Posted on 03/30/2011 3:00:52 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Arguments in a lawsuit that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since Barack Obama's election on his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is going to be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.
Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president that oral arguments will be held on May 2.
"I can't believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case," wrote Orly Taitz, a prominent California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
"This is [the] Judge Carter case, where I represent Ambassador Alan Keyes, 10 state representatives and 30 members of [the] U.S. military," she wrote in her blog confirmation of the plans.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The good Colonel sent Obama a 1099, like the 1099 that obamacare requires everyone doing business with every little podunk vendor has to fill out? Oh, that's sweet. Just, and sweet.
If you buy those junk electronic images that were put up by Obama's campaign website as proof, then I'd say your standards of evidence need raising.
No, I'm afraid that rational people saw right through that heinous charade. You can't obtain a driver's license with it, nor a passport, or even join a little league team, with the document that Obama released.
Yet, that's sufficient "evidence" for you to accept that Obama is a legal president.
Even Monopoly money is more valid than Obama's alleged COLB. At least I know for a fact, that it was printed by Milton-Bradley.
What have they produced? Absolutely nothing... say it again. Obama hasn't produced anything. He hasn't given out anything. He hasn't even made any substantive statements. There is no evidence that the questionable Certification of Live Birth posted on the web was ever even authorized by Obama. You know much better than to make statements like that.
Which is exactly what they did with Clinton. Clinton lied over and over, people kept screaming that he was lying... the left denied that he was lying... then the truth finally came out... and then the left simply said it didn't matter anyway. They will do the EXACT same thing with Obama.
It could be an obvious forage with Mickey Mouse foot print on it and the courts will accept at to avoid this issue. The courts are afraid and that is scary.
Sorry, but I think Taitz is a nut. This will go nowhere.
We don't "know" any such thing which is why you can not prove either of your assertions.
And what have they produced? An internet copy? The real question is what is he hiding? Was his father a citizen of Kenya? I’m quite rational, just because you dont agree with someone does’nt make them irrational, lets see some real evidence, let the libs do the name calling.
“No, I'm afraid that rational people saw right through that heinous charade. You can't obtain a driver's license with it, nor a passport, or even join a little league team, with the document that Obama released.
Yet, that's sufficient “evidence” for you to accept that Obama is a legal president.
Even Monopoly money is more valid than Obama’s alleged COLB. At least I know for a fact, that it was printed by Milton-Bradley.”
Yeah, this is the kind of bar lout nonsense you guys spew. I've heard it all before. Even if you believe this idiocy that the Obama campaign went to all the trouble to post a fake birth certificate that could easily be exposed by Internet cranks who have themselves been exposed as frauds, you're still up against a very elementary fact. The state of Hawaii is under no legal obligation to refrain from identifying that a fraudulently proffered state document is, in fact, a fraud. States call fraudsters on that kind of stuff all the time. And yet Hawaii has never once implied there's any problem with the document the Obama campaign posted as a simple courtesy to the curious. They've actually said its information conforms with the records they have on file.
But, yeah, i know, they're ALL in on it. The former Republican governor of Hawaii, the whole bureaucracy, and probably all kinds of secret ninjas, too.
If it’s the 9th Circus, there’s no point in even bothering with it.
Kozinski, Alex
Born 1950 in Bucharest, Romania
Federal Judicial Service:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 5, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333; Confirmed by the Senate on November 7, 1985, and received commission on November 7, 1985. Serves as chief judge, 2007-present
Education:
University of California, Los Angeles, A.B., 1972 University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D., 1975
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1975-1976 Law clerk, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Supreme Court of the United States, 1976-1977 Private practice, Los Angeles, California, 1977-1979 Private practice, Washington, DC, 1979-1981 Deputy legal counsel, Office of the President-Elect, Washington, DC, 1980-1981 Assistant counsel, Office of Counsel to the President, Washington, DC, 1981 Special counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, 1981-1982 Chief judge, U.S. Court of Claims, Washington, DC, 1982-1985
His father absolutely was a Kenyan citizen. He admitted that, even wrote a book about it. It was common knowledge during the campaign. No one gave it any special thought because there's a well-established historical basis, understood by competent legal practioners, as to why that doesn't matter with regard to status as a natural born citizen. You don't have to like it, but no court is ever going to rule otherwise.
There's no requirement for a Presidential candidate to present his birth certificate to you or me. The Obama campaign is the only one in my memory that did. What he posted on the Internet as an informational courtesy only. It conforms with his biography and the type of documentation the state of Hawaii issues. If it didn't comport with the state of Hawaii's records, the state had every right to say so. There is no legal privacy protection for fraudulently prof erred state documents. Yet not only has the state of Hawaii not disputed Obama’s COLB, but the Republican Governor said they checked and its information conforms with the information they have.
In any court of law, that would be called real evidence. If one of these lunatic cases every by chance makes it that far, the result would be a court accepting documentation received from the State of Hawaii, which is presumptively valid.
But, yeah, i know, they're ALL in on it. The former Republican governor of Hawaii, the whole bureaucracy, and probably all kinds of secret ninjas, too.
I'll be gentle here, and just say that in my estimation, you're far too trusting of the left and the government apparatuses they control, and that you're very naive (despite being tired and old).
I won't try to convince you further. Choose to believe what you like, but most conservatives see this issue for the enormous fraud it is.
Maybe you would care to opine on just how I received a US Passport with my COLB? There wasn’t a seconds hesitation about it’s validity when I presented it as part of the required documents necessary to obtain a passport.
this is incorrect
Hawaii was the only state in the Union that required by law to show proof to be placed on the ballot. When Obama turned in his records turned it back and asked for better evidence.
No evidence was ever produced the governor at the time let it pass when pressure was put on the state to allow it as is.
Even 0bama admits he was born in Kenya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded
The usual, that we are all just a bunch of racists and couldn’t stand Obama because he was black.
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.