Skip to comments.Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged
Posted on 03/10/2012 9:41:00 AM PST by Aria
A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.
A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.
Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.pravda.ru ...
i'm on your side.
we differ in one major respect. i think the justia scrubbing is more an indication that obama supporters thought the issue of 'natural born citizen' was a more important issue than they claimed, and that they were willing to revise U.S. Supreme Court opinions and a research process to keep some people away from relevant cases. However, I do not believe it had a significant impact on the outcome. First of all, most judges aren't even entertaining these suits. Second, most attorneys are not using justica and don't use justica. they just don't except when they need to hyperlink something for an article. if john and jane doe couldn't research it, that's a terrible thing, but i've seen no indication that lots of john and jane does were researching this, and reading minor, and looking for citing cases to read them and differentiate them.
but that doesn't mean i don't see the abject dishonor in this. if you're entrusted with U.S. Supreme Court opinions, and represent yourself as printing the full text but tweak sites and text for political purposes - that is vile and despicable. nobody should ever trust justicia again. i can't wait for you to continue pursuing this. i wish people would give this the attention it deserves.
i'd note that john and jane doe rarely read minor and compare, contrast, and differentiate it with the 25 citing cases.
as for my doctorate, it's in law. it's a J.D., not a Ph.D. Although in the field of law, a Masters in Law is a higher de gree than a Juris Doctor degree.
so why the insults? what did i do to be called 'skippy' and 'son' and 'scoutie'?
how many jane and john does do you think read u.s. supreme court cases they find on google? i know there are more jane and john does than attorneys, but it seems that the relevant number is the number who google u.s. supreme court cases and read them.
in your circle of friends, how many of them google and read u.s. supreme court opinions. of that group, how many then check to see if the opinion has been cited, and read those citing cases?
do the jane and john does you know do that in any meaningful numbers?
that's a question, and not meant as an argument.
You are right. I was out of line, I apologize.
I cannot of course answer that question with any specificity. I do know there were at the very least, hundreds who were looking up SCOTUS law in the fall of 2008 after Leo Donofrio discovered Chester Arthur’s father was not a Naturalized Citizen until 14 years after Chester’s Birth. Leo was the first I knew of who was looking into Minor v Happersett. I looked, I could not find anything on it. I gave up thinking it was irrelevant, and being more or less ignorant of just how smart Leo was. There were more than a few. It is impossible to say.
cheerfully accepted. you're in good company on this one; i find myself on the 'out of' side of the line more often than i like. i look forward to reading your next article on this subject.
I knew he hatched out of an egg.
No? I thought the Supreme Court revised standing law in Laidlaw vs Friends of the Earth Inc but I am no lawyer. Perhaps it doesn't apply.
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.