes, you are right. Zullo agrees. In his interview with Gillar said its "insignificant" or something close to this effect.
The law requires candidates to prove eligibility, not the reverse.
Nice try, what else you got?
Yes, the 9s in those two boxes would make sense to explain blanks as in "not stated." Something is amiss to these pencil mark codes, but since it's a forgery, the pencil codes marks belong to someone else's birth certificate.
No you haven’t. You keep introducing this non-sequitor about eligibility.
Eligibility is over. What little left of it died a horrible gruesome death in 2012. The OP is just a Zombie with very poor writing skills.
Now, lets talk about the President of the United States.
1. Is Obama President of the United States? (Hint: Yes or No).
2. How is a President constitutionally removed from office? (Hint: it’s a trick question, it’s like ‘Who is buried in Grants Tomb’).
“The law requires candidates to prove eligibility, not the reverse.
Nice try, what else you got?”
Who are you quoting? Because it’s not me, yet you directed this to me.
Eligibility is a matter of LAW not politics.
The Judiciary has the exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
A Judicial determination of ineligibility either bars a person from being seated in office or removes a sitting person from office.
The Legislature’s authority to impeach in no way constrains the Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law.
Eligibility is a matter of LAW.
You’ve been asked to provide sources for that before and didn’t.
“Eligibility is a matter of LAW not politics.”
All judicial attempts brought on by the Birther’ have failed. Every single one of them. There must have been dozens, and they’ve been failing for 6 years now.
Is there some grand conspiracy afoot or is Ray76 just mislead?
The Constitution is a special set of laws that supersede common and statute law. The constitution say’s what eligibility is. The Judicial system cannot do Jack Squat until somebody with standing petitions the court.
The judicial system does not determine if an enumeration of the Constitution is Constitutional or not. The judicial system determines if legislated law conforms to Constitutional standards — but only when petitioned by those with standing.
Forget your Obama/Birther obsession.
Questions regarding the interpretation of Constitutional provisions are settled by the Judiciary. Yes Or No?
Show me the constitutional enumeration or show me the inference.
There is one, and only one way to constitutional remove a non-incapacitated President and the only judiciary involvement is the CJ-SCOTUS presides over the impeachment.
Your delusional fantasy that he was ineligible when elected has been addressed. All those Secretary’s of State, all those Electorate votes, the certification by Congress, the oath of office given by CJ-SCOTUS.
He was eligible when elected and once elected he enjoys all the perks and privileges, deference and protection that the President traditionally gets. Which means there is only one way to remove him from office. Impeachment.
Enumeration or inference of what?
Are questions regarding the interpretation of Constitutional provisions are settled by the Judiciary? Yes Or No.
The judiciary cannot find an enumeration in the constitution unconstitutional. I mean what you said is just plain stupid thinking.
The Judiciary can only determine the constitutionality of common and statue law, and then only when petitioned from somebody with standing.
Which hasn’t happened in 6 years for the Birther Issues. So not only are you wrong by fact, you are wrong by current empirical standards.
>> The judiciary cannot find an enumeration in the constitution unconstitutional.
What enumeration?
I’ll answer the question for you.
Questions regarding the interpretation of Constitutional provisions are settled by the Judiciary.
Yes, when petitioned by parties with standing, the Judiciary determines the constitutionality of common and statue law.
Not the other way around as you’ve erroneously or mistakenly stated.
The judiciary does not determine the constitutionality of the constitution. Stop being ridiculous.
>> The judiciary cannot find an enumeration in the constitution unconstitutional.
What enumeration?
Answer: Any obviously.
Of course a case has to be brought!
What is a constitutional provision? And what one are you referring to?
>> Show me the constitutional enumeration or show me the inference.
Of what?????
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.