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

Skip to comments.

HI Territorial Law 57 (foreign born & HI B.C.'s) - Joint Motion Filled in HOLLISTER v SOETORO
Scribd ^ | 1/7/2010 | rxsid

Posted on 01/08/2010 7:30:02 AM PST by rxsid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 last
To: Seizethecarp

Lack of a claim is lack of a claim. By the cases I pointed out it is not an element of standing. As the Supreme Court has clearly said lack of a claim is not standing or part of standing. If there is laughter it wouild be at yourself. Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject. Judges look at whether they have jurisdiction, which necessarily involves considering standing, then they look to see if there is a claim. They do not analyze the claim and then extrapolate from that to standing. For one thing, jurisdiction and standing analyses are under 12(b)(1) not 12(b)(6). The former goes outside the pleading the latter analysis does not except for taking judicial notice. If you were an experienced federral litigator you would have to know that.


151 posted on 01/12/2010 4:32:33 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Lack of a claim is lack of a claim. By the cases I pointed out it is not an element of standing. As the Supreme Court has clearly said lack of a claim is not standing or part of standing. If there is laughter it wouild be at yourself. Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject. Judges look at whether they have jurisdiction, which necessarily involves considering standing, then they look to see if there is a claim. They do not analyze the claim and then extrapolate from that to standing. For one thing, jurisdiction and standing analyses are under 12(b)(1) not 12(b)(6). The former goes outside the pleading the latter analysis does not except for taking judicial notice. If you were an experienced federral litigator you would have to know that.


152 posted on 01/12/2010 4:32:42 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: OafOfOffice

That’s the big question raised by the case.


153 posted on 01/12/2010 4:39:12 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
"Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject."

You misstate what I said again. I never said "lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed."

I seem to recall you saying you were not a lawyer.

154 posted on 01/12/2010 5:09:42 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Your memory is no better than your knowledge of the law. Althouogh not practicing at this time I was a lawyer for a very long time.


155 posted on 01/12/2010 6:01:49 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

Thanks for your pings and information!


156 posted on 01/12/2010 6:08:01 PM PST by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

If I was a lawyer, I would not push to have the courts remove him from office, I would have the courts open up the case for discovery to see whether he is eligible or not, and have Congress decided on what to do.....


157 posted on 01/13/2010 1:57:11 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
So far as I know, that courts can not remove him anyway. It's not within their Constitutional powers. I mean, how would the do that anyway?

However, they could make a decision regarding original intent of the framers and weather or not he meet's the requirement of NBC.

If he didn't, then it would be up to "some other group with jurisdiction to remove a (criminal) usurper. FBI? Fed Marshals? That, of course, assumes he didn't "step down" like Nixon.

158 posted on 01/13/2010 5:34:35 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; InspectorSmith; Seizethecarp
”Perhaps, it was by this very law (HI Territorial Law 57), that someone was able to fill out this application (?) for a HI birth certificate that was only ever FILED and never ACCEPTED. Then, when HRS 338-17.8 was passed (in 1982), the record was ammended to coincide with the new updated statue...perhaps triggered by someone needing a copy of the original record for some reason.”

For the record, I have linked below a copy of the September 19, 1940 ‘Application for Social Security Account Number’ for Madelyn Payne Dunham, Barack Obama’s maternal grandmother. Importantly, the SS form contains her signature, which can thus be compared to what is intended to be her signature in the 18a box on the Blaine BC Application. One must remember that approximately 19 years has elapsed between the first and second signatures so evolutionary changes in style are to be expected.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/MadelynDunham-SSAppl.pdf

The referenced SS Application was obtained from the Orly Taitz, “Defend Our Freedoms Foundation” website. Orly entered a 3/1/10 post titled, “I Need Forensic Document Experts, Signature Experts, Investigators to Work on this and get Any and All Info” The post contains a copy of a letter to Orly from Paula Hoehn with the SS Application attached as a link. The following is an excerpt from the cover letter from Ms. Hoehn to Dr. Taitz.

“Attached are Soc Sec Applications for Obama’s grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, and a woman named Shirley Jean (Applebee) Dunham born in Washington. Also, attached is the accompanying letter to me from Dawn Wiggins, Freedom of Info Officer, Soc Sec”

I am not a handwriting analysis expert. My conclusion, after examining the two signatures, is they have numerous differences, yet some similarities as well, so I can draw no clear impression either way. Thus, I could draw no definite conclusion, based on the signatures, concerning the authenticity of the Blaine BC document.

159 posted on 03/05/2010 12:51:47 PM PST by WhizCodger (Katie - Bar the door, then text my reply of "F U" to the NWO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 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