Posted on 12/05/2009 11:07:08 AM PST by betty boop
I know this: in one of the earlier cases (Berg?) the Øbama lawyers objected on the grounds that the release of Øbama's history (BC) would result in "embarrassment"!
~~~~~~~~~~
An intriguing "Catch-22" for Øbama:
If (as described in his books) he is not "natural born" -- he is not eligible to be POTUS.
If (by showing US citizen paternity [FMD, MX]) he proves he is "natural born" -- then his books (and his entire life) are proven fraudulent!
What to do... What to do?
'-)
You've GOT to be kidding!!! What kind of legal defense is that???
Love your "'Catch-22'" for Øbama" scenario! LOLOL!!! I could see (maybe) FMD as father; but how did you make the connection to MX???
If he never renounced his citizenship (and if such citizenship existed by reason of his father's legal domicile) then he probably owes back taxes to the U.K.
And unlike trying to get a judicial hearing which requires "legal standing" and time and money and can be easily derailed on technicalities - complaints of tax evasion or avoidance (at least in the U.S.) trigger an automatic and official investigation.
It would be ironic for Chicago rooted Obama to be brought down to earth by the same technique used against Chicago rooted Capone. Capone had all the usual criminal bases covered up, but he didn't allow for the IRS.
But, of course, I do not know if England's tax collection authority is as powerful, autonomous, mindless and brutal as our own IRS.
I wonder if the difference reflects the very issue of legal domicile which in international law goes to the father?
Several of the misrepresentations were set out in the original, timely filed, reply brief done by John Hemenway. More were recently set out in the motion that he filed for oral argument.
And wouldn't it be ironic if "Chicago-rooted Obama [were] to be brought down to earth by the same technique used against Chicago-rooted Capone."
That would be entirely fitting, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you oh so much for your fascinating insights!
AV, do you have any links handy? I’d like to look into this further.
Try this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2398759/posts
and also this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391363/posts
The briefing was rescheduled after the problems of coordination surfaced.
A real Kool-aid drinker going by the name "Democrat21" had this to say in reply:
You guys lost.That's the mentality of a BHO Stepford Wife — and it's "all of a piece":: Just consider the remarks re: the Middle East....Your only chance was in January 2009 at the Electors’ Confirmation Hearing by the joint session of Congress. You should have objected. Cheney did not even asked the constitutionally required question (Is there any objection?). That was your only chance.
McCain was history at that point. The GOP would have lost nothing and possibly gain a lot. A perfect political opportunity. You guys blew it. You did not object. That would have been the only way to force SCOTUS to rule on merit. Basically the GOP sided with us democrats to put us in charge. Thank you GOP.
We now control the media, not only through the reporters and editors but through the owners as well. The Constitution is a living document, not a frozen outdated piece of paper, and with the new Supreme Court appointment we will be even more in charge to make sure that some ridicules [sic] parts of it become unenforceable. Some predictions:
Rush, Hennity [sic] and colleagues are already silenced through the owners of their radio stations and they will continued to be silenced as they deserve for using their hateful language.
None your lawsuits will be heard on merit, because you will never get the minimum 4 votes necessary to hear the cases on merit. We will be dominating SCOTUS.
The GOP will be non-existent in a few years.
A third party will emerge and we Democrats will crush them.
We will make sure that Moslems will totally dominate the Middle-East, as they deserve and by understanding them we will make them our friends.
Give up friends, and join us promoting the wonderful change that is transforming our country.
I'm positively disgusted....
Thank you so much, AV!!!
Well, we will see. I understand from John Hemenway that he has other plans. If he receives support in the same manner that attorneys such as Dr. Taitz have received support I believe that he will be able to do something about. Albeit small, his victories are the only ones so far.
Well, we will see. I understand from John Hemenway that he has other plans. If he receives support in the same manner that attorneys such as Dr. Taitz have received support I believe that he will be able to do something about. Albeit small, his victories are the only ones so far.
Isn't it!!! It boggles the mind, simply staggers the imagination....
This "Democrat21" sounds like a character straight out of Robert Musil's stupendous novel, The Man without Qualities....
And then there was the alleged "Saudi connection/influence" cited in the body of the letter....
Whut the HAIL is going on here?
But because his parents were citizens, Romney is a natural born citizen. (Assuming he was born in the US, which I believe he was)
Romney's father was a citizen by law, because his parents were citizens, although his father was not natural born, because he was born outside the country, an unlike McCain, not while his father was in the service of the country. Romney's grandfather had established residency in Mexico, while McCain's parents were merely stationed outside the US proper.
The children of citizens born outside the country being citizens at birth has been part of US Immigration and Naturalization law since the very first one. In most (but not all) cases even having a single citizen parent will suffice, although that is more recent, and is subject to more, and frequently changing limitations. If Barry was born outside the country, and his parents were married, then he was not a citizen at birth. But if born in the country, he's a citizen by the terms of the 14th amendment, but still not a natural born one, unless he's lied about who his father was.
All but one were born "here" but not of two citizen parents. Except for that one, Martin Van Buren, their parents were not citizens of the US when they were born, nor were they, because there was no US to be citizens of, they were British Subjects Van Buren was born in 1782, before the ratification of the Constitution but after the Declaration of Independence (1776), and the passage of the Articles of Confederation(1781), and thus was the child of citizens, and natural born, but also was a citizen of the US before ratification of the Constitution. He was doublely eligible, unlike Zero who is Zeroly eligible.
Several Presidents have had foreign born mothers, but in those days a woman automatically became a citizen upon marrying a citizen, although the same did not apply to men who married US citizen women.
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.