Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
A couple of other people have mentioned this, and it makes me curious as well.
I don't know how Obama's attorney got involved with this case. He's licensed to practice law in GA, but who hired him? Obama? The DNC? What's his background?
When the judge ordered him (and Obama) to appear with the relevant documents, what do you suppose he did? Maybe he asked Obama for the documents, and was refused?
Maybe that's when he realized he had been set up, and made a last ditch appeal to the SoS to end the proceedings so he wouldn't be caught up in the fabrication?
What would have happened if he showed up at all? When the plaintiff presented the digital copy of the birth certificate, OBAMA's lawyer would have been asked if it was legitimate. And what could he say?
Oh drat! Now I will never find out what kind of scientist is ashamed to speak its name!
We DO NOT want this to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court and I will tell you why. I have long been a gun rights supporter and for years we watched as unconstitutional measure after unconstitutional measure was enacted into law against the rights of citizens and gun owners.
For years we heard the liberal spin that the second amendment only authorizes the states to have militias and does not justify an individual right of firearms ownership and possession. The NRA and various other entities were very concerned about allowing a case to go forward in a liberal court, because if it was decided against them, it would serve as precedent to make other decisions go against them. It was thought at the time that a case should only go forward when we knew for sure that we would have a judge that would interpret the law correctly, and this was not readily apparent for cases brought in Liberal strongholds.
The Gun Rights lobby bided it's time until public sentiments shifted away from the Liberal viewpoint of the second amendment, and they eventually got a court that would uphold the CORRECT interpretation of the Second Amendment. McDonald v Chicago was the landmark case which completely overturned all liberal attempts to ban or restrict gun ownership.
What has that got to do with the eligibility case? It is my opinion that many lawyers suffer from a misconception of what is the meaning of "natural born citizen" because so many people have wrongly been told that being "born a citizen" is the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." Most lawyers and most courts are likely to operate on this premise, and before I would want to take a case before such courts I would want to make efforts to educate them on the correct meaning.
It is too easy for a judge to dismiss a piece of evidence without scrutinizing it and pondering it sufficiently. That is easy to do, and therefore I suspect it is likely. This issue needs TIME for people to comprehend properly. It has to sink in, because their natural gut reaction is going to be to reject it and go the easy route.
I think if this goes to the Supreme Court right now, they will reinforce the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Some years back they revisited the Roe v Wade ruling and declared it Stare Decisis (Which means "how dare you question our previous judgement?" ) They did not have a reasonable legal theory for supporting Roe v Wade, they simply did it because it would be too disruptive if it were overturned.
Just how do you think they are going to feel about declaring the first "Black" President invalid?
Again, we REALLY DO NOT WANT this to go before the Supreme Court. If we fight this out in individual state courts as an ineligible ballot issue, we will win. If we get this into a Federal Court faced with Federal responsibility, I suspect we will likely lose.
After the battlefield has been sufficiently softened by our use of State courts as our artillery, THEN it might be ripe for moving into Federal court.
what was accepted as an undisputed fact and by whom?
As for civil trials, you need to go to the Georgia Administrative Law
http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf
Keep panicking over nothing.
If Romney’s and Santorum’s fathers were naturalized before they were born, then they are considered NBC. However, if their father’s didn’t get their citizenship before the births, then they’re no more eligibible than Hussein. Mickey Mouse could campaign but that doesn’t mean he’d be vetted and named as the party candidate meeting all Constitutional reuirements.
I hate auto-correct.
Prima facia
Judge already said he is recommending removing his name from ballot, SOS already said he will do what judge recommends
“Uh wrong I think you have been reading too much FOGBLOW.
Full Faith and Credit has a fraud exception, intrinsic and extrinsic. The BC was challenged by Orly’s witnesses. Judicial notice is not applicable to the BC’s IMO.”-RS
Reading too much or writing too much? (Nothing has slowed SM from making this same assertion all day...)
That’s the question, and I don’t know the answer. But I definitely WANT to know the answer so if anybody can help me out with that I’d be grateful.
That’s why I’d really like to see a transcript of that part, since I missed how they presented this - and that could make all the difference in the world (possibly).
How about this? Haskins agreed to stipulate Obama was born in Hawai’i on Aug 4, 1961. In the pre-trial conference, the Judge told the attorneys and plaintiffs a default judgement would be entered for plaintiffs because the defendant didn’t show up.
Haskins printed out Obama’s website COLB and Long form BC and entered them as evidence. The Judge accepted it as evidence after Haskins stipulated Obama was born in Hawai’i on Aug 4, 1961. Once entered into the Court record, it’s considered undisputed fact.
The Judge was dismissive and eventually cut Orly off when she tried to proved the website COLB and long BC were fraudulent. Why? Because he just accepted printouts of those documents as undisputed facts.
Obots are thrilled with today’s proceedings. They made the entire eligibility issue about Obama’s BC and it just got entered into Court as an undisputed fact.
The question I have is, can a state ruling by a SoS be appealed to a federal court? Would the SofS have the final say regarding who qualifies to be on the Georgia ballot?
Do you think you deserve ridicule that you are wasting bandwidth here with your ridiculous rant and trollish behavior?
should have ended years ago.
IT did - you said it died in your previous post! Make up your brain fried with lies/deception mind! STAY FOCUSED - you are so distracted!! LOL!!
The search for truth will not be stopped by characterizing it as a distraction.
Obama gave up his opportunity to prove he is eligible, so he no longer has a right to submit evidence to either this judge or any appeals court. He is stuck with the facts of this case.
Here's what worries me.,p> Zero has who knows how many lawyers working on this and we need attorneys at the level of Mark Levin/Landmark Legal or other Constitutional scholars to oppose them to even be in the same ball game! Absent that level of talent we don't have a prayer, IMHO.
Bookmark
Orly was making a pest of herself and the judge already had her pleadings. There was no purpose to be served by allowing hee to continue. Don’t read anything else into her being cut off.
When did George Romney become a US citizen and when was Mitt born?
What I said was that, "It's dead in the sense that birthers have lost every intellectual argument and there's no possible way it will change the outcome of the election." This hasn't stopped opportunists from continuing to push this issue. That's the distraction.
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.