Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: curiosity

For what? Asking for proof that someone is eligble? She is a citizen and is entitled to know.


4 posted on 10/13/2009 10:31:13 AM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's health care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Frantzie

She’s been hollering for months now that she has Obama’s birth certificate, yet never manages to turn it over to a judge.


8 posted on 10/13/2009 10:33:26 AM PDT by jaxon72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Frantzie
He/she teaches corporate market finances in a business school in the state of Washington.

I can connect the dots.

9 posted on 10/13/2009 10:34:53 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Frantzie

“For what? Asking for proof that someone is eligble? She is a citizen and is entitled to know.”

I’m with you. We’re all entitled to know, yet insults abound and no proof offered. Land’s decision is no surprise. I’m going to wait and see regarding the case pending in Carters court.


10 posted on 10/13/2009 10:35:46 AM PDT by milford421 (U.N. OUT OF U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Frantzie
For what? Asking for proof that someone is eligble?

No, for bad faith, deliberate violations of the law, breathtaking arrogance, delusions, willful misconduct, and baseless attacks on the court. Did't you read the article?

16 posted on 10/13/2009 10:46:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Frantzie
For what? Asking for proof that someone is eligble?

No, for "asserting claims and legal positions that are not well-founded under existing law or through the modification , extension, or expansion of existing law." Also for "using the courts for a purpose unrelated to the resolution of a legitimate legal cause of action."

Of course, accusing the judge of all sorts of things, including a secret meeting with the Attorney General Holder, didn't help. I mean, she said that because he owns some Microsoft stock, and they're "aligned both politically and economically" with Obama, that he was biased and should recuse himself.

18 posted on 10/13/2009 10:51:06 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Frantzie
These people will soon be HIS brown shirts leading us into U.S. shariah laws!

They are just TOO blind folded yet to understand the consequences of their propaganda actions and infiltrations on the internet forums!!

Hillary's PUMA.com gals warned us!!!

21 posted on 10/13/2009 11:50:09 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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