Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
You have to look at Hatfield’s request to sever the cases.
You don’t seem very familiar with this case - this has been discuss in depth already.
If he didn’t think the BC was accurate why did he submit into evidence?
Can't you figure that out?
...professed to be...
That is the birthplace of the father.
So what does "considered" mean in Section II?
This is not a private conversation after all.
DUH!
They have seen the proof and eventually so will you.
So now you're omniscient and a mind reader to boot.
So what does "considered" mean in Section II?
...this has been discuss in depth already.
Where?
Your comment doesn't address my question...
So where is this vaunted "stipulation" in Welden’s case?
What does "considered" mean in Section II?
He used Obama’s BC to support his case. When you submit a document the judge will assume it is accurate in it’s entirety unless parts of it are challenged and proved to be inaccurate. That was never done.
4 hours - you will get your proof.
When you submit a document the judge will assume it is accurate in it’s entirety unless parts of it are challenged and proved to be inaccurate.
So now you speak for judges as well? And since when are judges supposed to make assumptions?
So where is this vaunted "stipulation" in Welden’s case?
What does "considered" mean in Section II?
If you were to actually read ALL the documents you wouldn’t embarrass yourself like this. I did answer your question. I refuse to spoon feed you.
So where is this vaunted "stipulation" in Welden’s case?
What does "considered" mean in Section II?
How can a stipulation be made when one side isn't present?
You do understand he never said anything about ANY probative evidence being entered by ANY of the parties?? If you believe otherwise, let’s see the quote.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. There’s no point in saying the same document has NO probative value in one part of decision and then assume that it is “accurate in it’s [sic] entirety” in another part of the decision simply because there are different attorneys involved.
So why does Hatfield seem to have accepted that it was a valid stipulation? It was one of main reasons he wanted his case separated from Irion’s.
Perhaps Hatfield knows more about law then we do? Or are you saying he doesn’t understand what a legal stipulation is. I accept his competence as a lawyer.
Section I of the decision was the judge disposing of Orly’s case. Only her evidence was tossed.
Perhaps Hatfield knows more about law then we do?
I would hope so.
Or are you saying he doesn’t understand what a legal stipulation is.
Upon what basis do you presume that I am?
What does "considered" mean in Section II?
Right, and HER evidence was the same as anyone else’s. So either it had probative value or it didn’t. The only comment in the decision says that it did NOT. If you believe otherwise, show a direct quote that supports this belief.
Now you are demonstrating to me that you have not learned enough about this topic to discuss it sensibly. Aldo Mario Bellei had an American Mother too, yet he lost his citizenship because he didn't comply with residency requirements. "Natural born citizens" do not have to comply with any residency requirements, and their citizenship cannot be stripped away from them unless they commit an affirmative act of Allegiance to another nation.
A "natural born citizen" does not have a choice to be a citizen of another country, he has only ONE CHOICE, and that is his "natural" country. Anyone that has a choice is not a "natural citizen", they are a hybrid of two or more Nations. (This condition did not even exist prior to 1922. Women automatically acquired the citizenship of their Husbands upon Marriage. ) Allowing them into the office of the Presidency is causing EXACTLY what the founders created Article II to PREVENT.
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.