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 ...
My Senator, Jerry Moran, thinks that simple, majority vote legislation can fix the anchor-baby problem.
“— subject to the jurisdiction thereof” -—
If an illegal immigrant couple crosses our border, from Mexico, and then they decide to split up, after having a child in the United States -—
What American Court will decide custody of that child?
Is that child truly subject to full “Jurisdiction” of American law?
I think not.
Congress should define those rules, Congress has every right to define those terms, under the law.
My Senator, Jerry Moran, thinks that simple, majority vote legislation can fix the anchor-baby problem.
“— subject to the jurisdiction thereof” -—
If an illegal immigrant couple crosses our border, from Mexico, and then they decide to split up, after having a child in the United States -—
What American Court will decide custody of that child?
Is that child truly subject to full “Jurisdiction” of American law?
I think not.
Congress should define those rules, Congress has every right to define those terms, under the law.
Answer these questions, please:
1. Did anyone prove Obama’s eligibility in the Irion case? If so, what probative evidence of eligibility was entered into the record?
2. Did anyone prove Obama’s eligibility in the Hatfiled case? If so, what probative evidence of eligibility was entered into the record?
3. Did anyone prove Obama’s eligibility in the Taitz case? If so, what probative evidence of eligibility was entered into the record?
4. If any of these attorneys had entered into the record the online Kenyan birth certificate and it remained uncontested by Obama since he and his attorney both showed contempt for the court and didn’t even show up, would Malihi have HAD to accept it as probative? Why or why not?
5. Why did Malihi ignore both Hatfield’s motion to have the burden of proof determined, and all the attorneys’ motions to have Malihi certify the record so that a different judge could decide whether Obama and his lawyer were guilty of contempt of court? If Malihi was negligent on those things, why should we trust that he acted in good faith in ANY of his dealings?
Let’s skip the childish taunts and just get down to the facts of this case. I’ve cited the statutes, rules of evidence, etc, and the only argument your “side” seems to come up with is, “You’re stupid.” Really, really childish way of side-stepping the substantial issues.
And after having looked at your profile, I hope you realize that being part of the Republican establishment doesn’t give you a lot of street cred on this issue at all. The R establishment has trampled the Constitution in so many ways it’s not even funny. Politicians are bought and sold just like slaves used to be bought and sold. You may consider it a real winning point that the politicians and judges have mocked and/or ignored this issue, but for those of us who are aware of all the fraud and how complicit our supposed “public servants” are in all the fraud, that fact is just proof that our government needs a good housecleaning.
You do realize this fact, don't you?
You do realize this fact, don't you?
However, I won't stand by and let stupidity go unchallenged.
The Birthers have NO CASE and are represented by legal morons.
However, I won't stand by and let stupidity go unchallenged.
The Birthers have NO CASE and are represented by legal morons.
However, the questions that would hurt Obama the most, politically, will NEVER be asked because the other Birther stuff, like this NBC stuff, is drowning out the more important questions about Obama’s past.
America is a common law country - the only thing that matters is the case law.
Lets talk about American law.
Your analogy of my question is silly.
There is a distinct difference between electability and eligibility.
My question was solely focused on eligibility.
Any offspring of any ( name your sycopath ) US citizen and another US citizen , born in the US, is a Natural Born Citizen by birth and can rightly so qualify to run for President of the United States. ( If all other criteria is met per the US Constitution).
Whether or not if they can get elected to the office is a completely different matter.....
America is a common law country. Case law and precedent is what matters. WKA is presently the law of the land. It doesn’t matter what you think they got wrong or what they left out. It is the law of the land and its present interpretation is encapsulated in Ankeny.
WKA addresses the first 50 years - that long discussion of the evolution of the common law term from NBS to NBC is addressing the legal framework in which the Founders were familiar with.
Speaking of morons, you sure do stutter a lot!
You mean the “birther stuff” that Mr Failure to Appear is afraid to litigate in court?
“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”
ok...so one day, the son of Osama decides to run for office, and being an upstanding, honest sort of guy, he makes no bones about who his father was, or where he was born. He is also quite proud of being a mohammadan, and when he introduces himself, he says Hi! I’m what-his-name Osama and I’m a muslim, and I hope you will vote for me...
And that’s all there is to it really. You wouldn’t suspect him of being a Russian spy, or ask for his birth certificate, would you?
But if he placed an obviously forged abstract of a birth certificate on the Net, and sealed all his records, you might just begin to wonder...who is this man? Is he really an arab?
You see, IMO, the people who vote for the son of Osama have a right to know who he is. But thinking about it, it’s not likely the son of Osama would try it, because even he knows he couldn’t run for President because his parents weren’t born in the US.
So it’s not because his father is terrorist number one that stops him. He would still get votes, if the Democrat Party chose him as their candidate, thinking that maybe this will keep the muslims happy...
(The GOP wouldn’t, is my guess, but I’m an aussie, so what would I know?)
But his mother was an American citizen so your point is irrelevant.
Pardon me (no, I’m not sorry) I want to jump in here and ask you, what proof have you SHE was his mother?
Go on, be honest, the answer is NONE.
oh my goodness...you don’t suppose she might have been the ‘wife from whom he is separated who lives in the Philippines’...do you?
It would be interesting to see a birther try a court case arguing that Obama Sr was either not here in amity...
Why do that when it's so much easier to show that natural born citizenship can't be passed from a transitional alien to their offspring.
...(I believe he was deported or encouraged by the US government to leave) or that he was here temporarily at the bidding of a foreign government...
The man was not here "at the bidding" of any government. Individual people helped him with his tuition and scholarship, not any government. He was given a student visa under @USC 8 which grants student visas to visiting alien students. Any child born to an alien while present in the US on a student visa, no matter who the mother was, would also fall under USC 8, as that Title falls under Congress' Constitutionally granted powers on @establishing uniform rules of naturalization, and under no pretense of the imagination could the progeny of an alien be considered to be a natural born citizen.
Your portrayal of the situation is abysmal, but not unexpected.
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.