So tell me Loren is that Judge Henry E. Hudson's mark on this court document below?
Posted on 10/15/2010 6:12:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Tell me: do you actually compose lies in advance, or do you just make up crap on the fly? Because here, it sure does look like you took actual image-editing effort to hide the truth from anyone reading your post, suggesting this wasn't a momentary bout of unbridled ignorance.
Despite your direct claim to the contrary both in this thread and in this one ("The Amicus Brief was file by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli."), the documents you posted were NOT filed by Ken Cuccinelli.
This is actually pretty obvious if you look at the whole document, since it's rather conspicuously signed by "W. Spencer Connerat, III" and not Ken Cuccinelli.
And who is "W. Spencer Connerat III"? Certainly not an Attorney General; he's not even a lawyer. He's just some birther from Florida.
Of course, you rather conveniently trimmed off the top part of the brief with Connerat's name, and the bottom part where his full name and signature appeared. And then you flat-out lied and said that Ken Cuccinelli filed it. Twice.
It's bad enough when Birthers fall for baseless rumors and false information. But it's worse to watch those rumors and lies being created on purpose.
Which proves that either a)none of the other candidates had standing and saying they did is BS or b)the judge is crooked.
I fear that after the election, and the citizens overwhelmingly show their displeasure with the current administration, Obama and his minions will unleash a scorched earth policy against these United States, the likes of which no foreign power has yet been able to accomplish.
No originals found, only microfiche with evidence of doctoring. Now ‘bout that.
Plus if there were actual announcements they could have been called in by a relative after kid was born who knows where. Common practice.
I think it's outrageous that the Kenyan usurper is using U.S. Attorneys to defend his personal stonewalling on the eligibility issue.
If I were the judge, I'd ask those gentlemen to show exactly where any U.S. Attorney has "standing" to defend the personal actions of the Kenyan usurper.
This is not an action of the Oval Office; it is strictly a personal matter whether or not one Barack Hussein Obama is personally eligible to serve in office.
So tell me Loren is that Judge Henry E. Hudson's mark on this court document below?
Which proves that either a)none of the other candidates had standing and saying they did is BS or b)the judge is crooked.
Judge Carter is a former US Marine Corps Officer, a combat vet who won the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart in Vietnam in the Battle for Khe Sahn.
I think that both Judge Carter and Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth (a Reagan appointee) in Washington DC were telling those who would challenge Obama’s eligibility that if you present the right plaintiffs, we’ll grant standing; but that hasn’t happened.
You are entitled to your opinion but it was obviously formed around the premise that equal justice under the law is meaningless. It accords well with the concept that some people are only 4/5ths of a human being under the law.
No originals found, only microfiche with evidence of doctoring. Now ‘bout that.
Plus if there were actual announcements they could have been called in by a relative after kid was born who knows where. Common practice.
You are entitled to your opinion but it was obviously formed around the premise that equal justice under the law is meaningless. It accords well with the concept that some people are only 4/5ths of a human being under the law.
I will check the link but I remember vividly people asking current employees of the newspapers in HI and although that is the current practice, the person did not know what the practice was at that time.
Plus, as butterdezillion or someone else (can’t remember if it was on her blog or someone else’s), at that time each paper had different lists of births - some more, some less, not the exact same list, and plus there were more births than were listed in the papers. So the papers could not have possibly gotten the birth announcements from the DoH at that time.
ROTFLOL!
Your link is to a printout of the microfiche of the paper with 0thugga’s birth announcement (dotored as it is).
And that’s supposed to be proof that all those birth announcements were directly from the DoH and none called in? Which I just refuted?
HA HA HA HA.
I will check the link but I remember vividly people asking current employees of the newspapers in HI and although that is the current practice, the person did not know what the practice was at that time.
Plus, as butterdezillion or someone else (can’t remember if it was on her blog or someone else’s), at that time each paper had different lists of births - some more, some less, not the exact same list, and plus there were more births than were listed in the papers. So the papers could not have possibly gotten the birth announcements from the DoH at that time.
If there is ever a grand jury or congressional investigation of Obama’s eligibility, representative of both newspapers can be called to testify under oath about their policies back in 1961.
Most FReepers know the underlying reasons the founders had for that compromise. But that was an analogy not the substance of our discussion so you're just using it as a straw man now. You know that we weren't discussing whether our founding principles achieved perfect manifestation.
Now you are just floundering around trying to restore your character instead of addressing the substance. You are still supporting the idea that standing under the law is conditional based on a speculation of future performance rather than inherent rights.
ROTFLOL!
Your link is to a printout of the microfiche of the paper with 0thugga’s birth announcement (dotored as it is).
And that’s supposed to be proof that all those birth announcements were directly from the DoH and none called in? Which I just refuted?
HA HA HA HA.
We’ll all have to wait and see if there are any congressional inquiries held next year.
And how exactly did you make that "mistake"? I mean, you obviously had the original brief in hand, which is replete with Connerat's name. You obviously exerted some effort in reading it, since you cropped it down to just one discreet section and then highlighted a bit of it, while cutting out all references to Connerat's name. And the Scribd page you got it from has Connerat's name in the title. Plus, Cuccinelli is counsel for the Plaintiff; and you don't file an amicus brief in a case you're party to.
So it can't be that you were ignorant of the fact that Connerat filed this brief. And there's no reason whatsoever to think that Cuccinelli filed it. And yet you somehow still managed to claim, twice, that Cuccinelli filed it. Where did you get that idea, if you didn't simply make it up?
It is pretty mild compared to the crap you spews to your koolaid drinkers.
I just pointed out where you were spreading a completely and unequivocably false claim, which you yourself made up. Please, tell me where I've made a similar attempt to concoct such a blatant lie.
The US Circuit Court "GRANTED" the Brief to be added to the suit.
Ah, I see, you're simply going to shift your claim in response to being called out. So rather than preaching that a state Attorney General has endorsed Birtherism, you've simply fallen back on the argument that a judge didn't disallow an amicus brief, and pretended like it's no real difference.
And in case you want to imagine that there's some greater meaning to the judge granting permission to file the amicus brief, here is the case's docket. The judge appears to have granted some 24 requests to file amicus briefs. How many such requests has he denied? Apparently, zero.
So tell me Loren is that Judge Henry E. Hudson's mark on this court document below?
Yes, that's Judge Hudson's mark on that document. A document that reads, and I quote, "Upon consideration of the motion of the Former United States Attorneys General William Barr, Edwin Meese, III, and Richard Thornburgh, to file a brief as amici curiae..." I.e., this amicus brief, by Barr, Meese, and Thornburgh.
So tell me Red: do you see Connerat's name somewhere in that order? Because the only reason I can imagine you'd be sharing this wholly irrelevant document is if you imagine that you see some reference to W. Spencer Connerat III in this order.
Most FReepers know the underlying reasons the founders had for that compromise. But that was an analogy not the substance of our discussion so you’re just using it as a straw man now. You know that we weren’t discussing whether our founding principles achieved perfect manifestation.
Now you are just floundering around trying to restore your character instead of addressing the substance. You are still supporting the idea that standing under the law is conditional based on a speculation of future performance rather than inherent rights.
Don’t get your panties all in a bunch, “to err is human.”
The Ninth Circuit Court also yesterday denied the State Of Arizona its ability defend itself against 20 foreign nations over the Immigration Bill that Obama is opposed to.
Watch the video:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-phoenix/arizona-denied-immigration-defense-by-ninth-circuit-court-against-20-latin-count
That makes two posts that you have abandoned the subject on to defend your straw man.
“Further, the U.S. attorneys argued that a possible violation of the Constitution is a political issue, not judicial.”
Than statement is pure sophistry.
Obviously a court cannot remove a sitting president. However, it is the courts that ultimately interpret the COTUS and so they do have a purpose in making a ruling which can then be appealed until it reaches the SCOTUS for final interpretation.
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.
