Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
No. The marriage is irrelevant in that scenario. Davis is the biological father and is listed on the BC. Junior would absolutely be NBC.
I agree that this is why GOP is silent and Clintons were silent on Barry's declared UK citizenship at birth.
As I have argued, the publication of “The Other Barack” gives Barry the chance to declare “Gee I was wrong! I was not a legal UK subject at birth because the INS and Harvard were onto my father's bigamy...making me a bastard and a unitary citizenship NBC.”
Unfortunately for Barry there is the matter of where he was born and lack of a non-forged BC to be produced in evidence in any court!
That you misrepresent the clear meaning of H v M is very telling.
Try to change the subject from that all you want, but it will continue to haunt you.
My preference would be to prosecute all his enablers, give him immunity as long as he testifies. For a pathological narcissist it would be hell to have to constantly have to verify that he is a fraud. Also it would remind him that he was nothing but a tool, without these enablers he would be the lazy nothing that is his true self. It would be a walking hell for him and far more punishing then prison.
Oh, he can claim he was a bastard child.
He has already set the stage for it.
Sometimes I wonder if the great discussions on this site that have taken place for the last few years have given him ideas of how to combat this problem. Then I am reminded of his talk about his mother’s wedding and realize it was already in motion long ago.
It just remains to be seen if it gets bad enough for him to pull the trigger on Plan B.
We need to find out who is behind that facebook page with the Single Mother claim.
You are the one that posted the Ankey case. I then posted the excerpt from the Ankey case that states Minor did not decide the issue.
Btw, the definition of NBC was not relevant to the Minor case.
Why don’t you understand that?
Even if they had explicitly stated there was only one definition it still could be stripped away from the case because it was not germane and not part of the case.
There are no pictures of baby Obama. Even if he was born in a manger Hawaiian Hut to SAD, married or not, there would be pictures at some point before 3 years of age. IMO SAD was asked to become a nanny for a 3 year old and the Grandmother knew just how to make it look like the kid was legit, a divorce. It wasn't until Zero wanted, or was chosen, to become Prez that they had to go back and create an identity. Even himself until that point was calling himself a Kenyan. Hence the book, the stolen Virginia's BC, ect.
The HI statutes (or was it the Administrative Rules?) say that the child is given the last name of the mother’s husband if she is married and that man is listed as the father, regardless of who is the biological father. Beyond that point if they want to change the paternity on the BC they need to file to have it changed and it will only be changed if the biological father signs an affidavit saying he is the child’s biological father.
If she is single, her maiden name is used for the child’s surname. If she lists a biological father on the BC that is only considered legally binding if paternity is established by a court or if the biological father signs an affidavit acknowledging paternity. I can’t remember for sure but I believe that the child would still have the mother’s last name.
If the single mother lists a biological father and then she marries the biological father the birth is legitimized, so that the child has the father’s name and the BC is altered to make it appear that the couple was married at the time of the birth.
This is what I’m remembering off the top of my head so it should probably be checked for sure. I’ve got several irons in the fire right now, or I’d double-check myself.
The thing about this, though, is that when somebody is admitted to the hospital they have to give some kind of documentation of who they are. I would imagine the same would have been true then. I could go to a hospital and CLAIM to be Mrs Justin Bieber (can you tell I’ve got a young daughter? lol) but if I didn’t have an ID card of some kind that actually identified me as Nellie Bieber, I doubt that they would allow me to put that name on a birth certificate.
So if Ann was never married to Barack then she was guilty of swearing to fraudulent data on the BC. And if she never had ID that called her last name Obama, then she could not have gotten away with using a different name on a HOSPITAL BC. IOW, it would have to be a non-attended birth for her to get away with that.
So if that’s what happened, everything Hawaii AND Ann AND Obama AND the passport office have done is pure bunk. Fraud, through and through.
Right back at ya...
You don’t think that Blacks would be able to recognize something is wrong if the guy they trusted then admits to having lied to them in everything he’s done?
It’s one thing to lie to everybody else, but have they not enough self-respect that they would refuse to let someone play them for fools? This guy is a scam artist and the one demographic that got him elected is the Black vote. Are they willing to be perceived as so gullible that they will prostitute themselves to a liar?
I don’t believe that. I believe that they, like others in the country, can be deceived. But if they find out they’ve been used, spit on, and thrown out the window they will turn and want justice. To believe otherwise would basically be to believe that they are what the Dred Scott decision said they were - animals. And I can not believe that.
Taken where?
Former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama indirectly confirmed to Miss Tickly that there were supplemental affidavits in Obama’s file, because he denied her access to them.
... upon the denial of Mr. Obama’s Motion to Quash the subpoena.
Now its total recall, how convenient?
Just for the record. Are you a true Mitt Romney supporter?
“Also indicating the passage was DICTUM.”
The DICTUM in the quoted Minor court language concerned only the question of citizenship of the children born to aliens and foreigner...which was explicitly NOT reached.
IMO the NBC language in Minor was NOT DICTUM but was a “HOLDING” declaring that born in the country of parents who were citizens are NBC. Only a subsequent SCOTUS ruling will affirm or deny application to the facts regarding Obama (whatever the heck they are!).
Keep this in mind.
The Dr who helped Lolo and Ann in his immigration battle was some kind of Assistant Chief of Staff in the Maternity ward prior to Obama’s birth...as in several years. Don’t know where he was the year that Obama was born.
This is off the top of my head. I don’t have Lolo’s file to look up the name of that guy.
We need to find out who is behind that facebook page with the Single Mother claim.
I suspect it to be Obama’s personal attorney, one Robert Bauer esq. He’s been awfully quiet since he left the White House.
Very perceptive. Eventually a person’s loss of reality catches up with them and becomes apparent to everybody else. The next few months will be CRITICALLY interesting.
What modern courts have to say bout it is based on the filter of previous precedents of other courts who may or may not have gotten THEIR understanding correct.
Go straight to the source; The meaning and intent of the founders in Drafting Article II. I have long argued that an interpretation that does not yield the founder's intended result is a WRONG interpretation, regardless of what the courts say.
If the 14th amendment definition of "citizen" meant the same thing as Article II "natural born citizen" then Article II would not serve the purpose for which it is intended. (To eliminate foreign influence in the office of the executive.)
You mention Rogers v Bellei, and I think the salient fact to be learned from that case is that a "born citizen" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen." In that case the "born citizen" had his citizenship stripped away from him because he had not met residency requirements. A "natural born citizen" does not have to meet any residency requirements.
Look to the original intent rather than hundreds of years later court decisions about what they THINK it means.
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.