Mr. Sweeney believes this photo was taken at Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago on March 12, 2008, two days before the last passport breach at the State Department
from Obama’s Forged “Certification of Live Birth”: The Evidence thread
Posted on 03/25/2010 6:53:40 AM PDT by opentalk
Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents, Barack Obama may not even be a "citizen," according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.
"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii."
The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.
WND reported earlier when the lawyer argued that the most common reason judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is just wrong.
Obama's arguments in this case, in fact, rely almost exclusively on that issue to suggest the case by Apuzzo should be dismissed.
"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo said recently during an interview with WND. "He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we're not a Christian nation; we're one of the largest Muslim nations. It's all there."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Mr. Sweeney believes this photo was taken at Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago on March 12, 2008, two days before the last passport breach at the State Department
from Obama’s Forged “Certification of Live Birth”: The Evidence thread
still waiting for further explanation on your doctrine or do you concede it does not apply?
Would it make any difference to you and your opinions if I did? By all means claim it doesn't apply, keep moaning about all your suits being laughed out of court, and blame it all on a big conspiracy. I won't try and stop you.
I’m not real big on the ‘artifacts’ theory because it’s hard to prove that the artificacts weren’t simply printer artifacts from the state of Hawaii’s COLB printer or that it’s not imperfections in the security paper. I think what I posted is much simpler to understand and much more compelling.
You made the allegation that it did apply not me. I expect you to back it up instead of slinking off into the darkness...While you are at it please explain the difference between a procedural error and jurisdictional one and how that (and fraud) apply to the instant situation
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=2000app%5Cct112415&invol=1
We conclude that the issue presented here, as in Glidden v. Zdanok, supra, concerns both a nonfrivolous constitutional question and a strong policy regarding the proper administration of judicial business. Although the appointment of the county court judge here, not in accordance with statutory, constitutional, or chief justice directive provisions, may be regarded by some as a technical defect, at bottom, it concerns the fundamental interest of litigants in ensuring that "qualified county court judges" will be called upon to serve as acting district court judges "when necessary and when funds are available." See Chief Justice Directive 95-01. This consideration leads us to adhere to our prior decision and conclude that the proper appointment of a county court judge to act as a district court judge presents a jurisdictional question. Therefore, the de facto judge doctrine does not apply, and the judgment cannot stand.
|
If you are going to bring up US v. Wong Kim Ark, you should mention that the majority opinion actually implies that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States (assuming he was born here) ... "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present ... " Just as the 2008 DC v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion on “to keep and bear arms” overturned nearly 70 years of Lower Court Opinions and Local/State laws stemming from the badly-written and incomplete 1939 US v Miller SCOTUS Opinion, a future SCOTUS Opinion will clarify Justice Gray's 1898 US vs. Kim Wong Ark Opinion and his historical analysis therein. See, the quote you offered, "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England ..." was first published in the unrefined 1896 First Edition of A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law." Justice Gray used the two-year-old First Edition version of Dicey's book in his 1898 US vs. Kim Wong Ark analysis (Gray used other weak references to make his point in his 1898 US v. Ark Opinion, too, like Binney's 1853 "Alienigenae of the United States" ... a pamphlet, LOL). However, in Dicey's Second Edition of "Conflict of Law" published in 1908 and subsequent editions, you will NOT find that quote from Dicey. Dicey "corrected" himself later ... which is likely why Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has only been referenced EIGHT times in ALL of the searchable US Supreme Court Opinions on record. You'll find that Dicey, after further analysis, said THIS in his 1908 Second Edition of “Conflict of Laws”:
"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (This DIRECT IMPACTS Obama and his lineage to his British father). In 1932, an older and wiser A. W. Dicey wrote: “To any critic of Blackstone, as to any student of English law, I unhesitatingly give this advice: Begin your study by reading Blackstone's Commentaries. Keep in mind that the book describes English law as it stood towards the end of the eighteenth century.” This methodology has been re-affirmed by the SCOTUS and Constitutional expert time and time again to determine the Framer's Original Intent. As attorney and law expert John W. Guendelsberger pointed out in 1992 regarding US v Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. at 653): “In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” – see US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874). Blackstone has been referenced thousands of times by the US Supreme Court to define the Framer's Original Intent. Blackstone's Commentaries has stood the test of time.
So ... what does Blackstone say about British subjects and Allegiance?
|
Praying, praying, praying!!!!!
If Obama was ever to go down for this, a whole lot of other Dems would go right along with him. It should happen but I am not at all sure that it will.
It obviously applies to anyone familiar with how the law works. The fact that someone filed a suit in the past means nothing. The issue would be when a formal determination of ineligibility is made.
| Well, that's based upon the assumption that one can actually forge or pay someone to forge a document like a Birth Certificate. We all know that's impossible, right?! Obviously it's NOT. In terms of complexity, creating a FAKE birth certificate is rather easy.
About 10 years ago, the going rate for a fake US Military ID was about $500. It's more than tripled now, but quite doable with the right contacts; the bad guys just need some extra bribe money to get it registered into the DEERS system, then it's damn near impossible for OSI to catch them without a subsequent background check. Even with all of the counter-counterfeiting measures in place — it's expensive, but if properly motivated — one could even clone a passport good enough (complete with holographic overlay) to get close enough to (allegedly) assassinate a member of Hamas in UAE.
The Paper Trip I
The Paper Trip II
|
I am familiar with the law, and the public has not acquiesced to Obama being eligible and it is not a procedural error but an error of substance and Constitutionality thus those basic principles deny the applicability of the doctrine. It is also not a procedural error of the court where nunc pro tunc could apply. Are you going to reward fraud upon this Nation by acquiescing to his acts as an usurper? Where is the law and equity? So someone steals millions by way of fraudulently acting when not eligible to act, according to you, you let them keep the ill gotten gains? I think not.
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend.
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
and they’ll continue singing it forever just because...
(repeat)
The reason people don't get worked up about these paeans to the Constitutional issue is simple. The facts as they currently lay make it clear to reasonable people that Obama was born in Hawaii. Further, the two-parent NBC stuff is a stillborn fantasy.
Now, if it could actually be proven that Obama was born outside the United States, then maybe you've got something. Maybe the specifics would yield a ruling that Obama is ineligible. But the specifics of that borderline incredible event itself are unlikely to support departure from the de facto officer doctrine.
IOW, the public bought a story and accepted misdirection that place of birth outweighs the father's citizenship because they don't understand what natural born citizen means.
| This is the song that doesn’t end ... Have YOU seen Obama's FactCheck Birth Certificate? Has a Judge? How about a Forensic Document Examiner (FDE)? Has anyone from the MSM like Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams, or Chris Wallace gazed onto and inspected that green piece of paper from Hawaii?
The truth about Obama's birth certificate (FactCheck.org)
|
i.e. defense appropriations. Every soldier, government employee, vendor, contractor would have to pay back any check they've gotten from the government in the last few months. Every contractor who worked on a stimulus project would owe that money back. Every state that received a stimulus grant would owe that money back.
Aside from the fact that "all bills he signed into law would be null and void" is completely made up, and has no basis in law, it's also completely unworkable.
i.e. defense appropriations. Every soldier, government employee, vendor, contractor would have to pay back any check they've gotten from the government in the last few months. Every contractor who worked on a stimulus project would owe that money back. Every state that received a stimulus grant would owe that money back.
Aside from the fact that "all bills he signed into law would be null and void" is completely made up, and has no basis in law, it's also completely unworkable.
Have YOU seen any previous President’s Birth Certificate?
Has a Judge?
How about a Forensic Document Examiner (FDE)?
Has anyone from the MSM like Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams, or Chris Wallace gazed onto and inspected that whatever color piece of paper from whatever state?
Those are great suggestions. Either a judge or a forensic document examiner needs to look at Obama’s alleged COLB.
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.
