Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
On the contrary, Mr Keyes was acknowledged by the Judiciary as having standing, but his suit(s) were dismissed, mostly for tangential reasons which can be classified under the rubric of "the ruling class closes ranks when the system appears to be under attack".
Wrong again sport. You really have no idea what you're talking about. And insisting that your noise is factual is, as I said more than once so far, Conclusionary nonsense.
Answers to 4 & 5: Yes.
“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-431.ZO.html
Impeachment is the only remedy when it is discovered that a sitting president lacks constitutional qualifications.
Actually, your own link says, “The decision then decides not to decide the question of whether Keyes had standing, and instead rules that even if Keyes does have standing, his suit must fail because it was not filed until after Obama was sworn into office (the judge notes that the case was filed at 3:26 pm Pacific time, January 20, 2009).”
So no, it was not decided that Keyes had standing. Something about only being on the ballot in 3 states makes it tough to win election as President...
>>“Therefore his nationality *IS* legally questionable, no?”
>
>No. Nothing you do as a minor can cause you to lose your US citizenship.
So then you are arguing AGAINST the validity of international law?
I am very much a National Sovereignty guy, but please support your assertions...
The foreign-born adopted children of American parents are, IIRC, American citizens [according to that international law].
>You can even serve in a foreign military as an adult and not lose your citizenship.
So, we let foreign nationals serve in our military, too.
But do we let foreign nationals COMMAND our military?
>You must renounce your US citizenship to a US government official as an adult, and sign it.
Ah, so then if it turns out that Obama filed for foreign-student aid [for University] then he is merely committing fraud.
Yeah, *only* fraud.
You better look around on this thread. You should look in the mirror of the guy who can't figure it out. And about 'the de facto officer doctrine,' I gave you a pretty detailed paragraph in post 142 why you are wrong.
BTW - I donated to Keyes campaign when he first ran some years ago. That was before I realized that he is a professional candidate, who runs to make money.
Thank you for posting those definitions of the “Chain-of-Command” and of “Authority.”
They prove the point I was making in Post #218
“I am very much a National Sovereignty guy, but please support your assertions...”
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
“But do we let foreign nationals COMMAND our military?”
Sometimes. But if you have PROOF that Obama is a foreign national, please hand it to Lakin. His case is hurting right now...
“Ah, so then if it turns out that Obama filed for foreign-student aid [for University] then he is merely committing fraud.”
That is right. Fraud, but he would still be a US citizen.
In post 142, you made an assertion. Assertions are not proof.
Saying Obama was accused of wrongdoing before taking office doesn’t change the fact that he has been recognized by every government institution and every member of Congress as President since 20 Jan 2009. So your assertion is wrong.
Lets look at Norton v Shelby what is a salient point.
" “The Defacto Officer Doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.”—Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886)"
The underlined is a constant legal rationale in all these de facto officer doctrine cases. Lakin didn't just disobey his deployment order because he wanted to watch Monday Night Football in the US or something; he thought his order to deploy was unlawful on the face of it, and therefore, challenged it as he is trained to do. Lakin did not find out later after the fact by reading FR figuring out Obama is not eligible under the US Constitution.
You can start looking at post 232 and there is more.
>Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).
I’ll see your that and raise you a US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
It could be used on those that gave that ruling (if they were still alive)... and EVERYONE WHO UPHOLDS/ENFORCES IT NOW.
“And for the record, I’d be willing to bet you are more of a Marxist than I am. “
That might be the case, but you can’t hide being a “Bernadict Arnold, either!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2605672/posts?page=164#164
“On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.”
And there are traitors and fools in every group of people, unfortunately.
No problem. :-) Visual aids are great at proving points... even when they can't admit it.
Interesting because the Hawaii DNC refused to endorse his qualification to put him on their ballot!
So Nazy Pelosi had to make some Houdini tricks to get him there!!
False voting scandal all from the get-go. But regardless where born, he was still a Kenya/British/E.U. citizen in addition to his present Indonesian citizenship making him an illegal alien!!!
Buckey said this is an anti-birther thread!
Looks more like an “AFTER-BIRTHER” thread!!
But I realize it’s more a “BENEDICT ARNOLD” thread!!!
LoL!
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.