Skip to comments.Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday
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 clerks office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legals 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 clerks 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 clerks 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 Malihis 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 ...
This is all I could find on a quick look.
Seems to infer that the CIA did pick him up while in college?
The only reason Obama had a choice was because of a foreign citizenship law. It's still amazing to me that there are people on FreeRepublic who cling to the idea that foreign laws should determine who can and can't be President of the United States.
That was his letter after the hearing. Surely if Hatfield had made any "stipulations" before the hearing he would have stated so.
In order for him to even have that choice he would first have to be eligible to make that choice.
You've just established that he has dual nationality and isn't a natural born citizen.
Even Obama’s Fight the Smears website admitted as much.
I’m not sure what you’re going on about. Even Obama’s Fight the Smears website admitted as much.
If you want to get into the theoretical weeds, I would suggest that it is a bad idea to let anyone vote for someone that has the responsibility for overseeing their pay and compensation.
I would suggest Teachers should not vote in the Elections of State Legislators (conflict of interest) but should be able to vote in every other case. I would suggest that Federal Employees should not be able to vote for members of Congress, because they too control the money and are susceptible to pressure for groups agitating for more money for themselves. (Federal Employees are paid FAR MORE than their private sector counterparts on average.)
As for the Military, I would say they should be the exception. I would suggest that the 26th amendment should ONLY apply to Members of the Armed forces, especially as it was the argument "Old enough to fight, but not to vote?" which rallied support in favor of Passing the Amendment.
I would have left all those G*D D*MNED War Protestors out in the cold. (Probably would have improved the country DRAMATICALLY to reduce the numbers of Liberal 18 year olds voting.)
Personally, Id be content if only people with a perfect score on the SAT were allowed to vote.
Republicans were founded on Opposition to slavery. My philosophy is that those who PAY for it, should have a say as to how it goes, even if they are democrat stupid. Those who suck on the Public tit, should not.
“Aldo Mario Bellei had an American Mother too, yet he lost his citizenship because he didn’t comply with residency requirements.”
“1. The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei (hereinafter the plaintiff), was born in Italy on December 22, 1939. He is now 31 years of age...
2. The plaintiff’s father has always been a citizen of Italy and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff’s mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915 and thus was a native-born United States citizen...The mother and father were married in Philadelphia on the mother’s 24th birthday, March 14, 1939. Nine days later, on March 23, the newlyweds departed for Italy. They have resided there ever since.
...The plaintiff resided in Italy from the time of his birth until recently. He currently resides in England, where he has employment as an electronics engineer with an organization engaged in the NATO defense program.”
IOW, an Italian and an American marry, and 9 days later, leave for Italy where they spend the rest of their lives. While living in Italy, they have a son, who never lives in the US. At 31, he decides he is a US citizen because he was born abroad to ONE US citizen.
Bellei didn’t lose what he never had.
Two different systems of justice developed in Europe:
1. In one system the judges were given the power to interpret the law as they saw fit.
2. In the other, the judge was expected to rule with deference to precedence and case law.
The second is refered to as a Common Law System. That is the type of justice system America has.
Interestingly enough, the English Common Law System owed it's existance to the Presumption of a Monarchy. The term "Magistrate" was derived from the Latin word for "Master", which is no doubt the correct description of the relationship between the Magistrates of the Court and the rest of the population.
Kings appointed Magistrates to Handle the every day legal cases which were beneath the King's interest to deal with, but let it never be forgotten that the Judge was a representative of the King and spoke on his behalf in his own "Court" room.
I have recently been looking at a few legal issues, and I was amused at the jargon used in the legal profession. "Comes now the Plaintiff", "Pleading", "Writ of Execution", and so forth, all seemed reminiscent of the trappings of Monarchy. That was when I realized that this was exactly right. The English Court system derived it's status and Power from the Crown, and it seemed to me that too much of what is customary in our legal system is a remnant from the Monarchical descent and practices of the English Court system.
When we broke with the Monarchy, we should have turned much of this stuff out on it's ear. When a Person goes to court, it is not appropriate to describe as a "Pleading" when an American is only asking the court to do it's D*mned Job! Americans do not Beg or Plead, they request, as from one equal to another. According to OUR law, the Judge is not supposed to be better than any other American, he is supposed to be our equal, and entitled to no more respect than is anyone else. The Judge even sets upon a throne! :)
I am thinking it is about high time we impeached the imperial judiciary, and Make them operate under the principles that the United States was founded on.
Now what was it you were saying about that English Common Law stuff? :)
Anyone who has dealt with the court systems knows these are rife with crooked and bought off clerks and lawyers. People are people and choose their own paths to security and wealth along with a big stuffing of ‘look at me’.
So where does Napoleonic law come in your scheme of things?
It is not a foreign Law, it is part of the English Common law that so many of you keep going on about. Here is a quote to enlighten you.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category natural born to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term native born. Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are natural born and not naturalized citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent, that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
And Look, it was PRIOR to Obama's winning the election!
The United States Recognized that other nations could make a claim on someones citizenship based on their having been born on that Nation's soil, (such as England) or by having been born to parents of that Nation. (France.) The United States sensibly chose to recognize that if a person Had only parents who were American Citizens, and was born only on American Soil, then No other Nation could have a legitimate claim to them. They could not be drafted into another nation's army because they did not meet ANY nation's recognized criteria for having allegiance to them.
They were solely, and totally American, and they had no divided allegiance whatsoever. THESE were the Kind of People the founders wanted to require for the Executive Branch of our Nation. These and ONLY these.
Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool, and I don't care if that includes all the Law Schools, the Entire Supreme Court, the Media, and the Entire Congress as well!
Then how, pray tell, did it ever get to the Supreme Court? Obviously he had "standing." :)
At no time was Bellei an NBC, since he was not born in the USA, nor was he born abroad of two citizen parents - the definition of NBC recognized in WKA, based on both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment. Thus his case fell under the laws of Congress, rather than a Constitutional right.
"The central fact in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a "Fourteenth Amendment first sentence" citizen."
"Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 401 U. S. 820-836."
The only similarity between him & Obama is that Obama was eligible for UK citizenship, but refused to claim it - which, when it transferred to Kenya, he would have needed to do by his 18th birthday.
So you know that all ships are divided into departments. Departments are divided into divisions. Divisions are divided into workcenters.
So on a Gator Deck department normally has several divisions. 1st division has the focsle, 2nd division has the flight deck and boats.
Did you ever serve in the Navy?
Napoleonic law is the French system of Civil Law based on the Napoleonic code of 1804.
Napoleonic law is the French version of Civil Law based on the Napoleonic code of 1804.