Posted on 01/06/2012 1:57:41 PM PST by GregNH
(Jan. 6, 2012)— At approximately 3:05 ET, Atty. Orly Taitz contacted The Post & Email following the hearing scheduled for today in Taitz v. Fuddy in the First Circuit Court in Honolulu with Judge Rhonda Nishimura. Astoundingly, although we are told that Nishimura was aware that Taitz was not available on January 26, 2012 because of a ballot challenge hearing in Atlanta, GA, she scheduled a hearing on the subpoena issued by the court in Georgia for the very same day.
Taitz said that because of the Motion for Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement filed with the Hawaii court, Judge Nishimura was aware that Taitz could not be in both Hawaii and Georgia on that day.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
On what basis? Even Obama signed onto Senate Resolution 511 clearly stating that a NBC is born to 2 citizen parents. If you recall he used to teach Constituional law at the Univ of Chicago (so they would tell us).
And so what is Obama going to present in court that shows he had 2 US citizen parents?
Fogbots are so hilarious, if it doesn’t deal with a bc and HI they are confused and disoriented.
Sigh...
Have you read SR 511?
Our legal system is a cesspool of strutting peacocks more interested in patting themselves on the back for their brilliance than finding out what is the actual truth and seeking actual justice. Orly may be a poor attorney, but why must it require a good one to get justice? Why is our system more concerned with process and procedure than results?
An example of what I am talking about is the "exclusionary rule". One would be hard pressed to find a stupider and more counterproductive legal concept. Here we have a methodology that insures the maximum amount of injustice possible.
If a cop illegally searches and finds evidence of a crime, it cannot be admitted at trial. The court will cover it's eyes to the truth because it doesn't like how the facts were obtained. Not only does the Criminal get away with the crime, but the Cop gets away with the crime of illegal search! What ought to happen is evidence should be ALWAYS ADMITTED, no matter how it is obtained, but if evidence should be obtained illegally, those who committed the illegal act should be punished for committing THAT crime. How better to discourage violations of civil rights than by punishing those who commit them? It is the theory of deterrence upon which the REST of the Criminal Justice system operates, why should it not operate with the same consistency regarding crimes by the police?
My friend, I could go on and on about what is faulty with our legal system, but I think you either get the idea, or you don't, and either way it is not worth our time to beat it further. I think it is a tragedy that our system is so convoluted that it is an actual crap shoot as to whether or not it serves the cause of justice.
Now, kooks are baked into the cake, because the law schools have to teach kook theory based on kook judges deciding the law the way they have.
These people need to be excised root and branch. We are way past the point of needing to impeach judges. About this, Newt Gingrich is absolutely correct. Just Kelo v New London alone should have been justification to impeach Five Supreme court Judges.
The court is no longer entitled to respect, they should be treated as just another Hack political arm of the Government. Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
This nation’s highest judicial authority defined the term natural-born citizen in accordance with Article II in a way that precludes Obama from being Constitutionally eligible for office. What compelling authority does this judge have for NOT following this legal precedent??
Yes...sigh.
Another ballot challenge in Alabama - showdown in Dixie!
Minor v. Happersett didn’t happen in anyone’s imagination. What a stupid reply, El.
I'll bet this judge doesn't think it says what you think it says.
That Minor “defined the term natural-born citizen in accordance with Article II in a way that precludes Obama from being Constitutionally eligible for office.” is only in Birther imagination.
What part of "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens ... these are the natural-born citizens ..." do you not understand?? And this definition was given specifically to explain what the term means in Article II of the Constitution.
This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
This part of the decision precedes the definition I cited. Again, this stuff about so-called "Birth imagination" is simply dumb. If you choose to prove that you "do not think," then I won't argue otherwise. p
Some fogbot edification for you...
Atty. Van Irion Discusses Georgia Ballot Challenge and the Constitution
Well, you should have no problem getting the court to agree with you then.
Let me know how that goes.
I’m quoting the court. What part of the quotes do you not understand??
You are quoting a small part of a USSC decision out of context and insisting that it means what you want it to mean.
It’s not out of context. Virginia Minor argued she was a citizen via the 14th amendment, and the court rejected this argument because women who were born in the country to citizen parents did NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens. This class of citizens was exclusively characterized as natural-born citizens within the nomenclature of the framers of the Constitution, in satisfaction of the term as found in Article II. Excuses are not a substitute for logic, sordo.
Then you should have no trouble getting a court to buy your argument.
Good luck!
It’s not “my argument.” Again, I’ve quoted the Supreme Court’s argument directly.
Great!
So it’s as good as done then.
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.