Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Oh by the way I would like to see the Government workers, programs, etc. decreased by 75%. I never thought I would see a President so hell bent on destroying America more than Carter but Obama sure has surpassed Carter for the title of #1 worse President in my lifetime (well maybe of all Presidents). Obama will have to answer to God for his punishment.
I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of Obama’s long form birth certificate abstract. This should get real interesting.
“The founders also gave exception to those who were already alive at the founding of the nation. So your argument is ridiculous.”
How can it be ridiculous when that very exception was the basis of my argument? Perhaps you intended your comment for Kansas58?
JC
Excuse me. It’s Judge Malihi, not Mahili. Sorry.
It’s good to see Hatfield join Irion and Donofrio (Amicus Brief) in this case defending the true meaning behind the natural born citizen clause. I haven’t even read all of Donofrio’s BIG Book (54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages) he sent to the GA court. I’m sure it is good. LoL. Judge Malihi now has the correct reasoning and fire power to make a decision on the true merits.
BTW, the FogBlowers are playing ignorant more than they usually do, if that’s possible. ;-)
This is an actual case of law in progress with the POTUS as defendant
Wow.
In today's world JFK would be considered an extreme conservative radical war hawk.
There is no difference between any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, We, the Republic, have been being denied the choice to say no to socialism.
It's a setup.
We, the Republic, have been loosing a war of financial attrition for decades. We, the Republic are engaged in a war with those who govern us. Drastic measures are required to defeat this enemy in order to stop the bleeding that each of us are seeing in the depreciation of our savings, the constant onslaught of taxes, fees, and licenses. Each of them designed to remove our ability to live free.
If a slave is a person who works for no money, then a paid person who works with no money left for savings or investment is therefore a slave. In each case work is done, the slave is fed and roofed.
Our only hope is spread the word as a grass roots effort and come up with a third party, and maybe after a decade or so, bring freedom to our cherished country.
Precisely!
JC
Does this mean Jablonski tried to submit a PDF as evidence post-hearing??? Holy crap I can’t stop laughing at the stupidity.
Ok. Good lord this is REMEDIAL, but here we go.
Do you know what an “Independent Ground” is?
Go research it, it is a legal term fyi.
I will define it here. In the SCOTUS case Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) found here: http://openjurist.org/519/us/79/ogilvie-v-united-states Justice Breyer wrote the Majority Opinion which stated in part:
“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”
What does that mean to YOU? It means that when the court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, that reason, that independent ground is NOT merely Dictum. It is part of the HOLDING because it is part or all of the reason FOR the holding!
What does THAT mean to you? It means that the Minor Court in using Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 to define natural Born Citizen was the INDEPENDENT GROUND by which it avoided the 14th Amendment in defining Minor’s citizenship status.
The use of A2S1c5 was NOT dictum. It was an independent ground and this is WHY it is part of the holding.
This is where it is glaringly apparent just how handicapped the average lay person, uneducated in the law, actually IS. You do not understand the terminology, you do not recognize the structure, heck you don’t seem to realize there IS a structure, and you do not by any means recognize the IMPORT of what you are reading - in the context of the legal language and format in which it appears.
Then you make a straw argument that totally kills any street cred you might have had on this... “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” What “DOUBTS” was the court talking about? The citizenship status of those who were NOT Natural Born Citizens! “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” The FIRST being the Natural Born Citizen, born in country to two parents who were it’s citizens.
Now, best get back to thefogbow with your dish of cold crow.
As he should since it is BS. I see exploding heads in La La FogBow Land.
I’ve reviewed some of the transcripts. Some of the fogbow characterizations of what was said is simply a bunch of desperate disinformation. The arguments and the presentation of Hatfield and Van Irion are pretty solid. They added some nice touches, like the Constitutionally eligible language being missing from Obama’s ballot registration in Georgia. Obama’s failure to provide ANYTHING to prove he is Constitutionally eligible makes this an easy decision for Judge Malihi, and the SoS has no legal reason not to follow a recommended disposition of removing Obama from the ballots. Obama will NOT appeal this decision. In the spirit of the Super Bowl, he will punt, cut his losses and try to use Alinsky tactics to marginalize the outcome ... and he will forge ahead in the rest of the 57 states.
That many exploding heads will look a lot like a Chinese New Year’s celebration.
How on earth do we judge the credibility of that?
Do you have a link or source please?
Thanks ! :)
Possibly, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet. I'll look around. It was Van Irion who submitted the Internet picture as 'limited evidence' that Obama claims his father was a Kenyan citizen. The OBots "think" that it "won" the case for them - as in game over. LoL! They are the fools if the courts seriously look at this issue.
Now, that is something of a problem for Orly, as she was using that as justification to get further subpoenas in order to get the full record from Hawaii. If the document was rejected by the judge.... it might also affect a ruling on the MERITS. How precisely, I have no idea.
It is a side show as far as I am concerned, mostly because I do not consider his place of birth relevant. His CONDITION of birth is what matters, he was born British. But I have beat that dead dog enough as it is.
Located this post.
Reply By davidfarrar |
Did you know the Administrative Court also wouldn’t accept as evidence of a birth certificate a copy of a jpg image of a birth certificate downloaded from the Whitehouse dot gov site.
The question becomes: If the court does not accept a pic downloaded from the internet into evidence as an authentic birth certificate; why should Sec. Kemp, or the electorate of the State of Georgia?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Ideally, that should be all that is needed. However, a large number of judges could easily disagree on NBC status, either from being misinformed, or not willing to rock the boat, or arguing lack of standing (Remember the Supreme Court punted on D'inofrio in 2008).
On the other hand, if Obama is proven not to have been born in Hawaii, that would VERY hard to ignore. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Obama was even a citizen. That's why he has the phony SS #s, in my opinion.
Van Irion used the downloaded image in a very smart move. He only asked where it said Obama’s papa was born, and then he used the FOIA files as the evidence of that Barack Sr. was a British-Kenyan national. There’s nothing that can be construed as accepting the downloaded image as a genuine birth certificate or that the facts of birth on that image are accepted as valid. It’s actually a big slap in the face to Barry “No Show” Soetoro.
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.