Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Atlanta Admin Court ^ | 1/20/2012 | Judge Malihi

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 ...

KEYWORDS: 2012; ballot; bhocorruption; bhofascism; birthcertificate; certifigate; democrats; elections; eligibility; ga; georgia; naturalborncitizen; nobama; nobama2012; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 861-873 next last
To: edge919

This hearing is administrative fact finding hearing. It will make a determination based on the facts and present them to the SoS for ballot consideration. I believe as in NH, it is decision that can not be not appealed. But is there is an avenue of appeal it would go to the GASC that is mostly right leaning justices.

801 posted on 01/22/2012 8:36:18 AM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
they missed the fact that he wasn’t raised IN KANSAS

Yeah, did he EVER live in Kansas??

802 posted on 01/22/2012 8:37:46 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

SAD Soetoro traveled on an expired US passport shortly after Barry arrived in Hawaii. Must have been an emergency. You know, like her kid had been taken into Federal protective custody.

803 posted on 01/22/2012 8:53:14 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I have no interest in discussing Minor or Ark with you. You’re obnoxious and your “logic” is in error. You twist yourself into knots to present an agenda.

804 posted on 01/22/2012 8:58:40 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; edge919; BuckeyeTexan; Spaulding; devattel
“If a lower court deems Ark a Natural Born Citizen and SCOTUS affirms the decision without exception - what does that mean?”

That clearly did not happen. In Justice Gray's own words in the intro to WKA summing up the appellant court's ruling: "The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382." The lower court deemed Ark was a citizen, NOT NBC.

Gray cited Waite's language in Minor when he wrote for the majority that WKA had the same citizen rights but NBC has different birth status about which there is NO DOUBT.

Gray's opinion affirmed that Ark was “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” That affirms the clear distinction between general citizen right being equal, but maintains the distinction with NBCs having unique birth status (and unique POTUS eligibility preserved).

If Gray's opinion meant that WKA was NBC he WOULD HAVE SAID SO! Gray would have said “WKA is as much an NBC as the natural-born child of a citizen” but he didn't. You do realize that the dissenting opinion claiming (falsely) that the majority was making WKA an NBC and eligible to be POTUS is NOT precedent?

805 posted on 01/22/2012 9:03:26 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
“They contorted positions to find Ark a citizen because if Ark was not a citizen -neither was Chester Arthur.”

If Gray had an ulterior motive, I agree, but, as you say, Gray and the majority found WKA only to be a citizen.

Gray, despite the alleged ulterior motive, DID NOT say WKA was NBC, and if he had meant to say that he could have said it but didn't. Gray definitely might have intended to at least protect Chester Arthur from not even being found out to have not even been a citizen!

806 posted on 01/22/2012 9:14:49 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
They fantasize that if O bats his eyes at Orly she will fold weak-kneed to the courtroom floor.

LOL! Infatuation with a h0m0sexual, no less!

807 posted on 01/22/2012 9:51:48 AM PST by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

any chance you could answer my questions?

808 posted on 01/22/2012 9:55:26 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
But as citizens were defined, and were different in each state, the Constitution said, in effect “You states don't get to argue over the qualifications for the President. He must be born on the soil of citizen parents, a resident for 14 years and 35 years old.” When it became important to a case, the court confirmed that definition. Was it not a definition before Justice Waite told us it was never doubted?

This is the money quote right here. Because we were a collection of states with different citizenship rules, the citizenship of the president had to be a type of citizenship that was without doubt and without potential foreign entanglement, such as through parents of differing nationalities, whether the marriage was legitimate or not. Vattel's definition is a perfect, neutral definition.

The other thing I like to emphasize is that the founders absolutely did not adopt English common law because it required perpetual allegiance and did not allow expatriation. The only way they could consider themselves to be U.S. citizens was by rejecting the common law definition of citizenship. What they ended up with has similarities, but it is not the same. Gray blurred this issue to give teeth to the 14th amendment, but he strictly avoided redefining natural-born citizenship. The latter he respected from the unanimous Minor decision: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. If this argument is made to the judge in Georgia, Obama is toast, regardless of his birth certificates, jpgs and layered PDFs.

809 posted on 01/22/2012 10:03:12 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
The excerpt is stating what the facts were for Minor.

My job is done. You're arguing against yourself now, because you clearly denied these were the facts for Minor. Remember?? You challenged anyone to find a sentence from Minor saying these were the facts. It's okay to admit you were wrong, and because you were, the rest of your argument fails.

The stuff about Chester Arthur is nonsense. Arthur left office in 1881. Wong Kim Ark wasn't argued until 17 years later. The Supreme Court did not wait around that many years for the U.S. government to appeal a citizenship case so they could try to repair Arthur's legacy. He died 12 years before the case was heard. Who the hell would have cared ... Arthur's natural-born children??? And again, the Wong Kim Ark case does NOT help Arthur because upheld Minor's definition of natural-born citizen, which would have excluded arguing against yourself now, because you clearly denied these were the facts for Minor. Remember?? You challenged anyone to find a sentence from Minor saying these were the facts. It/i

810 posted on 01/22/2012 10:13:16 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: melancholy

Mel, I think on average Obama’s ‘sex appeal’ is far greater to males than to females. He is one of the least masculine men I have ever seen, and while a few uber-liberal women find that appealing, the average woman, regardless of political persuasion, does not.

Consider this: back in the days of Bill Clinton, liberal women made no secret of their desire for him. You had supposedly non-adolescent leftist gals routinely embarrassing themselves in public w trashy confessions of their BC fantasies.

When has anything similar EVER happened w Obama? The moonbats can’t scream racism [though they will] because the issue here is *liberal* women. I haven’t heard of a single one offering Obama a Lewinsky, as BC was famously offered by a supposed ‘journalist’. Not one.

There is just something unappealing about a Major Personality Disorder. A handful of emotionally unbalanced people find it desirable—witness the women who write infatuated mash notes to convicted sociopathic killers—but 99 percent of the population does not.

Yes, I’m saying some of the foggers fall into that slender category that gets the hots for sociopaths. How else to explain their silly, adolescent and disgusting remarks about Obama’s overwhelming ‘charismatic’ charm? But on balance this man is not appealing. His mental and emotional deficiencies act as a deterrent—in many cases a subconscious one—and women look elsewhere for male hotness.

811 posted on 01/22/2012 11:28:55 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I agree with your assesment. Also are we sure Rummychick isn’t a member of the Fogbow???

812 posted on 01/22/2012 11:31:08 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I will ask again. Have you read the lower courts decision???

Have you read the discussion of cases.
The ones that discuss NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The ones that the lower court state are CONCLUSIVE and CONTROLLING.


Have you read the brief by The United States that says the ruling is that Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen and they appeal that ruling to SCOTUS?

Oh, and the court REJECTED the doctrine of the law of nations.

813 posted on 01/22/2012 12:15:22 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

You are like Leo and INTERJECTING what you think he should have said if he meant a certain thing. YOu cannot do that.

That is as bad as the Ark Court deciding what Congress meant with the 14th Amendment instead of actually looking at evidence of what they meant.

The United States of America brought an appeal before The United States Supreme Court that said the ERROR was the RULING that Ark was a natural born citizen

SCOTUS has to address the appeal. They did. Lower court affirmed. When a lower court states that they are bound by cases that say people under such and such circumstances are natural born citizen......perhaps you can understand why THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said that the RULING was that Ark was a natural born citizen.

Justice Fuller’s dissent also shows exactly what was happening with the court as does the discussion of the natural born citizenships.

How you can read that lower court case and all the applicable info and not see exactly what is happening is beyond me. But it is confirmed by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in their brief.

People are so blinded by what they want to see that they don’t see what really took place.

I suppose you think Justice Fuller didn’t have a clue as to what was happening in that majority opinion. That would have to be your position if you maintain his dissent didn’t know what he was talking about.

814 posted on 01/22/2012 12:27:53 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Idiocy. I have never said that Minor’s parents weren’t American citizens. I have asked you to point to the exact sentence that says they are American citizens. The court only IMPLIES it. And that is pertinent.

When a court has to address citizenship that is germane to the case they address in detail the citizenship of the parents. Minor never discusses the parents because her citizenship was not in dispute. That is because the lower case was thrown out on a demurrer.

This is a finer point. I really didn’t expect you to understand it.

Chester Arthur did not leave office in 1881 as you claim. He did appoint Horace Gray.

Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President if you use what you claim is the only definition of an NBC.

The could have had repercussions to Horace Gray.

Of course, if Leo is your hero you should read what he has to see about Gray and Arthur.

815 posted on 01/22/2012 12:37:51 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You really hack me off because either you are an idiot or are being obtuse on purpose.

Let me repeat.

I said REPEATEDLY that Minor’s citizenship was a FACT NOT IN DISPUTE.

In describing Minor, it would be perfectly appropriate to say that she was born in the US to American Citizens. It’s a fact in the case NOT IN DISPUTE. That doesn’t mean the only definition of NBC is the most restrictive.

In fact, if you had bothered to read the lower court case in Ark you will see a less restrictive definition that the court says is controlling on them unless and until SCOTUS gives a different definition that is not part of Dictum.

Oh, and yeah SCOTUS AFFIRMED the lower court without exception.

816 posted on 01/22/2012 12:43:49 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
There is someone on this site that seems to be implying he has a copy of the paper in question.. I can’t remember his name. It was all very mysterious . I know it was not Greg H but I just don’t remember the name.

Hmmm... I did not see that. If it is true, then it certainly bolsters the theory that the micro-fiches were tampered with. One of the reasons I find it hard to believe that they were tampered with is because I understand there are multiple copies in different places. Not impossible, but added complexity makes such a thing far less likely to work.

817 posted on 01/22/2012 12:43:49 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The person might have been mojitojoe but I really can’t remember . All I can remember is that there is a person posting who has implied that someone has obtained the actual paper.

818 posted on 01/22/2012 12:45:28 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
btw, Richard K C Lee (of the birth certificate) later wrote a paper with one of the Nordyke twins..for the institute that was known to be connected to the CIA.

Interesting coincidence in the scheme of it all.

I have read some of the alleged connections between the Dunham family and the spooks, but looking for stuff in that direction is just not my thing. It is like the newspaper announcements being planted, if evidence comes forward to support it, then I will re-evaluate the theory, but invoking one of the Intelligence agencies is a little like Godwin's law for me.

There are people infatuated with the "New World Order", and the "Tri-Lateral Commission", and the "Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bildibergers, etc. I've known lots of such people, and I understand their concern, but I would prefer not to invoke the "C" word unless the evidence is very strong. Much of what is thought to be a "conspiracy" is the result of diverse people simply acting on their own volition in such a way that it reinforces what other like minded people are doing.

Take the Media for example. They invariably report everything from an extreme left wing bias. They all do it, and it is so pervasive among them that they don't even realize they are doing it. They are not marching lockstep to the orders of some central controller, they have simply filtered everyone out of their system that thinks differently from themselves. It LOOKS like a conspiracy from it's results, but it isn't. It is the same sort of effect as Adam Smith's invisible hand.

That being said, if evidence comes out which leads in that direction, I will of course re-evaluate.

819 posted on 01/22/2012 12:54:44 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
I went there and it is truly amazing to me that these people are singularly focused on Orly. There are two other cases to be heard as well.

I don't care who wins, I just hope some one of them wins. I'm very concerned because i've argued this stuff with too many legal minded people. Most of them operate on the assumption that "natural born citizen" simply means that you were a citizen at birth. They are quite insistent that this is accepted dogma throughout the legal profession. If it is, the Judge is likely to reject the two parent requirement, (even though it is correct) and apply the "citizen at birth" rule. If any good may come of it, it may at least force out into the open Obama's original birth documents. I'm not sure he can even pass the 14th amendment standard of citizenship.

From many of the comments over there I suspect Vladimir Ilyich Lenin would truly be proud of these fogbutts as the useful idiots that they are.

Maybe not. He called them "useful Idiots" for a reason. :) I suspect he had little respect for them.

820 posted on 01/22/2012 1:00:12 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 861-873 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson