Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers

Well, I’m not sure that every case thus far has been fined, but I do know that a number of them have. Whatever the case, most judges seem openly hostile to this effort, so it does not seem likely to succeed at all.


32 posted on 04/05/2013 9:29:57 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: chris37

They are hostile because most judges and lawyers agree that the WKA case in 1898 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) provided the legal definition of natural born citizen. You might disagree, but it is certainly true that most judges and lawyers think WKA decided the issue over a hundred years ago. I’m politically to the right of Rush Limbaugh, but that would be my analysis of the case as well.

LexisNexis, listing the holdings in WKA, has this as #19 (of 37 holdings in WKA):

“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is common law of this country, as well as of England.”

However, the only birther lawyers I know of that were fined were ones involving pure lunacy (Jesuits installing Obama), or a couple where the lawyer made no attempt to follow the federal rules of procedure in federal court. It usually takes a special effort of weirdness to get a court to fine a lawyer for bringing a case. I’m actually surprised Orly Taitz hasn’t been disbarred by now.


37 posted on 04/05/2013 9:45:54 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson