Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
So acknowledged and agreed.
I was trying to tie in the data points that seem to have no connection.
This is a ‘curve that fits the available data points’ - using old math terminology. But I am not claiming this to be absolute proven fact.
Someone has insisted that the CT SS number is from a Catholic refugee program. So this is how that would tie in.
But I would keep the possible Ayers connection open as well. Ayers was a master, if not THE master, of identity thief and fake documents.
Do you think it will help the other co-conspirators of this great Amercian fraud?
By the way, I’m feeling a little bit deprived that we have not heard from the resident Orly haters the past 2 days. What’s up with that???
The problem with this is that it is customary for all state governments to take a "we will neither confirm nor deny" approach to such inquires. If they did not, people could figure out the truth by what they deny, so they will simply deny any request for access to any records, including ones that do not exist.
I have a long friendship with a wealthy friend who got married some years ago. Knowing his wife had nothing when he married her, and Knowing he was worth many millions, I asked him if he got a per-nuptial agreement. He said "I cannot tell you."
I said, "You just did."
States do not fall for that sort of game, not because their employees are smart, but because they've been through it before and their lawyers educate them not to fall for such tricks.
What this means is you cannot take a denial of access as proof of something. (Same thing with the denial of access to Obama's "Immigration file." )
This must be ping pong. lol. The ball’s in your court. =)
To birthers and anti-birthers alike:
Is anyone else as amazed as I am at how far we have come in three years in our discussions and understanding of the law? It’s been trying at times for all of us, but I am amazed at how much each of us has contributed to this discussion in three years.
Tex
Why?????
No one argued that she wasn’t a citizen. Everyone agreed she was a citizen.
Whether that citizen has a right to vote is a different issue.
That was the question before the court.
What was the holding? Be Exact.
The holding was that the Constitution did not give women the right to vote. Their citizenship was irrelevant.
Definition of NBC is not pertinant to this case.
Where were the cites of cases,or the the arguments or in depth discussion. There is none because it is not relevant to the case.
Thus, obiter dictum.
The 2 certifications were signed a day apart - HDP’s first and then Pelosi’s special OCON for Hawaii a day later, both while the DNC Convention was in session.
That argues against an innocent mistake.
Another thing that argues against an innocent mistake (OR the DNC deciding in advance that they should be the ones to certify eligibility) is that one physical line of print was taken out of the standard HDP OCON from years past, and IN THAT LINE OF PRINT was not only the certification of eligibility but also the direct statement that Obama was the candidate of the HDP specifically - which is the only thing that Hawaii statute specifically requires the HDP alone to certify. It is not enough that it be certified that Obama is the DNC candidate; the HDP has to specifically sign off that this is THEIR candidate as well. And that requirement was not met because that statement was cut out of the OCON in addition to the eligibility language.
“No. The marriage is irrelevant in that scenario. Davis is the biological father and is listed on the BC. Junior would absolutely be NBC.”
IIRC, it is settled law for the US and UK that the child born in a legal marriage has the legal husband of the mother as the legal father for all legal purposes including citizenship...regardless of who is on a BC.
All over the US there are fathers paying child support for children even though DNA proved the child NOT to have been their biological child.
It doesn’t matter who in on the BC as the father if there is a legal marriage in force at the time, IIRC.
If the 1948 explicitly excludes illegitimate children I would expect it to include as legitimate all children born during a legal marriage of a UK subject father, but until an HI BC with a US citizne shown as Barry’s father shows up we don’t have to worry about that.
That could be interesting. If they were there attempting to get Hawaii to approve him for the ballot without any funny documents and different wording, the events in Georgia might scare them enough to refuse to comply with their wishes.
A funny document given to Hawaii this year, but not the other states would confirm fire where currently we only see smoke.
NBC is crucial to M v H.
The USSC held that she was NBC, because she was born in the US to two citizen parents, therefore her citizenship was unquestioned.
DUH!
Well, I wouldn't want to deprive you. So here goes:
"Orly Taitz is a lunatic attention whore who couldn't properly write a brief if Chief Justice John Roberts dictated it to her verbatim."
Feel better? :)
I think most everyone agrees that an NBC is definitely someone born on the soil to two American citizens.
Everything else is up in the air- not settled law-INCLUDING the idea that there is only ONE definition.
There may be more than one definition. There may not be.
But the oral argument in Nguyen shows that it is up for debate and NOT SETTLED LAW.
Right now anybody who had a position of power in Hawaii is suspect to me - based on what I’ve seen as I have dealt with the HI bureaucracy.
At some point the people of Hawaii need to realize that the rest of the country is having a very, very hard time believing anything their state government says or does, because it is all full of contradictions and lawless.
It is IMHO an extreme case of the false dichotomy (aka false dilemna) syndrome.
The Hawaii DOH officials are in the same boat, at least when I spoke by telephone with them back in 2009 or so.
Lazy thinking-- and when combined with ends-justifies-the-means sentiments, it becomes even more dangerous.
“There is one path to natural-born citizenship that mostly definitely is settled law: those born in the country to citizen parents. All other paths have unresolved doubts and are absolutely up for debate until the SCOTUS makes a ruling.” - BET
Wrong - There is one class of citizenship that is unquestioned, NBC (those born in country to two citizen parents). Other classes of citizenship may be challenged. in M Vs H the woman in question was NBC, therefore her citizenship was unquestioned.
(Readers beware: There are posters here on FR from TheFogbow.com that are trying to muddy the waters on purpose.)
That’s not the case in Hawaii under the UIPA.
They agreed she was NOT a Citizen under the 14th amendment, but that she was a citizen by having American Parents and being born in this country. (The Vattel definition of "natural born citizen.")
They also said the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizen."
IMO this is a preposterous theory not supported by any documentation. We do have pictures of baby Barry (sure, none have been produced in evidence...but) and the adult Barry looks just like his Gramps in the “big smile” pictures. Also IMO Barry's half-brother, David in Kenya looked just like him establishing the paternity link to BHO Sr.
We also have the US Gov’t INS docs showing strong belief that there was a bigamous marriage in Feb 2 1961 and a baby by SADO and SADO intending to move to WA in the fall of 1961, all of which are corroborated by U of WA and U of HI documents.
RummyChick, the best way to exploit this case is to simplify the context and the point.
A. Virginia Minor claimed a right to vote on the basis of being a 14th amendment citizen.
B. The court REJECTED this argument because she fit its definition of NBC.
C. The court recognized different classes of citizens by birth, but only ONE was characterized a natural-born: all children born in the country to citizen parents.
D. The other class of citizenship by birth has doubts that must be resolved, but not for natural-born citizens. Thus, in context, natural-born means a type of citizenship that is “without doubt,” otherwise one is naturally considered to be a foreigner or alien.
E. In rejecting Virginia Minor’s 14th amendment citizenship argument, the court says that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship ... and this is confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark: “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”
“
F. The Minor decision was UNANIMOUS. There was no dissent on how the court defined NBC. The decision and NBC definition was affirmed and upheld by the SCOTUS in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (in both the majority opinion AND in the dissent). There is NO compelling legal authority that trumps this definition.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not. It’s important to note that the Supreme Court in Minor didn’t hold that all women born in the US were citizens. Only those born to citizen parents in the US were deemed to be citizens by the Court in Minor. Those outside the natural-born citizen “class” were subject to doubt regarding US citizenship. And the Court in Minor exercised judicial restraint by avoiding that issue. Some of those doubts were resolved in favor of US citizenship for those persons not in the class of natural-born citizens in Wong Kim Ark.
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.