On the possible chance that I have failed to convey my thinking regarding the pronouncement of courts, let me attempt to clarify it now.
Unless the Judge has firsthand personal knowledge of the events in question, his opinion is no better than the local sheep herder.
Modern courts are rife with idiots and liars, and I have long argued that our legal system should be viewed with the contempt it so greatly deserves.
Failing in a modern court proves nothing in the way of reality. Indeed, they so often get things so absolutely wrong, failing in modern court would tend to indicate you are on the correct side of an issue. Examples are too numerous to mention, but here are a few. Abortion, Election fraud, homosexual marriage, transgenderism...
You have only shown me your mental health challenges.
Expressions of disdain have no effect on me. I consider them non arguments. If anything, they indicate an inability to put forth a good rebuttal.
Do I recall your description correctly?
Doesn't look like anything I ever said.
b. The court found that:
...
d. The court held:
...
That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable.
Lot of verbal diarrhea to get to the nugget of what they held.
So Bellei was a "citizen at birth" because of a naturalization statute created by congress, and he lost his citizenship because he did not act to meet the conditions imposed on him by the statute that granted him citizenship.
Natural born citizens are not required to meet any conditions.
And what happened? Congress created a later statute removing some of the conditions, but if they had put *NO* conditions into the statute, these children would *STILL* be "naturalized at birth citizens", created by congress's power of naturalization.
They would *NOT* be natural citizens.
Take the bullflop of your imagination to court and lose.On the possible chance that I have failed to convey my thinking regarding the pronouncement of courts, let me attempt to clarify it now.
I do not regard your inane opinions about the courts to express any manner of thinking.
Your inane opinion certainly does not stop you from repeatedly citing court opinions, however irrelevant they may be, for example Minor v. Happersett.
Were any holding in Minor to be in conflict with a holding in Wong Kim Ark, any conflicting holding of Minor would have been struck down by Wong Kim Ark.