Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
So next question...Did Malihi refute the definition of NBC in Minor and state why he did so?
I disagree. For the most part CIA are patriots. Under Democrat presidents they are crippled and under GOP they are empowered (certain yellowcake episodes excepted). Back in the early 1980’s the (mostly) patriot defenders in the CIA were under William Casey who acted on the directions of Ronald Reagan to recruit foreign nationals in foreign countries and to oppose KGB infiltration of the CIA.
Barry is exactly the type of likely KGB mole who would be excluded.
Remember the widely circulated report of the US businessman in Russia in the early 1990’s who reported that a top level Soviet woman got drunk and told his that the KGB had an attractive black man being prepared to be US president?
IMO, Ayers and Dohrn were KGB (she was in Cuba being trained to implement Days of Rage in Chicago in 1968, IIRC) and IMO, Barry got hooked up with them in 1981 when he arrived in NYC...the same year I first interviewed with the CIA. I find the report of a KGB Manchurian Candidate being prepped to be president to be credible and, most likely, Ayers and Dohrn were in charge of the project.
And...
Those are all active statutes. 1999, 2005, 1975
Were the original laws altered?
“This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive.”
Your reply only raises another question...Since when has a State case ever held precedent over a SCOTUS case?
Can you show a single Supreme Court ruling on a Constitutional issue where case law and precedence was not a factor?
If we were not a common law country, why are eligibility lawyers using Minor? Are you saying it is a binding precedent on a Constitutional matter?
WKA as encapsulated in Ankeny is settled law. It does not need to be re-argued - merely applied.
The core of Ankeny is WKA. WKA is the law of the land.
I really have to admire your patience.
If we were not a common law country, why are eligibility lawyers using Minor?
Have I claimed we are not a common law country? On the contrary, as you well know. @229 - There's common law, that being the concept of precedence. It is just one part of our legal system.
Are you saying it is a binding precedent on a Constitutional matter?
Are you trying to put words in my mouth again?
Why are you misdirecting the conversation and not simply answering the question?
Did Malihi refute the definition of NBC in Minor and state why he did so?
It does not need to be re-argued - merely applied.
The same as with Minor.
The core of Ankeny is WKA.
And didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
WKA is the law of the land.
So is Minor.
You show me the reply and we'll test your theory.
Were the original laws altered?
I am more then willing to sit back and let the courts figure this out.
If you are right then the Georgia Appeals Court will set everything right.
If I am right Obama will be on the ballot in November.
We have both laid out our arguments - lets wait and see who was right.
Persistence is a good trait too. Do you want a cookie?
How about this one...And didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
The judge(s) would point you to that long section in WKA that detailed the evolution of NBS to NBC. There is a reason that so much of WKA was devoted to that particular subject.
Didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
Just lay them out point by point. You don’t need me to tell everyone what you believe.
Complex thought are not a big strength of yours, are they?
If you think that complex supreme court decisions can be captured in a single sentence, you are wrong.
He didn’t have to refute anything. He had to apply existing law. Which he did.
You disagree - I got it. The courts will soon tell us which of us is right.
Were the original laws altered?
Did Malihi refute the definition of NBC in Minor and state why he did so?
Since when has a State case ever held precedent over a SCOTUS case?
And didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
And no, you have not answered my questions so don't go claiming you have.
And though not a question...you show me the reply and we'll test your theory.
You don’t need me to tell everyone what you believe.
I'm trying to find out what you believe, newbie!
Since when has a State case ever held precedent over a SCOTUS case?
And didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
Could really be. Ayers and Dohrn hated the USA that much. And when white-talking, cocoa-colored Obama showed up at their protests in NY, they must have been drooling like foxes when a plump chicken stumbles into the foxhole. Finally, a way into the White House, not through explosives, but waltzing in through the front door.
And, of course, their plan worked.
Here, let me help you out...
@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
Didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
Yet all those judged interpret WKA and Arkeny as saying that NBC = born in America. Imagine that.
Perhaps there is more to the ruling then that single statement?
As the appeals go further, do you think the courts will agree with you? Are you excited that the end is in sight?
Why? I think he will be upheld every step of the way.
@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4
@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
How could the court make such an error?
I don’t want a laundry list of questions.
Just lay out your arguments. Explain why you think the judge was wrong.
Just lay it out and we will come back later to see if your were right.
I believe that I am right, you are wrong and the Georgia Court of Appeals will reject your arguments.
Didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?
Just lay it out and we will come back later...
Who is "we"?
The core of Ankeny is WKA. WKA is the law of the land.
ITS A BAD DECISION WHICH FOLLOWED WITH ANOTHER BAD DECISION
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
See 278. Ankeny looks rock hard stupid.
And when you are king you can change things.
Didn’t even Ankeny state that Ark wasn’t a NBC?
So you can’t express in your own words why the judge got it so wrong? Not my job to hold your hand and lead you to your own conclusion.
We = you and me. The courts will ultimately decide who is right or wrong between us.
More constitutional scholarship from our favorite professional poker player?
You do know that Leo has no history of actually being a lawyer before he jumped on the birther gravy train, much less a Constitutional scholar?
Didn’t even Ankeny state that Ark wasn’t a NBC?
I just can't figure out why you won't directly answer such a simple question.
Are you worried that you're going to get painted into a corner again?
Are you stamping your little feet as you order me to answer you? I have the cutest image in my head of my kids when they were little - but I doubt you are cute.
I'm here all week. /lounge lizard
I'm not "ordering" you to do anything. I'm requesting that you answer a simple question so that I can continue making my argument...as you requested.
You must first needs answer my question for me to conclude my argument pertaining to this line of questioning.
If you don't want to fulfill my request then simply say so.
I like winning by default.
Sure - he is an idiot that has lost every case. His ideas have been rejected in every possible legal venue.
To a normal person this consistent losing streak plus a complete lack of documented legal experience would raise a red flag that perhaps he was not a Constitutional scholar.
Google his name - there is stuff that I would feel uncomfortable posting on this site. Leo has a “colorful” history. If he wasn’t saying what you wanted to hear, you would reject him in a nano-second.
In what world does me not answering a question make your statements true? It simply means I didn’t answer you.
The courts will decide if you are right or wrong. Such things are not decided by two anonymous non-lawyers on the internet.
Instead of playing 100 questions, why don’t you cut to the chase and simply tell us why the judge will be overturned?
You can lay out a coherent argument without me leading you to your conclusion, can’t you?
So instead of addressing what he has to say you continue to be your usual character assassinating self.
Which statements?
Good point - you have not laid out a coherent statement of what you believe in. You simply respond to anything I write because without me you can’t seem to find your own conclusion.
Unfortunately for you, everything I wrote about Leo is true.
You are aware that he has NO documented court cases or legal publications prior to the birther gravy train? How could that be possible with such a great legal scholar?
It simply means I didn’t answer you.
So once again, if you don't want to answer my question then say so directly.
Instead of playing 100 questions, why don’t you cut to the chase and simply tell us why the judge will be overturned?
I'm not a prognosticator whereas you seem to think you are.
Character assassin!
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.