Posted on 02/19/2010 3:45:38 PM PST by rxsid
"Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to recuse the US attorney's office from representing the defendant.Complete MOTION, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27132803/MOTION-for-Preliminary-Injunction
Plaintiff is seeking the Preliminary injunction-Injunctive relief to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the Plaintiff to the CA Bar.
...
Memorandum of point and authoritiesThe only relevant authority in this case, is the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States and provided by the opinion written by two justices: John Paul Stevens and opinion by Steven Breyer. "Sitting president of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office."
...
Preliminary injunctive relief sought
...
Plantiff is seeking an order by this honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26,2010 his original birth certificate, which was allegedy obtained based on the defendant's birth in Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii on 08.04.61."..." directing the defendant to release by February 26 his school enrolment records and financial aid application records from Occidental college, Columbia University, Harvard university and Punahoa high school
"..."directing the defendant to release by February 26 any and all passpor applications"
...
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Perhaps that's the way to go since no one can apparently get standing. Has anyone considered filing against Nancy and every state official who supposedly verified his eligibility to run and be on the ballot?
As usually you tap-dancing and did NOT answered the specific question. I think you have been too tired and too old to engage here and the conservative is very much in the dark too!!!
That sounds great! Teach people about how the Courts, not the voters, not the Electoral College, not the Congress, select and remove the President from office. Teach the people about how the law of foreign countries, not of the United States, controls whether an American Citizen can be President of the United States. Meaning that if the home country of a birth parent makes you a dual citizen, you are SOL, and can never be President, but that if the parent's home country does not make you a citizen, then you can be President, and Americans don't have a control over the process-- we are at the mercy of the acts of foreign nations!
/ sarcasm
But seriously, with zero sarcasm, you have shown me that I was wrong. Birthers should not get involved in retail politics, and certainly should not ever talk to the public about politics. Birthers, of any stripe, should keep holding their wives purses, and indulging in their Walter Mitty fantasies, by endlessly posting the same Birther drivel to each other.
All other Freepers should Run for office. Run for precinct chair. Volunteer to help with the Republican sign committee, or the committee that transports voters to the polls. And if there isn't one, organize it, and get volunteers to help you. Block walk for Republican candidates. Get trained on ballot security, and take off work to be a poll watcher.
Could you enlightening us on what is so crazy about this???
Origin:
independent use of quasi-
—Can be confused: quasi, queasy.
Oldie has become a Quasi, hmmmm!!!
If you don’t know, sane people can’t explain it to you.
Here's the definition: a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,” used in the formation of compound words.
Still tap-dancing!!!
Courts in our federal system do not have any general supervisory power over other branches of government. They can not order discovery for its own sake; they can only order discovery if that is necessary to obtain evidence for use in a real lawsuit. here, the courts have held that they have no jurisdiction to remove a sitting President; only Congress can do that. So the courts therefore cannot order O to release any records; there is no pending lawsuit to which those records would be relevant. If Congress decides to impeach O, they can subpoena his birth records.
Not one of them has tried.
When does a president become immune from prosecution of a crime?
Back when Richard Nixon was president, there was a debate about whether a sitting President could be prosecuted for a crime, or whether he had to be impeached first. That was never resolved, because Nixon resigned and Ford then pardoned him. Clinton similarly plea-bargained his case (though, interestingly, Starr didn't try to prosecute him before impeachment). So if some state AG tries to indict Obama, we will be in uncharted waters.
very interesting.
So....If a president committed murder he would have to be impeached first before he could be arrested, charged, and tried? ( Wow!)
What kind of idiotic statement is that? She is currently NOT disbarred. She is fighting the $20K fine legally. Going after Obama, without the benefit of being defended by the Government lawyers (which we pay for), IS relevant, as he committed (or its purported that he committed) fraud BEFORE he became President. What part of her being able to pursue this, don’t you understand?
To me, a “Birther” is a “Constitutionalist”...and anything said to the contrary, is diversion from simple facts.
Grow a set America...we were duped... well 51% of us were.
Obama is a constitutional scholar, so he did this with malice aforethough... ie...He knew what he was doing when he did it.
It is not even clear if he is a US Citizen, but it IS clear that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen (NBC).
In that circumstance, not exactly. The president could be charged and tried for murder. US v. Nixon established that.
However, the president would still be president.
What would probably occur is that the 25th Amendment would be invoked so that someone is running the country and then the president could be impeached, tried, and convicted.
I may need to read US v Nixon again. I thought the president could be charged prior to impeachment.
At that point, he will claim that he has no obligation to produce a long form, because the short form is valid under Hawaiian lawDoes that count even if it's a forgery though? I'd note that the State of Hawaii has been very reluctant to verify that particular "certificate".
I'm not saying he would have to be; the isue is undecided.
It is not even clear if he is a US Citizen, but it IS clear that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen (NBC).
It’s clear to most of us.
As far as most of the country, the courts, and the laws believes there are two types of US citizens.
native/natural born
naturalized
Nowhere in our history has the court ever mentioned that there is some other type of citizen.
Therefore, if Obama is a citizen he is one or the other. According to Hawaii he was born in Hawaii. He gained his citizenship at birth not through naturalization THEREFORE he is a native/natural born citizen.
If you care to dispute his native/natural born citizenship please provide one of the following:
1) a Court opinion after Wong Kim Ark which actually states that we have more than two types of citizens and what those other types are
2) proof he was not born in Hawaii
Hatred of a politician is not a good enough reason to upend our entire judicial/legal history. Saying it is so doesn’t make it so.
When running for public office, the burden of proving citizenship, natural born citizenship, falls to that person running for public office. That has not been done.
My concern pertains to what the Constitution of the United States requires for a candidate to become President of the United States(POTUS), not a naturalized citizen, as in Wong Kim Ark. These are naturalized vs. Natural Born distinctions, which are very different.
In the constitution it is specific that the POTUS be “natural born”, that being, both parents US Citizens and the child being born within the borders of the United States. There was only ONE proviso for qualification, that was in the beginnings of our country, a “grandfather clause” if you will.
Obama’s father was from Kenya, a British Protectorate, so Obama is disqualified as a natural born citizen, by reason of his fathers citizenship. He was then adopted by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Citizen, at 5 years old, again, he is not a NBC, because of his fathers allegiance to Indonesia. At no point in his life, did he apply for US citizenship, that we know of, nor has he filed for a legal name change from Barry Soetoro, his adopted name.
There is no proof that he is “even” a US Citizen. In fact, documents have been provided to the courts that show he has used multiple SSN’s.
One then has to ask WHY he witholds the documents and evidence that would end all of this, and in fact spends millions in attorneys fees (by the way, where did that money come from, he did not have it when he went into the Presidency, and his wages are 256K/Yr)
Personally, I do not hate Obama, I simply want him to prove, as he is required to do, that he is who he says he is, that is meets the qualifications of POTUS, as set by the constitution of the United States.
This is not a matter of political ideology, race, or hate. It is a matter of adherance to the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark is a citizenship issue with does not touch on Natural Born Status, rather naturalization. Two different things.
http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/132-Wong-Kim-Ark-Case.html
Just a final note and clarification.
If Obama was born in California, Wyoming, Pick the state, and all other factors were the same, he would not be a natural born citizen, because his father was not a US citizen. Period.
His mother was not in the United states for 5 years prior to his birth either, which disqualifies him.
So, where he was born, is not important to me, or the law, in this instance. Whether he is a naturalized citizen, is not important to me, or the law, in this case.
The fact that he is “not” a Natural Born Citizen IS important, as it pertains to the POTUS, which is the only office that is specific about NBC status in the Constitution.
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.