Posted on 07/21/2010 1:26:08 AM PDT by tired_old_conservative
Wow...
There's crazy, there's baying at the moon crazy, and then there's this to Cheif Justice Roberts...
"Relief requested
1.Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert (to be identified at a later date) and view the orders pertaining to her cases and verify and clarify, that there is a valid signature of Justice Thomas and his clerk on the denial of application 10A56, entered on the Docket on Saturday 17, 2010.
2.Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert and verify that there genuine signatures of all nine Justices on the denial of her case 08A524 discussed in conference on January 23, 2009.
3.Taitz is requesting your Honor to grant her and her computer security expert (to be identified at a later date) access to the electronic docket of the cases pertaining to her and her clients, in order to ascertain who made an entry in the docket 10A56 on Saturday, July 17, 2010 and who deleted the Application 08A 524 from the docket of the Supreme Court and whether such person was authorized to make such changes to the docket."
That will happen when Satan's realm reaches a temperature of absolute zero. No sane person would even think of making a request like that.
Read the whole nutty thing at her website if you want to risk it. I'm sure other links will be available soon enough.
Emerich de Vattel never wrote of either "natural born citizen" or "natural-born citizen"...he wrote in French and used the term indigènes! If you want to translate that into "natural-born citizen" then that's your right, but it doesn't make it so. Proof by Definition isn't valid.
In fact, it was only later translations of The Law of Nations that had the mistranslation to "natural-born citizens"--not the edition with which John Jay and the others were familiar when writing the Constitution. Everyone knows that the Colonials were unable to catch H.G. Wells and his time machine from the British, so that's not possible and we'll have to assume that they were relying upon the usual definition of natural born citizen--a citizen by birth, not the process of...get it..."naturalization"...
Secondly, I thought that Donofrio was into the idea that Chester A. Arthur was not an American citizen, but was a British subject--despite being born in Vermont. Do you agree that Chester A. Arthur was not an American citizen?
Remember how Jefferson's citizenship statute in Virginia gave automatic citizenship to all white persons born there...?
Its Arthur's father that is the issue: he was not yet a naturalised citizen by the time of Arthur's birth. Barack Obama Snr could never have been made a citizen by marriage, so I have no clue what you meen.
I never said Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen by marriage.
thank you!!
Wondering if a jerk is working for the enemy makes me the enemy?
WTF?
Hey, I don’t make the rules.
Your original subject is what it would take to win before SCOTUS, presented by insulting Orly Taitz.
If you just want to insult Orly Taitz because it makes you feel better, go ahead.
However, her legal arguments should be justly considered, regardless of her demeanor, absent a ruling of “contempt” of court.
Many persistent, professional, polite lawyers have addressed the issue of Obama’s eligibility before many different courts, which have all denied standing and refused discovery — something they do not do to the same standard in a multiplicity of other cases, some of which I have referred to.
So I am not changing the subject you brought up, just pointing out that it doesn’t make any difference HOW the truth and facts are presented, again, absent a correct ruling of contempt. It is the courts’ job to address issues of law, which they stedfastly refuse to do.
So Orly Taitz is dedicated enough to pursue this issue, despite all the insults you and others can hurl at her for the way she is doing so. The court may wish to continue refusing to address what every American has a constitutional right, and standing, to know — that their president is legitimate.
“Crazy people” and how bout the liberal personal attack BS.
Now, we make every military man and woman from enlisted to officer do far more then merely proffer a damn COLB to obtain a Top Secret Security clearance. Obama needs more then a mere TS.Try a TSN, SCI, plus other TS sources, etc.
Perhaps you have never had such a clearance, because if you had, you would have had to list every damn address you had ever lived, with special emphasis requiring your explaining each any every foreign country you ever lived in/visited,the reason why, etc.
Perhaps ours military follows rules that our elected officials do not? Like Our Congress( both Houses) exempting themselves from Obamacare? If this sits well with you and others, it damn sure does not with me.
You prove my point.
We've never made presidents do even that. The clearance comes with the office. Always has.
You mean like the way birthers attack freepers that disagree with them?
"Perhaps ours military follows rules that our elected officials do not?"
It's true, the Constitution says nothing about the President being required to pass a security check. Whether this sits well with you or me is irrelevant. It's a fact.
Her legal arguments have been considered.
"Many persistent, professional, polite lawyers have addressed the issue of Obama’s eligibility before many different courts, which have all denied standing and refused discovery — something they do not do to the same standard in a multiplicity of other cases, some of which I have referred to."
You don't understand how the court system works. The court is not your detective agency. You don't file a lawsuit because you suspect something and want discovery. And you have to bring to court an issue about which the court can do something. It doesn't hand out advisory opinions. You don't just go to court because you have a question about an issue of law and you want an answer.
I know.
Your point was to insult Orly Taitz.
Your mission has been accomplished.
What a nice defense of our “superior” court system that condescends to such “inferior” people as I, who cannot adequately understand what it is they do (or are supposed to do).
People understand that it takes a legitimate birth certificate to obtain employment, join a little league team, etc. They understand, as posted here, a top security clearance requires all kinds of documentation of your past life, including names, addresses, relationships, arrests, criminal convictions, etc.
They also understand that the courts can, and should, and routinely do, allow people injured by someone, in an official position, who has not documented their qualification to hold that office have standing to demand proof of the legitimacy/qualification of the person holding that position.
The burden, as in the case of a person wanting to play in Little League, is not on the organization to prove the “kid” doesn’t qualify. It is on the “kid” to prove that He does.
You stated: “And you have to bring to court an issue about which the court can do something.”
Do you REALLY think that looking into whether Obama was born in America and/or is a natural-born citizen is an issue about which the court can do NOTHING? They have no authority WHATSOEVER in the matter?
REALLY?
You're not going to find it. This whole "Obama is using a dead man's social security number" rumor is the result of garbage data that comes up when you run these searches. If the number actually did belong to another individual, there would be an actual birth date (not just year) and a name.
The more I looked into the original Laws of Nations, it became less and less likely to me that it was the source for the definition of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. The other word used, naturels is translated in a English-French dictionary of the same period as "native," and sure enough, the earliest English versions translate the phrase as "The natives or indigenes."
Her questions are set out in the article that started this post.
Those are not questions. Those are demands.
The questions are the ones SCOTUS declined to answer, the declination of which she demands, as quoted in the start of this thread, to inspect.
Look,, you have to have certain rights to gain access to the date, it is not just given out
So, How do you KNOW they dont know the actual date now???
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.