Posted on 11/11/2011 1:53:37 PM PST by Danae
YOU get REAL! What part of this was over your head??? I told you I wrote Internet Articles, and I gave you a link. Do I need to hold your little hand like on the Minor v. Happersett DOUBTS stuff??? Remember???:
“I have written several Internet Articles debunking Donofrio on both the Minor v. Happersett case, and on “Justiagate. Here is a starting point for you:
The Missing Link”
As far as checking out “authentic conservatives”, who died and made YOU king??? As far as I am concerned there is something very strange about a group of pretend Internet lawyers telling people here that Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible for the presidency, all while misrepresenting very simple legal stuff all over the place.
Sooo, either bring your game and ask questions or make statements about the issue whatever, but spare me your personal issues.
So There!!!
LOL ... jeesh. Are you in high school ?
You never said the internet articles were on
YOUR own site. A convenient oversight?
Tell me you’ve been intently researching this entire, complex issue since the late spring of 2008, as so many of us here have been, then we’ll chat about specifics.
BTW, no response to my statement about the fraud committed by Stanley, Malamud and comrades?
What’s your opinion of that?
How much of your research online, that you post at your blog, used sources now confirmed to have been purposely altered and contaminated by Justia/Stanley/Malamud?
No, I am NOT in high school. I graduated in 2002 and college in 2006. Sooo, I am a grown-up.
I am having a difficult time finding your statement about fraud. Perhaps you would be so kind as to simply state what conduct it is that you find fraudulent.
As far as understanding this “complex” issue, I don’t think it is very complex at all. There is only like 2 or 3 cases you have to understand, sooo that is pretty simple if you read them a few times.Wong Kim Ark says that a NBC is just somebody born in the U.S. whose parents are not diplomats or invading soldiers. The Indiana case thingie says the same thing. My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., says the same thing. My mother’s lawyer, who I paid $50 to says the same thing.
A little over a month ago, Mark Levin said:
I want you to listen to me on my social sites. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . .this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. . .got it? I’m not into all that crap. You can go somewhere else for that.
Mark Levin
Sept. 28, 2011
Sooo, he’s saying the same thing. All in all, I am feeling pretty confident. I think maybe all you Vattle Birthers are making this stuff a whole lot more difficult than it really is. Maybe you should lose the Hieronymus Bingle speeches and all the Vattle stuff and just read the cases.
OK .. so you’re in your 20’s. You’ll be amazed at the wisdom you acquire by the time you’re 49 or 60 and how differently you communicate. I doubt you’ll be saying ‘so there! in a serious dialogue. Quite telling and immature, and one of the signs that showed me you were young.
I agree, Levin’s statement about Rubio is noteworthy.
I NEVER mentioned Vattel (it’s NOT Vattle).
The ‘Indiana thingie’ is laughable; no credible, informed person, other than an oBot, flaming liberal, or complete ignoramus about the issue, would use it to back up their position,
$50 to a credible Constitutional attorney? Wow. You get what you pay for.
However .. and lastly .. this thread is about the confirmed fraudulent removal and adulteration of case law by Tim Stanley of Justia and accompanying assistance by his comrades.
Why have you refused to respond to that?
And you would be surprised at how much a YOUNG mind is OPEN to New Thoughts and ideas. We are used to learning things and we can be taught New Tricks.
Now, as to the case law stuff, there has to be some justification as to why you classify this as fraud instead of a programming error. If the case is pretty much meaningless as to natural born citizenship, then you don’t have that. There is no reason to scrub this case.
If Minor v H was what you Vattle Birthers claim it was, then one or even two little online legal sites could not have scrubbed. Donofrio and Apuzzo would have learned it in law school as being the case that defined nbc.
Other lawyers would have learned the same thing. Wong Kim Ark just 23 years later would have used it to define NBC, instead of the English cases and other American cases. Or, it would have specifically over-ruled it. Judge Waite who wrote Minor would probably have not have sworn in Chester Arthur just 6 years later.
Arthur P Hinman would have used Chester Arthur’s non-citizen father to try to keep him from running. All the textbooks for the last 136 years would have said that it takes two citizen parents to run for president, instead of just being born here.
Jerome Corsi would have known this important fact, and put it in his book Obama Nation in 2008, which he didn’t and I know because I have a copy of it. The document I put above from 1876 would have said something about the case defining nbc. I could go on and on.
And if all this stuff is reality, which it is, then Minor v. Happersett did not define natural born citizenship. Which is all pretty obvious if you just read the sentence:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Mmmkay. You are right, Orly Taitz trumps Accuracy in Media and Family Security Matters... ya got me.
Maybe you think you know what you think you know... but you are blind to the stark truth in front of you. Sorry, but your girlfriend just does not trump a PhD. Nor legal scholars who have contacted me.
You might want to start taking a far more open minded pov here soon. Otherwise you will end up in the flat earther club. Not only is there a lot to this, but you really MUST understand the semantics of SCOTUS cases and you must also research the cases you see cited in those cases. You clearly aren’t doing that. I mean obviously are not doing that.
What’s potentially criminal, Justia PREVENTED EVERYONE USING THEIR SITE from doing that.
And you think that’s ok because you are hellbent on tearing the man apart? Sorry but that’s borderline obsessive. Not to mention sort of disturbing.
I stand corrected edge919. Justice Gray is careful. I may simply not understand the reasons for his foray into English Common Law. But you are absolutely right about Gray's citation of Minor, though, depending upon the extent of "mangling" of the version, some web downloads only provide a numerical citations where others name Minor v. Happersett in the first citation in WKA. I saw it over a year ago but didn't appreciate that a law school (Cornell was probably my source) would provide a corrupted Supreme Court case. One of the first copies I obtained did not have the Minor citation, and I incorrectly blaimed that on Gray's attempt at obfuscation, not having any way of knowing that it may have been Tim Stanley's work. I have not given WKA the attention I gave to Minor, or Scott v. Sanford, or The Venus. Mea culpa.
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts
~~~~~~
So, Donofio’s description here apparently fits you:
****
“Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor’s citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court. But in the passage above, the Court’s unanimous opinion clearly states that “the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In closing, and if you are open-minded with the capacity for new information, as you say, may I strongly urge you to carefully read and re-read if necessary (on the possibility you haven’t read the complete research thoroughly) the entire very detailed data and extensive research presented by Leo Donofrio, starting at THE very beginning (LINK ABOVE) and moving forward chronologically to today, remembering that Minor v Happersett had as a major premise her female gender vis a vis her citizenship status.
Note to Squeaky, adults xo not commonly use “so there” in an attempt to win a debate. Not even Rick Perry is a poor enough debater to use THAT 4th grade ruse. Not a good tactic there.
There are many people who continue to confuse this CONSTITUTIONAL LAW issue with the damned birth certificate including Levin. I put up my own personal Hawaiian birth documents in a deliberate effort to get past that bs. Shoot they are in a book! That being said, the decision in
MINOR is a holding and In Re Lockwood CONFIRMS it. “This court held”, and if was a unanimous holding at that.
I agree that people confuse Common Sense Suspicious Birthers with the Vattle Birthers. That is why you never see me teasing the die-hard Common Sense Suspicious Birthers. There is a basis for their doubts, even if I don’t agree with them anymore. I think Obama put out a screwy long form image to keep the issue alive.
But there is NO constitutional question that I can see on eligibility. Not even a little teeny-weeny glimmer of one. Some of these issues have been floating around since 1844, and they were loser arguments even then. Just because Minor gets cited on stuff does not make it precedent for defining natural born citizenship. You have to look at what it is being cited for. The Ankeny judges even said the Minor Court left the issue open.
Plus, if the case did what you claim it did, why come is Reality aligned against you??? Even little things like all the textbooks. The Obots have a website where they have textbook after textbook dating back for years and years where it just said that all it took was being born here. Nothing about needing two citizen parents. Not a peep. How did this happen, because this is something you have to explain to prove your theory.
There is just no way around this for you guys:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these DOUBTS.”
Then, you can’t just ignore Wong Kim Ark like it doesn’t exist or something.
I have read a lot of Donofrio’s stuff lately and I am not impressed a bit. He is misrepresenting the law in a big way. There is a reason why 99.9999% of lawyers do not agree with him. It isn’t because he is sooo brilliant that he has figured out something no one else has. It’s because he can’t even get past a few sentences in Minor and understand:
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these DOUBTS.
Anyway, the zombie movie I was watching is over, so I am going to bed. Good night.
The Statement in M-H really does get clearer with every reading. I have seen that quote taken out of context dozens of times, and always assumed it left open NBC to children of foreign citizens born here. But when I read the opinion in its full context, and understood the case, it was like a light bulb turned on. No way in hell is it allowing NBC to foreign citizens.
Virginia wasn't running for President. They were simply RESOLVING her BASIC CITIZENSHIP.
They found she was a NBC, per their definition written in the decision.
I guess we could call this a living and breathing sentence in a court decision. I fail to see NBC in this sentence as others do. For some reason, I only see citizen, in a case resolving citizen rights:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Nobody cares what you have to say. The wind blowing through a hollow log makes more sense than you do.
Minor v Happersett
Justice Field: “So you hold citizenship confers the right to vote.”
Counsel: “Yes sir”
Justice Field: “Have children then the right to vote”
Counsel: “Yes sir”
There was a campaign of misdirection, not suprisingly similar to that surrounding Obama. Many of Arthur's statements were patently untrue, and can only be construed as a tactic to create more confusion. Arthur told the press that his mother was “...a New Englander who had never left her native country.” That was not true, and every member of the Arthur family knew it.
Someone pointed out that, unlike the statements on Wiki and in the voluminous “Gentleman Boss,” life and times of Chester Arthur, Arthur and Hinman, the journalist were old friends and associates during Arthur's tumultuous New York years. The Hinman book could well have been clever misdirection. Arthur's appointee Horace Gray certainly understood the definition of who were natural born citizens, having made Minor v. Happersett his first citation in Wong Kim Ark.
It seems very possible that Arthur's ineligibility was not at all a secret, but that both parties found it inconvenient to turn the stones which might cause many more to be implicated in the cover-up, very much like the silence of so many who know better.
While much of what “Squeeky”, our most recent Obot, is nonsense, her/his reminder that Mark Levin, in whose book Liberty and Tyranny Levin quotes Madison explaining why the framers built the Constitution upon the common-language understood at the time of its framers, resorts to name-calling when the issue arises. For those who trust reason and clear language, there appears to be more to this cover-up than what has been published to assuage the concerns of citizens. Is the presumption that we live in a representative republic, with laws subject to judicial review an elaborate myth?
excerpt federalist six
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Provi-
dence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to
one united people; a people descended from the same ances-
tors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for
each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Provi-
dence that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren,
united to each other by the strongest ties, should
never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien
sovereignties.
Here is what I wrote ON MY WEBSITE (so that nobody gets confused about where it comes from). If I was Leo Donofrio, I would hang it up after reading this and go join like a monk place or something, or maybe become an anonymous hobo:
The Alternate Reality Universe of Leo Donofrio (A White Paper)
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.