Are you getting that quote from Apuzzo’s site? Why don’t you actually go find out if that was actually THE LAW.
HINT, NO.
HINT, how many times have you seen language presented in a bill THAT WAS NEVER PASSED IN THE US????
An immigration lawyer who has practiced for 20 years should know better. I suspect you got that from Apuzzo’s site .
And yes, legitimacy was REQUIRED back then depending on the circumstances.
Read the law for yourself instead of regurgitating incorrect info from someone with an agenda.
Where do you think the article in this thread came from? It is part of the Apuzzo lawsuit, and was written last April.
Your hints aren’t particularly relevent. The reference is to British Law, not US law. I would hope it wasn’t passed in the U.S.
My reading of Apuzzo indicates that he is very careful. I do read the original laws, when they are available, and the 1948 British Nationality Act is readily available.
Of course Apuzzo “has an agenda.” He has been more clear than most about what it is. I have no idea what your agenda is. Apuzzo has the best-formed lawsuit addressing constitutional issues around both Obama’s eligibility, and the failures of our representatives to investigate that eligibility as required both by law, and The Constitution.
If you have any constructive thoughts it would be in your interest, and everyone’s interest, to make them public, because that might help Apuzzo consider all possible objections to his pleadings. He has asked for, and responded to a number of thoughtful constructive criticisms of his legal arguments. You can read the pleadings and the response by the defense by going to the Apuzzo site.
There seems, in addition to deliberate attempts to confuse the legal issues, a childish battle of egos about whose approach will be most effective in protecting our liberties from a president whose allegiances are suspect, and who appears to be attempting undermine our republic. People chose approaches based upon their talents and resources. I hope one of the approaches opens the door to discovery.
Orly Taitz is a marketeer, with boundless energy. That is what she does best. Her agenda, to me, is perfectly clear. Donofrio is a bright guy who claims to have forsaken our institutions, and I can’t blame him, but don’t share his pessimism. (And for someone who has forsaken our institutions, he is still taking the time to do legal research, which makes him very valuable) Worldnet is a newspaper; if they keep people concerned using their tabloid approach, more power to them. I trust they know best what sorts of headlines will cause their site to attract “hits”. I find many of the issues they have raised interesting, but not grounds for a lawsuit, and that is probably the only way WND assertions can be proved. My inclination is to read Supreme Court cases, the Federalist Papers, de Vattel and Leibniz - not nearly as exciting, but my concerns are for national defense.
From what I’ve seen, your interest in timelines is often interesting, and, who knows, may open some verifiable datum which could be useful to the process of legal discovery. Why belittle any approach?
Where do you think the article in this thread came from? It is part of the Apuzzo lawsuit, and was written last April.
Your hints aren’t particularly relevent. The reference is to British Law, not US law. I would hope it wasn’t passed in the U.S.
My reading of Apuzzo indicates that he is very careful. I do read the original laws, when they are available, and the 1948 British Nationality Act is readily available.
Of course Apuzzo “has an agenda.” He has been more clear than most about what it is. I have no idea what your agenda is. Apuzzo has the best-formed lawsuit addressing constitutional issues around both Obama’s eligibility, and the failures of our representatives to investigate that eligibility as required both by law, and The Constitution.
If you have any constructive thoughts it would be in your interest, and everyone’s interest, to make them public, because that might help Apuzzo consider all possible objections to his pleadings. He has asked for, and responded to a number of thoughtful constructive criticisms of his legal arguments. You can read the pleadings and the response by the defense by going to the Apuzzo site.
There seems, in addition to deliberate attempts to confuse the legal issues, a childish battle of egos about whose approach will be most effective in protecting our liberties from a president whose allegiances are suspect, and who appears to be attempting undermine our republic. People chose approaches based upon their talents and resources. I hope one of the approaches opens the door to discovery.
Orly Taitz is a marketeer, with boundless energy. That is what she does best. Her agenda, to me, is perfectly clear. Donofrio is a bright guy who claims to have forsaken our institutions, and I can’t blame him, but don’t share his pessimism. (And for someone who has forsaken our institutions, he is still taking the time to do legal research, which makes him very valuable) Worldnet is a newspaper; if they keep people concerned using their tabloid approach, more power to them. I trust they know best what sorts of headlines will cause their site to attract “hits”. I find many of the issues they have raised interesting, but not grounds for a lawsuit, and that is probably the only way WND assertions can be proved. My inclination is to read Supreme Court cases, the Federalist Papers, de Vattel and Leibniz - not nearly as exciting, but my concerns are for national defense.
From what I’ve seen, your interest in timelines is often interesting, and, who knows, may open some verifiable datum which could be useful to the process of legal discovery. Why belittle any approach?