He didn't donate
Click the Pic
Sign up to donate monthly
A sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/05/2012 2:16:29 AM PST by edge919
Obama became a British citizen at birth via the automatic operation of British law that applied at the time.
Here's what the U.S. State Department says about that... "Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice." http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Obama automatically became a British citizen at birth via his non-U.S. citizen British citizen father. The Democratic National Committee OPENLY ADMITTED that Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Read the Act. It says nothing about any possible future claim to British citizenship. It says, "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth" http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
My replies @53 and @54 give some of the text that precedes that sentence.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. That Fuller quote in his dissent gets put into HIS mouth all the time (by some) as justification for claims that the WKA majority made Obama eligible under the 14A. I stand corrected.
Orly should have no trouble with her appeal then.
I, simply, gave my opinion as to what he was going to do and why I felt that way. In addition, that letter he sent to Obams's attorneys about 'not showing up at your peril' says to me he was relying on the decision to back up his actions.
One would assume so, but one would have assumed that a person of questionable providence would never have been allowed to get on the ballot in the absence of verifiable proof. One would also have assumed that a Judge would not rule in favor of someone who didn't show up and didn't present evidence while citing plaintiff's unverifiable copy of an internet picture on the one hand, but dismissing all criticism of it on the other.
The way the legal system is broken nowadays, it is not safe to assume that reason and the legal process have any contact with each other.
But that is beside the point. The original topic of this exchange was the contention as to whether or not the judge weighed the merits of the case. Since you seem to agree that Orly has grounds for appeal, I must conclude that you have conceded that you were wrong in taking the position that the judge HAD weighed the facts of the case.
In a round about way, you have admitted you are wrong and we were right. Considering your tendency to obfuscate what is the plain truth in front of us, I will count that as being as much of an admission of error as we are ever likely to get from you.
You’re funny.
link to SoS rejects Malihi's decision
"accepting the view of the ALJ would mean that a candidate can determine his or her own qualifications"
Intentionally so. You on the other hand, cannot help it. :)
It’s my lot in life.
IMO, El Sordo obviously forgot his “/s” sarcasm tag on this comment.
Unlike Hatfield and Irion, Dr. Taitz failed to qualify ANY witnesses and failed to provide a legal foundation for ANY fact evidence.
An appeals court would have been bound by any facts that Malihi deemed admissible, such as a finding that BHO Sr. was Barry's non-citizen dad when Barry was born.
But due to Dr. Taitz’s bad lawyering, Malihi was unable to make any appealable conclusions of law absent any facts on which to base such conclusions.
“I guess there is no such thing as a default ruling in Georgia.”
___________
You didn’t read the ruling. Taitz won the case and then threw it away. She was offered a default judgement but refused it and asked to have her evidence weighed. Instead of taking the victory she introduced her “evidence” and the court found it lacking. Her “experts” are unqualified or she failed to produce credentials, her “evidence” is conclusory internet rumor rather than convincing.
This case was lost because of poor lawyering. She should have jumped on the default judgemetn, and if we do have a friend in the Secretary of State’s office (as some have suggested), he would have had a great excuse- A COURT FINDING- to keep Obama off the ballot.
I cannot see from the court’s holding, an avenue for appeal. If you want to unseat a sitting president, you can’t use a lawyer with a degree off of the internet!!!!!
That was for a house race and I doubt anyone even cared about the candidate. This is on a whole different level. Sorry, but all rationale, precedence, sanity and quite, frankly, our constition and birthright has been thrown out the window when it comes to Obama.
Constitution (Correction to prior post)
We don't know that the judge would have actually issued a default judgment. He says in the ruling:
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding.
Well, oridinarily a court still finds against that party for not mounting a defense. In this instance, the judge takes up their cause for them. Who's to say he wouldn't have done that without the proceeding??
I am new at FR, but this is the first time I’ve been confronted with someone who is willing to skew the document to try to support their weak position.
You cite a PARTIAL statement in the judge’s ruling. You wrote:
We don’t know that the judge would have actually issued a default judgment. He says in the ruling:
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding.
However the complete statement in the ruling reads:
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding.[Citation] Nevertheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of the arguments and the evidence. The court granted the Plaintiff’s request.
Clearly the ruling went as I detailed. Taitz was offered a default judgement but refused and asked the court to judge her evidence. Rather than take the win, she demanded an audience rather than an action. Instead of petitioning the Secretary of State to uphold the court’s decision, Plaintiff is now licking wounds because Taitz is a poor lawyer.
I previously presented the best analogy, Taitz was playing Black Jack and was dealt a 21, but then asked for another card. Stupid.
Are you purposely being dishonest here?? The rest of what you cited is irrelevant to the point. It doesn't prove whether or not Malihi would have issued the default order as he claimed. It certainly sounds good. Others reported that he offered this default judgment BUT that they would be allowed to enter evidence and arguments into the record along with that judgment. The court is claiming the plaintiffs demanded a decision on merits. I wasn't there so I don't know if that's true. Regardless, there's no positive legal evidence to show Obama was born in the United States. It wouldn't matter how bad of a lawyer Orly Taitz is. Obama did NOT prove he meets the Constitutional requirement. It's not the judge's job to make Obama's arguments for him and then base them on unproven facts, but that's exactly what he did.
Second, let's assume the judge DID issue the default order. This doesn't mean the Secretary of State would abide by it. I've already shown where Malihi has a history of being overruled by the SoS. Further, if it's appealed, then the state has the sole responsibility to argue against Obama. This means that Orly's, Hatfield's and Van Irion's arguments never get presented. Now, if an appeal is necessary, they have something to fight against.
The citation that I omitted outlines the default procedure. Get on Westlaw if you need proof.
But, forget my comments. Certainly a Russian educated dentist with an internet law degree is the best attorney for this job.
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.