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

Skip to comments.

Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday
Coach is Right ^ | 1/17/2012 | Doug Book

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 ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: barackobama; certifigate; eligiblitydecision; libertylegal; michaelmalihi; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-317 next last
To: Harlan1196
If you were to actually read ALL the documents you wouldn’t embarrass yourself like this.
Why do you make the assumption that I haven't read ALL of the documents? Are we back to you being able to read minds again?
It seems that your inability to address specific, forthright questions would be embarrassing to you.

So where is this vaunted "stipulation" in Welden’s case?

What does "considered" mean in Section II?

151 posted on 02/18/2012 1:24:33 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
@stipulationAn agreement between attorneys that concerns business before a court and is designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs.
During the course of a civil lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or any other type of litigation, the opposing attorneys may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation.

How can a stipulation be made when one side isn't present?

152 posted on 02/18/2012 1:33:57 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

You do understand he never said anything about ANY probative evidence being entered by ANY of the parties?? If you believe otherwise, let’s see the quote.


153 posted on 02/18/2012 1:34:08 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Sorry, but this is nonsense. There’s no point in saying the same document has NO probative value in one part of decision and then assume that it is “accurate in it’s [sic] entirety” in another part of the decision simply because there are different attorneys involved.


154 posted on 02/18/2012 1:36:13 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

So why does Hatfield seem to have accepted that it was a valid stipulation? It was one of main reasons he wanted his case separated from Irion’s.

Perhaps Hatfield knows more about law then we do? Or are you saying he doesn’t understand what a legal stipulation is. I accept his competence as a lawyer.


155 posted on 02/18/2012 1:40:13 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Section I of the decision was the judge disposing of Orly’s case. Only her evidence was tossed.


156 posted on 02/18/2012 1:44:12 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So why does Hatfield seem to have accepted that it was a valid stipulation?
Where has Hatfield done so?

Perhaps Hatfield knows more about law then we do?
I would hope so.

Or are you saying he doesn’t understand what a legal stipulation is.
Upon what basis do you presume that I am?

What does "considered" mean in Section II?

157 posted on 02/18/2012 1:51:46 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Do you understand how the deck departments of large amphibious ships are organized?

Actually I do (lol, if you only knew) and I am not in the least bit embarrassed.

Please, continue making a fool of yourself.
158 posted on 02/18/2012 1:55:22 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Right, and HER evidence was the same as anyone else’s. So either it had probative value or it didn’t. The only comment in the decision says that it did NOT. If you believe otherwise, show a direct quote that supports this belief.


159 posted on 02/18/2012 1:58:43 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
But his mother was an American citizen so your point is irrelevant.

Now you are demonstrating to me that you have not learned enough about this topic to discuss it sensibly. Aldo Mario Bellei had an American Mother too, yet he lost his citizenship because he didn't comply with residency requirements. "Natural born citizens" do not have to comply with any residency requirements, and their citizenship cannot be stripped away from them unless they commit an affirmative act of Allegiance to another nation.

A "natural born citizen" does not have a choice to be a citizen of another country, he has only ONE CHOICE, and that is his "natural" country. Anyone that has a choice is not a "natural citizen", they are a hybrid of two or more Nations. (This condition did not even exist prior to 1922. Women automatically acquired the citizenship of their Husbands upon Marriage. ) Allowing them into the office of the Presidency is causing EXACTLY what the founders created Article II to PREVENT.

160 posted on 02/18/2012 2:09:58 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

This is all I could find on a quick look.
Seems to infer that the CIA did pick him up while in college?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2709536/replies?c=41


161 posted on 02/18/2012 2:13:34 PM PST by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
A "natural born citizen" does not have a choice to be a citizen of another country, he has only ONE CHOICE, and that is his "natural" country.

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.

162 posted on 02/18/2012 2:30:00 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Speaking of reading "ALL" of the documents in this case I direct you to this to dissuade you from your idiotic "stipulation" argument regarding Hatfield...
@Powell-Swensson vs. Obama, Attorney Hatfield's Letter Brief to Georgia Secretary of State Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

Snip...

Simply put, a review of the record in my clients' above-captioned cases reveals no evidence of Defendant's place of birth and no evidence of Defendant's mother's citizenship at the time of Defendant's birth. My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of Defendant Obama's purported birth certificate in these cases. (emphasis in original)

That was his letter after the hearing. Surely if Hatfield had made any "stipulations" before the hearing he would have stated so.

163 posted on 02/18/2012 2:31:10 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
The only reason Obama had a choice was because of a foreign citizenship law.
You're not doing yourself any favors. Look at what you just said!

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.

164 posted on 02/18/2012 2:39:26 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Even Obama’s Fight the Smears website admitted as much.


165 posted on 02/18/2012 2:41:19 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I’m not sure what you’re going on about. Even Obama’s Fight the Smears website admitted as much.


166 posted on 02/18/2012 2:42:01 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

167 posted on 02/18/2012 2:48:26 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy
Are you seriously suggesting that the military and law enforcement not be allowed to vote? They are “government-paid” you know.

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, I’d 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.

168 posted on 02/18/2012 2:52:08 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy
Yeah, the guy that goes around dressed like this is objective! Ha ha ha ha ha!


169 posted on 02/18/2012 3:02:01 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
I’m not sure what you’re going on about.

LMAO, obviously not!
170 posted on 02/18/2012 3:04:33 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Harlan1196

“Aldo Mario Bellei had an American Mother too, yet he lost his citizenship because he didn’t comply with residency requirements.”

Ummm....

“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.


171 posted on 02/18/2012 3:10:33 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
I am not talking about English common law specifically. I am use the phrase in the general sense.

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? :)

172 posted on 02/18/2012 3:20:32 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

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’.


173 posted on 02/18/2012 3:58:06 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

So where does Napoleonic law come in your scheme of things?


174 posted on 02/18/2012 4:00:56 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
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.

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).

Link.

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!

175 posted on 02/18/2012 4:04:32 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Bellei didn’t lose what he never had.

Then how, pray tell, did it ever get to the Supreme Court? Obviously he had "standing." :)

176 posted on 02/18/2012 4:07:24 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Let me be more precise...

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."

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

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.

177 posted on 02/18/2012 4:27:33 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

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?


178 posted on 02/18/2012 4:49:19 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Napoleonic law is the French system of Civil Law based on the Napoleonic code of 1804.


179 posted on 02/18/2012 4:53:55 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Napoleonic law is the French version of Civil Law based on the Napoleonic code of 1804.


180 posted on 02/18/2012 4:54:45 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Did you ever serve in the Navy?

It doesn't matter where I served, does it? but, in any case, you may continue on with your continuous display of lies and ignorance. You are beginning to be quite amusing.
181 posted on 02/18/2012 4:56:06 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Irion made the stipulation. Hatfield used that stipulation to request that his case be severed from Irion’s. I know Hatfield made no stipulation.


182 posted on 02/18/2012 4:58:47 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Ok. So tell everyone here how I am wrong. Show everyone what you know about the US Navy and how they don’t have divisions.


183 posted on 02/18/2012 5:01:42 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Don’t need to. Believe me, I know more than a fraction of what you’ll ever know about all the branches of our military.

Keep on trolling, loser. ;-)


184 posted on 02/18/2012 5:05:22 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

We used English terminology but created a uniquely American common law. The finest justice system in the world.


185 posted on 02/18/2012 5:17:14 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: edge919

No it was’t. Each lawyer independently submitted the evidence for their case. And don’t forget - what got Orly in trouble was that she ignored state law in presenting her witnesses and evidence.

Since Irion independently submitted Obama’s BC He was not effected by the Orly train wreck.


186 posted on 02/18/2012 5:26:32 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: edge919

He explicitly rejects Orly’s evidence. Nowhere does he explicitly reject the other plaintiffs evidence. A reasonable assumption is that he accepted it. But in any case, the judge explicitly.rejected their legal argument. They both tried to.show.that Obama’s father was not.a US citizen. The judge thought that because of Ankeny that fact was irrelevant. No evidence in the world.will fix a fundamentally flawed legal argument.


187 posted on 02/18/2012 5:36:27 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Let me be more precise...

Please do. Glancing at what you have written below, precision is not something I would accuse you of.

At no time was Bellei an NBC,

No one alleged he was NBC, I pointed out that he was a "born citizen", which he was.

since he was not born in the USA, nor was he born abroad of two citizen parents - the definition of NBC recognized in WKA,

Wong Kim Ark did not use the term "natural born citizen." It used the term "citizen." One can only surmise this was intentional. Minor v Happpersett used the term "Natural born citizen", and defined it as the Children of American Parents born here.

based on both the NBC clause

The "natural born citizen" clause does not define it. It is not positive law in this regard.

and the 14th Amendment.

Neither did the 14th Amendment. It only defined "citizen", not "natural born citizen." Natural born citizens existed prior to, and had no need of, the 14th amendment.

Thus his case fell under the laws of Congress, rather than a Constitutional right.

THAT part I agree with. He was a citizen by statute. The rest of your comment I accept as proof of that point.

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.

If that is Kenyan law, the U.S. takes no notice of it's requirements. It is obviously not U.S. Law. But here is a question for you. Were Barack Obama living in Kenya prior to and after his 18th birthday, could he have been drafted into the Kenyan Army?

Could he have been drafted if he were a "natural born citizen" of the United States under the same residency circumstances?

188 posted on 02/18/2012 5:41:19 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Irion made the stipulation.

Show me where and when.
@Link to all the filings to date

Hatfield used that stipulation to request that his case be severed from Irion’s.

Show me where and when.
@Article II Super PAC

189 posted on 02/18/2012 5:43:03 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

The second is refered to as a Common Law That is the type of justice system America has.

in all your 57 states?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvXGJ8eP1B0


190 posted on 02/18/2012 5:47:20 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
We used English terminology but created a uniquely American common law. The finest justice system in the world.

Reminds me of what Churchill said about Democracy:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

It may be the best in the world, but I see much room for improvement in procedure and methodology. Lawyers should be required by law to inform the court if their clients have in fact admitted guilt.

A Justice system is best served when it renders JUSTICE, not when it gets off the guilty or punishes the innocent because the "Procedure" says we must do things this way.

Both prosecution and defense should understand that getting to the truth is their primary duty.

191 posted on 02/18/2012 5:47:23 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
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.

You're doing the same thing! Look at what you just said!
In order for him to be eligible in the first place he had to qualify as one able to do so. A natural born citizen would never qualify much less be eligible to either claim or refuse it!
You've also just established that he has dual nationality, whether it was claimed or not, and isn't a natural born citizen.

192 posted on 02/18/2012 5:59:16 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Harlan1196
"Since the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" was well known to the Gray Supreme court, their decision to omit the words "natural born" was intentional, not a mistake. As a result, their ruling had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility requirements."

Correct. And such a ruling is in perfect keeping with the philosophy of Judicial Restraint. Such was also demonstrated in Minor: "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to resolve those doubts."

193 posted on 02/18/2012 6:04:47 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Nowhere does he explicitly ACCEPT the other plaintiffs evidence. The alleged birth certificate would be the same no matter who entered it as evidence. Orly was the last attorney to present her case, yet hers was the first to be addressed in the judge’s decision. It makes ZERO sense to reject ALL of her evidence but accept the same evidence simply because it was presented by a different attorney, and especially when the judge NEVER references ANY evidence leading to a conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii. Ankeny never declared where Obama was born, so Malihi did NOT get it from that decision.


194 posted on 02/18/2012 6:05:27 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/12/navy-2011-co-xo-cmc-firings/


195 posted on 02/18/2012 6:06:30 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
I went through the complete pre-induction CIA security clearance in the early 1980’s.

Given that Barry's mentor Frank M Davis was KGB operative and a close associate of his grandfather who raised, Barry would never have passed the CIA security clearance...especially given his college Marxist associates, drug use and homosexuality. Also, Barry would never have passed the mandatory CIA lie detector testing, IMO.

196 posted on 02/18/2012 6:08:23 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

So?


197 posted on 02/18/2012 6:24:27 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Ooooh...three amphib officers, 2 XO (Cmdr), 1 CO (Cmdr)


198 posted on 02/18/2012 6:27:25 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts (i.e. receives) pre-independence English law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states, except Louisiana, have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statutes

Examples of “reception statutes”

Virginia, Va. Code §§ 1-200, 1-201, www.state.va.us/cmsportal3/government_4096/codes_and_laws.html
§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.
The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)

Virginia’s 1776 statute stated: [The] common law of England, [and] all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first . . . shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 (1999), www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/Statutes.asp
§ 4 1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)

Alabama, Ala. Code § 1-3-1 (1975), www.alabama.gov/portal/index.jsp
Common law of England adopted.
The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)

http://faculty.samford.edu/~medebow/ReceptionStatutes.html


199 posted on 02/18/2012 6:32:59 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts (i.e. receives) pre-independence English law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states, except Louisiana, have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statutes

Examples of “reception statutes”

Virginia, Va. Code §§ 1-200, 1-201, www.state.va.us/cmsportal3/government_4096/codes_and_laws.html
§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.
The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)

Virginia’s 1776 statute stated: [The] common law of England, [and] all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first . . . shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 (1999), www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/Statutes.asp
§ 4 1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)

Alabama, Ala. Code § 1-3-1 (1975), www.alabama.gov/portal/index.jsp
Common law of England adopted.
The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)

http://faculty.samford.edu/~medebow/ReceptionStatutes.html


200 posted on 02/18/2012 6:33:11 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-317 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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson