Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Land Fines Orly Taitz $20K, File Copy of Order with State Bar of CA
United States District Court (Georgia) ^ | 10/13/2009 | Judge Clay Land

Posted on 10/13/2009 7:45:31 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,165 next last
To: RegulatorCountry

No sir. MT does not work for Donofrio. They attempted to work together for about a week, then decided against it.

And I stand corrected. Donofrio certainly believes Obama is NOT an NBC, but he also thinks Obama was HI born. Tickly is skeptical


1,101 posted on 10/14/2009 10:41:32 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1099 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Hey, don;t be sorry, there will be a hearing, whether its on appeal or interlocutory. Count on it.

If you mean a "hearing" at which Orly can subpoena evidence to rebut the $20,000 sanctions award against her, no, there is no such procedure available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She was offered the opportunity by Judge Land to present evidence as to why she shouldn't be sanctioned, and she responded with a legally-frivolous attempt to disqualify the judge, without asking to present any evidence as to hte sanctions issue. So any opportunity to present evidence has been waived.

1,102 posted on 10/14/2009 10:51:48 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I’m not a leftist scum bag so not only am I not registered under my FR name (unlike some on this thread), I don’t even go there to read! Maybe saw it three times since 2002.


1,103 posted on 10/14/2009 10:53:17 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1089 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I’m not a leftist scum bag...

Well...maybe half right.

1,104 posted on 10/14/2009 10:57:07 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I did not attack the judge so that issue has nothing to do with my comment on your lack of an answer.

Ok, so you are not an Obama supporter - glad to hear that. You were just being true to your screen name when you gave that non-answer.

As for one the trick pony routine, what is this idea that anyone who is interested in the eligibility question automatically is assumed to lack the capacity to pursue other avenues to defeat Obama? This is such a common statement from people who criticize “birthers” that it must be some kind of talking point. If you aren't one of O’bummer’s paid bloggers, you might consider getting rid of that line in your postings.

As to blind worship of Orly, I haven't seen any evidence of that on the eligibility threads. My own feelings on Orly and her efforts are realistic. Worst case is she never gets off first base with a case but the awareness factor on eligibility increases as a result. Best case is she actually is able to get a judge to go along with discovery.

I do not see any advantage in ridiculing her and do not understand why you feel the need to do so given the fact that you are not an Obama supporter.

1,105 posted on 10/14/2009 11:06:40 AM PDT by Natural Born 54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: vikk
You need to refine your list a bit.

Well, I just want to get a full accounting of who’s in on this. By my account:

HI State Govt. (or parts of it)

Including the Republican Governor and everyone she has appointed who could have possibly known, and all of the employees who have had access to those records.

DNC

Sure, but probably the RNC, too. Plus all of the top-tier Republican candidates, President and Vice President, at least. And Hillary Clinton.

DoJ

Not just the DoJ, but the DoJ under the Bush Administration. This started last year during the election, when President Bush was in office and the DoJ was being run by his appointees and people they hired.

State Dept.

Right aqain. Again, though, not just the Department of State, but the Department of State under the Bush Administration, full of a Republican President's appointees and people they hired.

Every judge who has come in contact with the birth certificate cases

Yes. Some of whom, demonstrably, have been active, life-long Republicans (Judge Land, for example).

Additionally, the FBI & CIA who are tasked with keeping us safe at home and abroad & who share the most sensitive national secrets with the incoming President would have to be in on it, too. The directors of those agencies were appointed by a Republican President at the time Obama was running and after he was elected. Them, too.

Plus the entire Supreme Court of the United States, all of Congress, the President, and the Vice President. Plus all of their political appointees who would have known. Oh, and the State Attorneys General of 50 states.

And probably the Secret Service. And most of the mainstream media, all of whom would rather support a possible candidate who at the time may or may not turn out to win, rather than assure themselves a place in history at the reporter who broke the story of the century. And all the newspapers they work for.

Is this a conspiracy that goes back 20 years, or just a few, in your estimation?

You do the math.

Clearly, it goes back to at least 1961 when Obama's entire family conspired to get him declared a NB US citizen, in spite of the fact that there would have been no valid reason to have done so.

The Civil Rights Act was 3 years in the future when Obama was born, and in many places, blacks still couldn't vote or go to school with whites. But she knew it was imperative to commit this massive fraud and enlisted numerous people to do so, so that 48 years in the future, he son could be President of the United States. And none of them of talked or said a single word.

How did she know? Time Travel? Aliens? The Illuminati?

We're through the looking glass, here, people!

1,106 posted on 10/14/2009 11:10:38 AM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Would you buy a used car from this man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: mlo

If you are a pathological liar you will believe whatever suits you and not necessarily truth.

If you are schizophrenia your fact is, again, whatever suits you at the time. Then may believe they are 18 years old - it’s a fact to them but there license may say 25.

If someone is color blind and they are going to wear there blue suit - it’s a fact to them, that’s my blue suit when in reality, it’s black.

So anyone person having a ‘fact’ unto themselves exists only to themselves - and, basically, any pig can fly w/that kind of existence. It’s ONLY a fact to them - in their OWN mind and it has nothing to do with reality until it is proven.

Things can be anything to one person - fact or fiction. They can call it a fact all day long and it doesn’t not necessarily means that it is - only to them - and nothing to do w/reality!


1,107 posted on 10/14/2009 11:27:35 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1043 | View Replies]

To: mlo
fact exists on its own

ON IT'S OWN - any pig will fly - fact or fiction.
1,108 posted on 10/14/2009 11:34:14 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
those on my ping list are not Obama supporters or trolls.

How clueless can one be and still breathe?
1,109 posted on 10/14/2009 11:38:01 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1058 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

“Good Question.”

Thank you.


1,110 posted on 10/14/2009 11:41:01 AM PDT by RebelTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1084 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Thank you for the link.

Do you know if anyone has asked Leo about this?


1,111 posted on 10/14/2009 11:42:41 AM PDT by RebelTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1092 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; MissTickly

Well, no. The “Miss Tickly” individual, “TerriK” or under whatever online alias, is in the employ of Donofrio.

~~~~

Where do you get that ?


1,112 posted on 10/14/2009 12:08:16 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1099 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
There is NO legal precedent for the birthplace of one’s father being determinative of US natural born status if the other parent is an American citizen.

There is NO legal precedent for the birthplace of one’s father being determinative of US natural born status if the other parent is an American citizen.

There, fixed it.

There's a reason, too. First, there has never been a Presidential election in dispute due to questions of eligibility under the natural-born citizen requirement. Second, no law can define the term, since only immigration and naturalization is enumerated to the Legislative branch.

1,113 posted on 10/14/2009 12:35:43 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

There have been several instances, of Donofrio referring to this individual as his “assistant.” I first read it here on FR.


1,114 posted on 10/14/2009 1:03:01 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: Vendome; mlo

Um, honestly, I don’t know. I was following mlo’s conversation and that’s as far as he ever got with that person. I think the point he was trying to make was that Obama can be 35, a 14-year resident, and a natural-born citizen in actuality/reality without having provided any documentation to that effect. That is true or rather it can be true.


1,115 posted on 10/14/2009 2:02:02 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1087 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; pissant; MissTickly; STARWISE

TerriK is not employed by Leo Donofrio. He posted a column recently claiming that he no longer represents TerriK either as her attorney or as her spokesman. She went on her own mission and started her own blog. She doesn’t work for him.


1,116 posted on 10/14/2009 2:05:56 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; MissTickly

Not as far as I know .. Miss Tickly posts here
and was working on the issue for quite a time
before she contacted and later collaborated
briefly with Donofrio.


1,117 posted on 10/14/2009 2:07:07 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

That is correct. But she was on her mission long before Donofrio discovered her as well.


1,118 posted on 10/14/2009 2:07:10 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1116 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Who cares? The press will be on this all like fies on Doggy doo.

She will get 200 grand worth of publicity for a 20 grand fine.

Thats worth the cheese my friend.

This is not about the process of law. Its about politics.

And Orly has just won big time.

1,119 posted on 10/14/2009 2:16:50 PM PDT by Candor7 (The effective weapons against Fascism are ridicule, derision, and truth (Member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1102 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I think the point he was trying to make was that Obama can be 35, a 14-year resident, and a natural-born citizen in actuality/reality without having provided any documentation to that effect. That is true or rather it can be true.

There are requirements for elected, national office, and those requirements are most restrictive for the Presidency. To my knowledge, no questionable individual has ever won a majority of electoral votes, prior to Obama. Questions can arise, and did in fact arise, because the factuality of certain claims remained unclear, and still remain unclear.

There were questions all along. There were Hillary supporters questioning Obama's eligibility prior to his being nominated as the Democrat candidate. There were attempts at legal actions directed at both McCain and Obama. The whole thing didn't just fall out of the sky in June of 2008, as several have spun on this thread.

Regardless of the philosophical exercise, the factual basis of Barack Obama's eligibility has been in question for some time, certainly well before the electoral vote was certified. I recall widespread mystification on FR, as to why no one had standing. It was explained away that the matter was not "ripe," or some other rationale, that the matter had to wait until this or that milestone had been passed. Those milestones included party nomination, the popular vote, the electoral vote, the certification of the vote, the Oath Of Office ... always something later.

Now, the spin is that it's too late to be actionable through any means other than through Congress, impeachment I assume.

The plain words of the Constitution state that the Vice President becomes acting President, if the President is ineligible.

How that is to be accomplished, or even how such determination is to be made, is not a matter that is defined. I've contended that determining Constitutional disability and then following the line of succession is the route to take. I see no means of reaching such a determination, outside of SCOTUS.

Barack Obamas' birth status is in doubt. Such doubt is not a recent phenomenon, as regards Barack Obama. Unresolved doubt precludes the requisite status required for office.

1,120 posted on 10/14/2009 2:38:11 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1115 | View Replies]

To: mountainbunny

Yeah, I had a feeling it was the most awesomest conspiracy ever. Now I know.
And I thought those extraterrestrial lizards under the Denver Airport were scary!


1,121 posted on 10/14/2009 2:43:24 PM PDT by vikk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1106 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

LOL. I had agreed several times to his premise and then attempted to negotiate proof.

A thing can be a thing and still be true or real without proof is as far as he wanted to go.

He never wants to take the next step and verify, prove or test a thing to see if it is a fact.

Honestly, the only reason I post to him is JR says he is a good guy. I think he is genuinely stunted in logical proof and examination of thing, why the thing exists and its component parts that make it whole.

So I guess we are stuck with “Faith”. I believe God exist and yet I cannot prove it, so I take in on Faith that he does.

I also have not been to Africa but have factual evidence of it’s existence as I also have the same of Pluto.

Oh well.


1,122 posted on 10/14/2009 2:44:37 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1115 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
I also have not been to Africa but have factual evidence of it’s existence as I also have the same of Pluto

Pluto is in possible danger, of being demoted from planetary status, to a mere planetoid.

The status accepted as fact for quite some time, may not in fact be factual.

It seems there are eligibility requirements for planets, and Pluto is perhaps something less than required.

So, if one were to say that Pluto is a planet, would that be a fact, or a fallacy? Does the length of time, that Pluto's status as a planet has not been questioned, alter the fact, one way or the other?

To paraphrase the "logic" of certain replies on this thread, "why, the claim that Pluto is a planetoid is of such recent vintage! Where were these claims, back when Pluto was first discovered?"

1,123 posted on 10/14/2009 3:01:58 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1122 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Pluto was demoted in January. I felt bad for Mickey Mouse and thought it was Goofy thing to do!

I had thought the eligibility requirement was the body must spin and have a moon to qualify.

But, I have been out of High School for 30 years.

I think it would be more accurate to say simply that Pluto exists as the judging panel cannot deny it’s existence only its status of categorization.

Still it seems unfair. Pluto seemed nice enough. Never bothered me.

lol


1,124 posted on 10/14/2009 3:07:18 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1123 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
only its status of categorization.

Status of categorization is often contested, it appears, in any number of contexts. Involving people, even.

1,125 posted on 10/14/2009 3:15:26 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1124 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I pretty much agree with everything you said. I have no personal knowledge of what took place at FR before 08/01/2008. So I can't speak to that part of your comment. We're in a quandary. No doubt about that.
1,126 posted on 10/14/2009 3:30:03 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Character, Leadership, and Loyalty matter - Be an example, no matter the cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1120 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Making it subjective.

Like I said, Damn It! Pluto seemed nice enough.

Was I looking at your videos or Buckeye yesterday? I forget. Funny as hell.


1,127 posted on 10/14/2009 3:34:28 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1125 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

I’ve not posted any video, so it must’ve been BT.


1,128 posted on 10/14/2009 3:52:01 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: vikk
Yeah, I had a feeling it was the most awesomest conspiracy ever. Now I know. And I thought those extraterrestrial lizards under the Denver Airport were scary!

You don't think the Democrats has the Democrat National Convention in Denver last year for nothing, do you? As you can see, the pieces are starting to fit together nicely.

Every time I'm set to pick someone up at the Denver airport, I tell them to look for the aliens and send them one of the websites so they can see the subtle clues hidden in the floor tiles and the paintings on their way to baggage claim.

Did you know that there is a concentration camp under there, too, for when the New World Order comes and sends us all to live in under there?

And that there's probably a space port?

DIA Conspiracies Take Off (Westword)(^)

And that the 32 foot tall bright blue mustang with red laser eyes at the entrance to the airport killed its creator? This part is, amazingly, actually true.

A Horse of a Different Color Divides Denver (WSJ) (^)

What I want to know is: If the aliens have taken up residence under the airport, why can't they pay rent and bring down the cost of parking at DIA a bit?

1,129 posted on 10/14/2009 4:28:07 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Would you buy a used car from this man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1121 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
I don’t think you need an MD degree to look at a document and read what it says

You think the "official birth records" say that he is natural born citizen?

Don't know about you, but I've never seen that on a birth certificate.

In fact, the issue of natural born American status with regard to eligibility to be president has never been adjudicated in any court of law and the Constitution itself is mute on the issue.

So why do you think you and Dr. Kukino know what it means, or will mean if a court rules on it? Hmmm?

Documents contemporary to the founding era indicate that BHO II is a natural born British Subject, because his father was a British subject. Vattel indicates that "naturales" are those born of citizen parents in the country, with an exception to the latter for those whose parents were serving the country but outside of it, at the time of their birth.

Blackstone: (1758) WHEN I fay, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this alfo muft be underftood with fome reftrictions. The common law indeed ftood abfolutely fo; with only a very few exceptions:...But by feveral more modern ftatutesb thefe reftrictions are ftill farther taken off: fo that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception; unlefs their faid fathers were attainted, or banifhed beyond fea, for high treafon; or were then in the fervice of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. (Original spelling and when he says "more modern statutes, he still means prior to the mid 1760s at the latest!) :))

Vattel:(also 1758, although the translation is newer, around 1852), the founders could mostly read French and didn't need the translation): The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Section 217 has the exemption to "in the country" for those "born in the armies of the state."

And this from Joesph Story(1833):

§ 1471...It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.... But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

(Story was at the time a Justice of the Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Madison in 1812).

1,130 posted on 10/14/2009 4:36:45 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: Vendome; BuckeyeTexan

Sorry, real life intruded and sucked up my time. I’ll look at what you posted and see if a response is needed.

So far I’ve found the discussion rather silly and frustrating. It shouldn’t have been a big deal to postulate that a thing is, whether someone documents it or not. But some birthers seem to be unable to concede even a basic fundamental point of reality if they think it might be used to argue against them. Absurd.

It wasn’t my intent to spend much time on this tiny point. The intent was to move on quickly to the next. If even this little fundamental uncontroversial thing can’t be agreed on then it sure looks like trying to reason with certain birthers has to go out the window.


1,131 posted on 10/14/2009 5:01:19 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1087 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
"I gave the examples of a thing existing, without proof and that they are realities(Pluto and Africa)."

Yes, those are good examples of what I meant. Nobody would doubt that Pluto existed before anyone observed it. (Note: This is ignoring questions raised by quantum physics, I know, but it's good enough for our purposes.)

So something can BE without having been PROVED. What's the relevance? Only this.

The Constitution requires that the President BE a "natural born citizen", among other things. That passage does not say anything about proving it. It is violated only if the President is, as a matter of fact, not a natural born citizen. It is not violated if he simply hasn't proven it.

That does not mean there aren't other constitutional provisions which would call for validation, but that's another post. I have to go do something right now.

1,132 posted on 10/14/2009 5:27:45 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1087 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Great! We agree completely!

I can’t figure out how to force the issue but for sensing his COLB is flawed and needs to be tested, as he is the one who put it in the public realm.

Still, I have not figured out how to force even that.


1,133 posted on 10/14/2009 5:51:29 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: mlo; Vendome; BuckeyeTexan

Sounds like the premise:

if a tree falls in the forest, and
no one hears it, did it fall ?

I have no clue what such an obscure
premise as the “it is what it is” view
bears in regard to one’s age or a birth
certificate.

One’s birth certificate is a tangible, vital
legally recorded document, signifying important
data .. the proof of one’s arrival on earth, his
parentage, etc. and one which plays a mandatory
and significant verification for several key
occasions in a person’s life .. wherein which
the document must be shown to a govt. official.

Just telling the DMV guy you’re 16 and legal
to take the driving test and “it is what it
is” isn’t going to wash.

And by the way, the derision and contempt with
which you toss around the term ‘birthers’ because
some don’t accept your views at face value just
because you said so doesn’t wear well on one so
profuse in lawyerly and scholarly postings as you.

We’re all in a new ballpark here, seeking information,
theorizing, and there is a possibility of a case of
first impression, so there are no perfect experts...
period.

No one, not even one so lawyerly, knows what the
outcome will be.


1,134 posted on 10/14/2009 7:49:10 PM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1131 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
"Great! We agree completely!"

Wonderful. We should. It's not really a controversial point.

See what happens when people actually try to understand each other?

1,135 posted on 10/14/2009 7:57:16 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1133 | View Replies]

To: mlo

lol.


1,136 posted on 10/14/2009 8:36:39 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1135 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Word!


1,137 posted on 10/14/2009 8:38:15 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I don’t think you need an MD degree to look at a document and read what it says
You think the “official birth records” say that he is natural born citizen?

Don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen that on a birth certificate.

In fact, the issue of natural born American status with regard to eligibility to be president has never been adjudicated in any court of law and the Constitution itself is mute on the issue.

So why do you think you and Dr. Kukino know what it means, or will mean if a court rules on it? Hmmm?

Documents contemporary to the founding era indicate that BHO II is a natural born British Subject, because his father was a British subject. Vattel indicates that “naturales” are those born of citizen parents in the country, with an exception to the latter for those whose parents were serving the country but outside of it, at the time of their birth.

Blackstone: (1758) WHEN I fay, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this alfo muft be underftood with fome reftrictions. The common law indeed ftood abfolutely fo; with only a very few exceptions:...But by feveral more modern ftatutesb thefe reftrictions are ftill farther taken off: fo that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception; unlefs their faid fathers were attainted, or banifhed beyond fea, for high treafon; or were then in the fervice of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. (Original spelling and when he says “more modern statutes, he still means prior to the mid 1760s at the latest!) :))

Vattel:(also 1758, although the translation is newer, around 1852), the founders could mostly read French and didn’t need the translation): The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Section 217 has the exemption to “in the country” for those “born in the armies of the state.”

And this from Joesph Story(1833):

§ 1471...It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.... But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

(Story was at the time a Justice of the Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Madison in 1812).


I’m pretty sure that this is the way it works: you look at the Certification of Live Birth and if it names one of the 50 states of the union under “Place of Birth” and that the person named was born there, you’re a natural born US citizen unless you are the child of foreign diplomats.
The Constitution provides no legal guidance on defining “native born citizen” and the issue has never been adjudicated in a court of law with regard to eligibility to be President of the United States.
That is why John McCain, born in the Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama would also have been constitutionally eligible to be president.


1,138 posted on 10/14/2009 10:07:42 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1130 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“Pluto was demoted in January. I felt bad for Mickey Mouse and thought it was Goofy thing to do!”

You’re bad. Uncle Scrooge has declared that you are really are a Beagle Boy and now you must spend the night in the dog house.

;>D


1,139 posted on 10/14/2009 10:31:53 PM PDT by RebelTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1124 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex

Dang it. I wuz gonna be right.


1,140 posted on 10/14/2009 10:44:13 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“Dang it. I wuz gonna be right.”

Ya gotta be more like me. I’m always right!

That’s because I’m never left, except when left behind the 8 ball, (with O, that’s happening more and more these days).

I do admit that on rare occasions, I have been wrong (but that’s because I thought I was wrong, but I was actually right).

Dagnabit, now ya got me wondering if I’m in my right mind, so I’ll just have to stop now so as to preserve whatever part of my mind I have left.

(Hmmm, that didn’t sound right, but it has to be ‘cause I’m never left, right?)


1,141 posted on 10/14/2009 10:58:48 PM PDT by RebelTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1140 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
That is why John McCain, born in the Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama would also have been constitutionally eligible to be president.

Doesn't matter where he was born, because there is an exception, in both Vattel and Blackstone for children of diplomats and those in the service of the country.

But, he wasn't born in the hospital in Colon, he was born in the family hospital on the Coco Solo Naval base. It was in the local English Language newspaper. It's what his mother claims. It's what birth certificate he showed to a Washington Times reporter, indicated. The reporter chekced on the docotr's name and found that he was indeed stationed at Coco Solo in 1936.

1,142 posted on 10/14/2009 10:59:23 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
The Constitution provides no legal guidance on defining “native born citizen”

Not surprising, since the term appears nowhere in that document. Of course few "terms of art" are defined in the Constitution. You are supposed to be educated enough to know what they mean. In 1787, people did.

1,143 posted on 10/14/2009 11:05:06 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex

You may want to lay off the shots for tonight and save your strength for the weekend. LOL


1,144 posted on 10/14/2009 11:11:11 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1141 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

LOL


1,145 posted on 10/14/2009 11:16:17 PM PDT by RebelTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1144 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

The Constitution provides no legal guidance on defining “native born citizen”
Not surprising, since the term appears nowhere in that document. Of course few “terms of art” are defined in the Constitution. You are supposed to be educated enough to know what they mean. In 1787, people did.


Yes, I’m reasonably certain that knowing what the “terms of art” mean is why Barack Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts, had his Electoral College votes certified without challenge by 535 members of Congress and that is why to date all Obama eligibility cases have been denied by the Supreme Court without comment.
Thus far, 50 lawsuits have been denied or dismissed concerning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. No lawsuits have ruled for plaintiffs and 8 cases are on appeal or awaiting additional hearings.
Oh, and the Constitution wasn’t ratified until June 21, 1788.


1,146 posted on 10/15/2009 8:33:59 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Barack Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts, had his Electoral College votes certified without challenge by 535 members of Congress

Whatever. None of that makes someone not eligible suddenly eligible.

Oh, and the Constitution wasn’t ratified until June 21, 1788.

But the ratification period started in 1787. Your point is?

1,147 posted on 10/15/2009 9:09:01 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1146 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; humblegunner; Vendome
Question is, did you ever hit the can?

I believe the term is "Kick the Can" a popular game plaid under the new street lights, of which there were few. CHS Class of 56

1,148 posted on 10/15/2009 9:31:04 AM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Barack Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts, had his Electoral College votes certified without challenge by 535 members of Congress
Whatever. None of that makes someone not eligible suddenly eligible.

Oh, and the Constitution wasn’t ratified until June 21, 1788.

But the ratification period started in 1787. Your point is?


Obama is eligible because he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24pm on Friday, August 4, 1961. His birth was registered with the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961 which makes him old enough and Natural Born.
The state of Hawaii has verified the Obama birth information that is required to be president under the constitution.
Anyone who doesn’t want Barack Obama to be president should vote against him on the first Tuesday of November, 2012.
That’s my point.


1,149 posted on 10/15/2009 9:33:49 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1147 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot; Eaker; humblegunner

What are you talking about? He totally wasted a beer with a lead slug!

Kick that! /s lol

(CHS Class of 56?)


1,150 posted on 10/15/2009 9:39:26 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,001-1,0501,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,165 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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