Posted on 01/04/2013 1:34:11 AM PST by ednoonan7
For Immediate Release Jan 3, 2013: Federal Judge England's "non-stop ridicule" of Attorney Orly Taitz offended Courtroom Visitors!
By Plaintiff: Edward C. Noonan
There is only one term that can describe Sacramento’s Chief Federal Judge Morrison C. England Jr. And that term is a Cesspool bottom-feeder. I have nothing but contempt for this unprofessional pig.
I sat at the Plaintiff’s table with Orly Taitz and I was filled with outrage at the way this scum-bag was treating my attorney. And, of course, while he was ridiculing my attorney, he was likewise ridiculing me.
At the beginning, anyone with at least two brain cells in their head, could tell that England was bent on making the hearing a mockery of justice and had no impartiality in the matter before him...NONE! He declared that OBAMA WAS THE PRESIDENT AND THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE HAWAIIAN HEALTH DIRECTOR. Orly tried to tell him that this so-called "birth certificate" had been proven to be a forgery and Sheriff Apario had declared the document to be fraudulent, but England did not want any facts to be presented to him…he already had his mind made up.
He chided Orly for being sanctioned by other courts throughout the United States. He acted as if all of Orly's cases had been given a fair hearing and the cases were lost by poor evidence and poor witnesses. Orly told the scumbag judge that not a single judge in the United States had given her an honest chance for DISCOVERY and a fair hearing.
But at least it was easy to tell when England was lying! Whenever his lips moved and words came out of his mouth it was ANOTHER LIE! Not a single word he said had the slightest appearance of truth. For instance, he rebuked Orly for not giving the Federal government “proper service.” But Orly was slapped down when she attempted to testify that a private process service had provided the service (for $500). He did not want to hear any of our challenges concerning the illegal alien, SOETORO. It was his firm desire to ignore all the crimes concerning Soetoro’s bogus and felonious birth certificate, selective service registration and bogus social security number(s). England wanted to shut his eyes to these reports of crimes and refused hear any of Orly’s charges of these felonies being committed by the illegal alien scum-bag in the White House. England happily became a conspirator of the crimes of Soetoro and likewise became a collaborator in the felonys of the law-breaker-in-chief.
England offended me every time words came out of his lying mouth, and I continuously sat shaking my head directly at him showing him I did not agree with him. I was hoping he would address me so I could give him a piece of my mind but he was too much of a chicken poop to confront me as a plaintiff. The Federal Marshals were more concerned at my silent angry body-language as I glared at this ridiculing bozo on the bench.
The Sacramento Bee gave a somewhat accurate hearsay version of the court proceedings. You can read their leftist version at: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/03/5091099/orly-taitzs-obama-birther-claims.html#storylink=cpy
The Bee version got it somewhat correct and that is concerning the dissatisfaction of most of the packed crowd in the courtroom. They report, "The reaction from courtroom watchers was unmistakable. "Mockery," one man shouted as he stormed out, followed by another who was holding his nose.
"That really stinks," he proclaimed.
The Federal Marshals were visibly concerned and scared of a possible riot of the crowd and quickly ordered all 70-80 of us out of the courtroom (after the cesspool judge denied the TRO.) So we all retired out into the hallway and then while we were clapping for Orly for the fantastic job she did in the slug fest with this corrupt Federal Judge, the Marshals ordered us out of the building. They said we were to remove ourselves to the outside of the building - - implying that we were not welcome in their FEDERAL COURT BUILDING.
I wonder what career promises were made to England in exchange for the circus he provided today? I am sure England’s bank account will soon show an increase and Soetoro (aka BHO) will forever be in his debt.
Plaintiff: Edward C. Noonan Founder - National Committee Chairman American Resistance Party
Sacramento Bee photo
Some other LEFTIST 1/3/13 writeups:
http://www.lodinews.com/ap/state/article_49be0d7e-560a-11e2-914f-0017a4aa4fba.html
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/03/judge-rejects-birther-challenge-to-electoral-count/
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/jan/03/judge-rejects-birther-challenge-to-electoral/?print=1
Your argument here is called circular logic. “Because Obama hasn’t been challenged by politicians, then he must be legitimate.” It’s a logical fallacy. Also, this has been addressed several times, and Obama apologists ignore that it has been addressed. Politicians are politicians whether they are Republican or Democrat and some issues give the appearance of being toxic, no matter who brings it up. This is one of those issues because Obama’s supporters have made it toxic by accusing anyone of questioning Obama’s legitimacy as racist. And there are a lot of dumb Obama supporters who buy into this more than they do the idea of “free healthcare.” Politicians don’t want to lose potential voters from the other side of the political aisle. If they think an issue will lose voters for them, they will try to stay as neutral as possible on that issue. Second, they don’t want something like this to come back and bite them if they decide to run their own questionable candidate later.
The plain facts of the matter are that doubt exists:
(1) as to the constitutional eligibility of the candidate.
(2) as to the place and circumstances of his birth
(3)as to his actual identity (after all, he was removed from the Illinois Bar because of an "identity" issue, among others.)
It is a logical error to combine "Constitutional Eligibility" with "Place of Birth." Team Obama has spent many millions to make it so, but we need not believe it.
Until the SCOTUS actually spells out what a "Natural Born Citizen" is (or indeed what "citizens" are) one party's views are as valuable as another's. As a practical matter, one party is flying on AF 1 and going to Hawaii, but from a logical POV, that really doesn't change matters.
In regard to Sheriff Joe's evidence, it deserves a look, at the very least. However, he is a county official. If his own county or state won't look, that is over.
The only thing that would have worked here is if one (1) state official had reacted to the very real doubts and removed Obama from his state's ballot.
The doubt exists. That does not make the issue a "conspiracy."
We have legal confirmation that Obama has no legally-established birth facts. There is no way that he could ever qualify without legally-established birth facts. For the first time, Obama is the one who has the legal burden of proof. We need to capitalize on that.
At this point we KNOW he doesn’t qualify; we have a legal document certifying it. If that’s not enough to get a response within the system, then the system has just acknowledged that the Constitution can never be enforced. If that is so, we have no Constitution or rule of law, and the only way to get either of those things is through extra-legal means. Is that really what the Congress-critters and courts want to tell us? They better think long and hard on that one....
Politicians are politicians whether they are Republican or Democrat and some issues give the appearance of being toxic, no matter who brings it up. This is one of those issues because Obama’s supporters have made it toxic by accusing anyone of questioning Obama’s legitimacy as racist.
Let me get this straight.
Everyone knows that Obama shouldn't have been able to become president in 2008, including Sarah Palin, who would have been VP if Obama had been disqualified. After having the election stolen from her, rather than running out and hiring an army of lawyers, she sat around for four years watching an illegal president destroy the country. The reason why Governor Palin hasn't stood up for truth or justice is that she is worried about being called racist. Even she's been called much worse, and, in fact, liberals have mercilessly smeared her family and even her infant child, the threat of being called a racist is apparently enough to bully her into silence. Of course this is because she's a "politician" who is worried about "votes" even though she hasn't run for anything since 2008.
Did I miss something? Is that what I'm supposed to believe?
Here's what I'm going to continue to believe: Sarah Palin, a conservative known for being outspoken hasn't brought up the eligibility issues because it's a non-issue. While Obama's election may have been a tragedy, it wasn't a crime and she's not going to pretend it was because she understands what's going on in this country. In fact, I think she was the only potential 2012 candidate who saw a Republican defeat in the cards. Sarah Palin said that Steeleman could be McCaskill and if people had listened to her, we'd have another conservative in a Senate seat.
When asked about the issue in August, Palin suggested that Trump would use his money to settle the issue (which he did not for some reason). Her position? Obama was born in Hawaii. At no time did she suggest that Obama wasn't eligible. I tend to take her at her word. Do you?
What are the prerogatives of citizenship?
Do children have any specific rights of citizenship? They have no rights in court, no ownership rights, are not able to work, cannot open a bank account, cannot marry, cannot serve in the military and on and on. By law children are wards. They have no rights of citizenship. They are not recognized as citizens until they reach an age of consent. This varies state to state but is generally reecognized as 18.
Technically a child born of a child can never achieve citizenship because they are not born of a citizen. This hole in the law is routinely ignored as impractical. It is nevertheless the case that for the highest office in the land there should be no shadow on citizenship. Obama’s citizenship is not clouded. It is nonexistent.
So what? That doesn't mean they're not citizens. Gay people cannot marry in most places and until recently couldn't serve in the military--that doesn't mean they aren't citizens. And what do you mean by "no ownership rights"? My son's Xbox isn't really his, even though he bought it with his own money?
Technically a child born of a child can never achieve citizenship because they are not born of a citizen.
Like I said, do you have any support in law or precedence for that idea?
“doesn’t matter where Obama was born. There is no question that his mother was an American citizen.”
Edge919 is correct. Obama’s citizenship, if born in another country, would be governed by the 1952 US Nationality Act (McCarron-Walters Act).
CHAPTER 1 – NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301 (a) (7) A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such a person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years;
Under this statute, Obama’s mother would have been too young to pass on citizenship. Although in this case it applies to Obama’s mother, the code actually doesn’t distingush between the sex of the parents. So a citizen father could not pass on citizenship if he didn’t meet the residency requirement
BTW this section would not apply to Senator Cruz as his mother grew up in the US and she was over the age of nineteen when he was born in Canada. So he was automatically a citizen at birth. Section 301 (a) (1) would apply to Senators Rubio and Santorum and Governor Jindal as they were all born in the US even though both parents were not citizens. They would all be considered natural born.
“THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE HAWAIIAN HEALTH DIRECTOR.”
Was he talking about the verifications sent to the different states or something else?
Thanks for the citation, but I’m aware of this law.
It doesn’t apply because Obama was born in the United States.
The citation is merely to clear up the point that it does matter where Obama was born.
And I agree, he was born in Hawaii.
out of context. but thanks for playing.
“the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss”
I suspect the reference to n-b may be a to indicate those born overseas to citizen parents.
In one of the FOIA requests for the immigration file of Lolo Soetoro there is a form that S. Ann Dunham had to fill out. It has an interesting statement on citizenship.
[skip]
5. If you are a citizen of the United States, give the following:
Was your citizenship acquired through birth in the United States, through naturalization, through parentage, or through marriage?
If acquired through naturalization give number of naturalization certificate and date and place of naturalization:
If acquired through parentage or marriage, have you obtained a certificate of citizenship in your own name based on such acquisition?
Maybe the government believes that a native born citizen is also natural born but a child born overseas to citizen parents is natural born but not native born.
By electing, certifying and allowing Obama to not just serve out his term, but reelecting him, it can be argued persuasively that those doubts have been resolved. Should his reelection be certified and he serves a second full term without successful challenge, that will likely be regarded as having removed all doubt.
So, we will have had Presidential candidates not born in the United States and we will have had a two term President born to a noncitizen father, whose citizenship was legally imposed upon his son at birth. The so-called citizenship clause is being slowly but surely probed, tested and undermined.
One day, we will have a President who is neither the child of citizens nor born in this country, Count on it. We're watching the groundwork being laid as we speak, disrupted by all manner of silliness intended to tinfoil any discussion of the matter, and I place Orly Taitz at the top of the heap of that silliness.
I'm not just talking about votes for office, but having political capital once a politician is elected. Democrats are grudge-holding freaks who would not simply lay down if Palin or anyone else successfully sued to keep Obama out of office. Palin was already put through the ringer over a whole bunch of OTHER idiotic smears. And, let's suppose she did sue her way into office. What happens when it comes time for re-election?? She would be toast.
When asked about the issue in August, Palin suggested that Trump would use his money to settle the issue (which he did not for some reason).
And she was immediately smeared for this.
Her position? Obama was born in Hawaii. At no time did she suggest that Obama wasn't eligible. I tend to take her at her word. Do you?
Of course not. She was taking a politically expedient position to avoiding being the object of racist smears. And second, she may simply be ignorant on the issues and Supreme Court precedent. Besides, Romney was certainly criticized for not distancing himself from Trump and/or getting Trump to back off. Palin had little to gain from trying to pursue this issue, especially if she hasn't done the legal research on Minor and the definition of NBC.
Section 301 is naturalization law. It doesn’t make anyone a natural-born citizen. It falls under Title 8 which is called “Aliens and Nationality” ... and then Chapter 12, “Immigration and Nationality” ... and then subchapter III, “Nationality and Naturalization” ... and then “Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization.” Natural-born citizenship doesn’t require nationality acts. It’s why the Supreme Court said in Minor there were citizens without need of such provisions, although it was referring to the 14th amendment. The idea is that natural-born citizenship is defined outside of U.S. Code and outside of the Constitution.
That's not what the court was saying. They said that some authorities go further and declare as CITIZENS, those persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. It's not implying anything about these persons being natural-born citizens. The thing that was not doubted was the citizenship of those born in the country to citizen parents. This class of persons was EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural-born. There's no doubt they are citizens. The other class of persons were not characterized this way because there is doubt that they are citizens at all. They didn't need to resolve any doubts for such persons because they were acknowledging that Virginia Minor was definitely a citizen because she fit the class of persons who were EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural-born citizens. This holding was affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark decision when it wrote:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...
The paragraph prior to this quotes the natural-born citizen characterization and it is the last time in the Wong Kim Ark decision that the term natural-born citizen is used. It specifies that Minor was born to citizen parents. There's no reason for the court to do this unless it was affirming a separate class of citizenship from the one it was using to apply to Wong Kim Ark. For the next 25 pages it construes a completely separate type of birth citizenship that is defined strictly by the 14th amendment but requires the parents to have permanent residence and domicil. Obama fails to be a citizen under this 14h amendment ruling since his parents did NOT have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S. when he was born. IOW, there is doubt he is a citizen and there is NO DOUBT that he is NOT a natural-born citizen.
The above differentiates natural born citizens from aliens or foreigners, then immediately segues into some authorities going further.
This will be construed to mean just what I wrote in the reply to which you responded, that the doubt expressed centers upon extending natural born citizenship due to birth in the jurisdiction regardless of parental citizenship.
You've seen it argued again and again, that is their position and they're sticking to it. Doubt is being resolved as we speak and will be removed altogether upon the completion of a second term. That is what they'll argue, and I see little to stop it.
I would welcome a successful challenge, I view Obama as being a foreigner in heart and mind with little empathy or understanding of American citizens. I also see him as having been legally ineligible due to being subject to another jurisdiction at birth.
But, it's just about to the point of being water under the bridge at this late date. I won't argue it further. Doing so has accomplished nothing. It's all but over and done now.
What stops it are some quotes from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark more than 20 years later when it affirms that the Minor decision construed the 14th amendment as NOT defining natural-born citizens. The position of "some authorities" is comprehensively negated by this declaration in Wong Kim Ark. The second thing that negates it is the failure of the Wong Kim Ark court to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen. In 2009, the Indiana Appeals Court had no problem recognizing that Ark was NOT found to be a natural-born citizen. Third, the thing that stops it is that the Wong Kim Ark decision gave the holding from Minor and said her citizenship was based on being born in the country to citizen parents. Why would they do that if they believed someone could be a natural-born citizen without having citizen parents?? What legal point is served by having citizen parents if NOT for how Article II eligibility is defined??
AND further, Minor and NOT Ark was recognized as THE precedent and Article II eligibility by the Supreme Court in 1913 in Luria v. United States.
But if you need more, simply put these two declarations side-by-side from Minor:
A: ... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
B: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
These two statements only talk about the doubt of being a citizen; it's not doubt about being a natural-born citizen, just being a citizen. For A, there is no doubt. For B, there is doubt. Only ONE of these two statements was characterized as natural-born. If there's doubt about B, why would it be characterized as natural-born?? And why say ANYTHING at all about being born to citizen parents if there's not a material distinction between these two classes?? What would be the point, especially if the 14th amendment could be used to resolve those doubts??
Really? I must've missed that. I was under the impression that he'd been reelected and is going to be sworn in for a second term later this month.
Do you play football?? That’s one hell of a punt. You made a pretty specific statement about the language in Minor and now you’re resorting to circular logic to avoid the substance of what I posted. Why are you even commenting at all?? What’s your point??
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.