How did I know.
The most RACIST RACE, blacks, accuses everyone of racism AGAIN.
Posted on 04/14/2013 5:25:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Republicans spend a lot of energy explaining that they are not racists, and if you dare call them a racist based on their racist policies/comments, then they will gleefully accuse you “playing the race card” as if that exempts them from what they are doing. Here to exemplify this right wing cognitive dissonance in action is Georgia’s Republican Governor Nathan Deal, who yesterday made headlines by refusing to condemn “whites only” proms.
Here’s a compilation of Nathan Deal quotes:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Ghetto grandmothers: Speaking before the Cherokee County GOP, then congressman and candidate for governor Nathan Deal was fear-mongering about the need for a birth certificate before getting benefits, ”We got all the complaints of the ghetto grandmothers who didn’t have birth certificates and all that. We wrote some very liberal language as to how you can verify it. My mother was born in 1906 and she didn’t have a birth certificate. They didn’t give birth certificates back then. But we got her one, because you can do it under the proper procedures of your state.”
His wife can tell by looking at her students which ones are going to prison and which ones are going to college, “My wife tells me she could look at her sixth grade class and tell ya‘ which ones are going to prison and which ones are going to college.” (Maybe you need to have spent some time in the South to get that one, but I have and I do. It’s white person code for the slaves are acting up again.)
Deal’s obsession with President Barack Obama’s birth certificate heightened as he ran for office (translation, he used it to get the southern white vote, aka the birthers, aka in 2009, the Tea Party). AJC reported on this embarrassing switcheroo...
(Excerpt) Read more at politicususa.com ...
Bath-House didn't even show UP for the Malihi court.
Good point. So much for the canard that Deal is obsessed with Obama’s alleged birth certificates. Even after the Secretary of State advised Obama to present some kind of evidence, they decided they didn’t need any and that they could rely on a decision that also never saw a birth certificate and one that never declared Obama to be Constitutionally eligible. Sounds like Deal is an Obama supporter.
How is wondering where he was born racist?
No Schitt? Now there is a self hating white woman.
She is a woman, ain't she?
i say force him to officially submit it somewhere.
then it’ll get real interesting
Only for more years of all this racist crap, then we can start in with the sexist stuff. Not voting for Hillary? You must be sexist!
According to Orly Taitz, Michael Jablonski, Obama’s no-show attorney did submit a copy of Obama’s birth certificate with his Georgia brief and he also provided a copy to Secretary of State Kemp.
Arizona Secretary of State Bennett and US District Court Judge Wingate in Mississippi’s ballot challenge/ RICO action also received copies.
Orly Taitz believed that the Jablonski submission gave her the right to inspect the original, vault copy.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/green-light-to-see-obamas-hawaii-files/
Courts cite rulings from other states all the time.
No doubt all states have exactly the same statutes, else it would be colossally stupid. Might as well cite foreign cases.
I dare say one of the ongoing problems with the entire court system is that they cite other cases rather than deriving their own opinion from first principles. Citing other cases is just a variation on a "tu quoque" fallacy.
It is a very stupid way to administer law. One mistake, and the whole collection of them fly right into the ground.
How did I know.
The most RACIST RACE, blacks, accuses everyone of racism AGAIN.
Not according to the pictures of her that I found.
On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.
One party overwhelmingly supports this continued genocide.
The other party wonders why they are the ones called racist.
I’m betting that the opposite of reliance on the ancient Roman legal system principle of “stare decisis” and basing rulings on precedent is NOT what you are advocating: that the Constitution is a “living document” to be individually interpreted by (for example) each of the 179 liberal federal judges that have been appointed by Obama since 2009.
The reason that the Ankeny ruling shows up in so many subsequent rulings is simply that the attorneys representing the “Obama is eligible” position have done a better job of stating their case in their briefs than the “Obama is ineligible” attorneys have done.
I am at a loss to comprehend how you can misunderstand my position on this. What I am suggesting is a concept called "first principles" which is the standard methodology in the Science/Engineering World. The notion that you would simply rely on the opinion of some other authority to come to a decision is nonsensical in the Science world, and it ought to be nonsensical in the Legal world as well.
If the opinion cited is based on a mistaken understanding, then all opinions based on the cited opinion are likewise wrong.
The reason that the Ankeny ruling shows up in so many subsequent rulings is simply that the attorneys representing the “Obama is eligible” position have done a better job of stating their case in their briefs than the “Obama is ineligible” attorneys have done.
You may regard that as the correct way of looking at it, but from my perspective, the entire legal system is biased in favor of a simplistic understanding of the law because it is relying on mistaken understanding from previous courts.
The courts will simply not entertain any notion contrary to their pre-existing bias. I even suggested this might be a problem for anyone seeking to challenge this. It's like Roe v Wade. Bad Precedent will create automatically bad subsequent rulings.
Ah, if only those trained in science and technology were the triers of fact in our judicial system, but unfortunately, we are left with lawyers.
More's the pity, that.
Then let's see it.
Arizona Secretary of State Bennett and US District Court Judge Wingate in Mississippi’s ballot challenge/ RICO action also received copies.
Yes, those were photocopies or printouts of the website. They weren't either of the two alleged, CERTIFIED, hard copies Obama obtained from Hawaii.
Orly Taitz believed that the Jablonski submission gave her the right to inspect the original, vault copy.
Probably because the standard rules of evidences says that such documents have to provided to the opposing party prior to a trial, otherwise any such document is legally considered to be hearsay. A printout from a website is not legally sufficient.
“Let’s see it?” Haven’t you noticed that judges don’t often publish exhibits from the obriefs that they receive?
The courts are interested in the data on a birth certificate in a civil action dealing with eligibility not the version of the certificate. Since Hawaii has issued Letters of Verification for the data, a criminal action for forgery or document fraud/tampering would be needed to impeach the validity of the version of the birth certificate that is being proferred. To date, there has been no such criminal action.
Because Orly Taitz or one of the other plaintiff’s attorneys had also submitted a copy of the whitehouse.gov version of Obama’s birth certificate for Judge Mahili, there was no need to have the pliaintifs review the defense Verizon of the exact same document.
I've seen plenty of briefs get published. It's how I know the Mississippi lawsuit only has a photocopy/printout of the PDF.
The courts are interested in the data on a birth certificate in a civil action dealing with eligibility not the version of the certificate.
That's not true. Under the rules of evidence, a birth certificate would be self-authenticating because the caretaker certifies that the document is correct under the law. It's not about data.
Since Hawaii has issued Letters of Verification for the data, a criminal action for forgery or document fraud/tampering would be needed to impeach the validity of the version of the birth certificate that is being proferred.
According to what??
Because Orly Taitz or one of the other plaintiff’s attorneys had also submitted a copy of the whitehouse.gov version of Obama’s birth certificate for Judge Mahili, there was no need to have the pliaintifs review the defense Verizon of the exact same document.
Orly was challenging the validity of the document. Again, it only counts as hearsay if a certified copy is not presented in court. Read the rules of evidence.
“I’ve seen plenty of briefs get published. It’s how I know the Mississippi lawsuit only has a photocopy/printout of the PDF.”
It’s not about that data? Aren’t lawsuits filed because plaintiffs don’t believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? Aren’t other lawsuits filed because plaintiffs believe that his father’s birth in “Kenya, East Africa” which is documented data on Obama’s birth certificate renders him ineligible to be a natural born citizen? Yeah, it’s definitely about the data.
“That’s not true. Under the rules of evidence, a birth certificate would be self-authenticating because the caretaker certifies that the document is correct under the law. It’s not about data.”
Birth certificates were introduced in Georgia and in Mississippi. The judge in Georgia used the birth certificate to rule Obama a natural born citizen.
In Mississippi, the judge has not ruled yet. I’ve read Federal Rule of Evidence 902 on Self-Authenticating Documents and Rule 1005 on “Copies on Copies of Public Records to Prove Content.”
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.