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

Skip to comments.

Georgia eligibility challenge returns!
World Net Daily ^ | 02/07/12 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by Pfesser

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last
To: Harlan1196

Show me from the transcript where Irion certified any birth certificate as evidence, above and beyond anything Orly did with the documents she submitted.

Malihi gave no reason for rejecting the written evidence submitted by Orly. He merely said it was not probative. ON what basis? He never bothered to say why he rejected the probative value of each piece of evidence.

Nor did he EVER cite any probative document as the source for his “belief” or “consideration” that Obama was born in Hawaii. If he was making the case that you claim he’s making, then point out to me what words he used to actually make the case that there was a probative “birth certificate” which proved Obama’s birth facts. Quote me the words from his decision where he claims that; that would be the CENTRAL claim of his entire decision so it should be pretty easy to find.

Provide that, and then we can talk. Without it, you’ve got no leg to stand on.

Malihi’s statement that he “considered” Obama to be born in Hawaii and it being his “belief” that Obama was born in Hawaii are admissions that he has nothing besides “judge’s knowledge” to substantiate what he is claiming.

If you have a problem with me bringing up the whole “judge’s knowledge” standard that Malihi used in this decision, take it up with Malihi. Maybe you can get him to explain what probative evidence from the record he based his “belief” and “consideration” on.


151 posted on 02/10/2012 10:16:06 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

What was Plaintiff’s exhibit 1 in Welden v Obama?

Transcript here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb


152 posted on 02/10/2012 10:33:23 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
This is how Orly destroyed her case:

“At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses 2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the
testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)—(9). The weight
to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10). The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’
allegations. 3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or
fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of
their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved). None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”

If she had properly qualified her experts then her evidence would have been ok.

Obama’s birthplace was not an issue for Hatfield and Irion. They contended that Obama was ineligible because of his father. Obama did not have to answer non-existent charges. He had no obligation to say “I know my birthplace is not an issue but here is my BC anyway.”

When one lawyer stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii and the other does not challenge it or provide evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, then what reason would the judge have to question the BC that was presented? To question it would be to suspect that Irion committed a felony by knowingly representing false information as true to make his case. I guess the judge thought Irion looked like a honest man and took his word for it.

153 posted on 02/10/2012 10:38:07 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Your source doesn't appear to agree with you.
When combined with my replies about Norman Saxon it does, IMO. I should have combined them and didn't.

Is the "race" component supposed to be because Franklin used the term "swarthy" to describe the complexion of the non-English Europeans such as Russians and Swedes??
I don't know. The person you need to ask that question of has been banned. I don't speak for anybody but myself.

154 posted on 02/10/2012 11:23:51 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
The person you need to ask that question of has been banned. I don't speak for anybody but myself.

That's an interesting dodge. Didn't you just post some links to BP's Ben Franklin quotes?? What exactly was your point?? And I have no idea what you think the Norman Saxon thing is supposed to prove.

155 posted on 02/10/2012 12:17:17 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: edge919
That's an interesting dodge.
I'm not dodging a damned thing!

Didn't you just post some links to BP's Ben Franklin quotes??
Why yes, I did. If you had read what I wrote on the other thread you would see that all I was doing was giving more context than that which was given in a small snippet of an essay.

What exactly was your point??
Well now that you know why I posted the link and gave more context than a snippet you should be able to see that I had no point, nor was I trying to make one beyond...don't place as a "comprehensive" quote something that it isn't.

And I have no idea what you think the Norman Saxon thing is supposed to prove.
My point there was to show that if the non-Anglo Saxon European aspect were to be followed then the descendants of the French/Normans/Gauls (minus the Gaulic/Germanic tribes of that time) who are non-Anglo Saxon Europeans would never be eligible for POTUS.

156 posted on 02/10/2012 12:41:33 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: edge919
That affects me as one branch of my family tree is the Bergeron line and I'm as "white" as any other person of Anglo-Saxon descent. Another branch goes back to merry old England via 1760's America.
I'm a regular "smorgasbord" of various ancient nationalities and races and I wear my "headband" proudly.

I'm a mutt/mongrel/cur in every sense of the word.

157 posted on 02/10/2012 12:53:55 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

So as long as Irion “looked honest”, Malihi would have had to accept the Kenyan birth certificate.

Harlan, do you really expect anybody to take what you’re saying seriously?

Everything you’re saying reinforces my point: that Malihi decided this based on his own whims - that is “judge’s knowledge”.

Malihi couldn’t “an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of
their qualifications” - and yet he claimed to make an objective threshold determination of OBAMA’S ELIGIBLITY without ANY knowledge of his qualifications.

Double standard. The fact that he obeyed legal evidentiary standards for Taitz’ WITNESSES (though he also discounted the written documents submitted, one of which was from the Passport Office, which is supposed to have some probative value...) shows he knows what the law is. The fact that he didn’t do the same for Obama shows that he knowingly violated legal evidentiary standards.

He didn’t use “judge’s knowledge” to decide Orly’s case. He did use it to decide Irion’s.

It’s not lawful, and it stinks to high heaven. You’ve refused to answer my questions but even what you’ve said shows Malihi’s corruption.


158 posted on 02/10/2012 12:58:43 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

So what was Plaintiff’s exhibit 1 in Welden v Obama?

Transcript here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb


159 posted on 02/10/2012 1:45:20 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

And again, I still don’t know what your point is. Somewhere along the line, you had a reason for posting things, but that reason never made it to your computer keyboard.


160 posted on 02/10/2012 2:06:14 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

... to which Malihi said, “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little if any probative value ...” “Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs claims are not persuasive.”


161 posted on 02/10/2012 2:15:45 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
If you had read what I wrote on the other thread you would see that all I was doing was giving more context than that which was given in a small snippet of an essay.

Context of what?? You're not saying what your point is for needing more context of anything.

My point there was to show that if the non-Anglo Saxon European aspect were to be followed then the descendants of the French/Normans/Gauls (minus the Gaulic/Germanic tribes of that time) who are non-Anglo Saxon Europeans would never be eligible for POTUS.

Which would reinforce that what BP posted was not racist.

162 posted on 02/10/2012 2:20:33 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Perhaps we should end this conversation - we are simply talking past each other. Have a good evening.


163 posted on 02/10/2012 3:25:34 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Get a worry stone then if it bothers you that much.

164 posted on 02/10/2012 3:44:50 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Danae; Red Steel

bribe?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/nrc-sets-vote-on-proposed-ga-nuclear-plant-would-be-first-construction-approval-since-1978/2012/02/09/gIQAhV2f0Q_story.html


165 posted on 02/10/2012 4:53:46 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Mario Rubio Naturalized 1975?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81132658/MarioRubioPetitionForNaturalization-Admitted1975


166 posted on 02/10/2012 4:56:03 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Welcome to FR, so glad you are here now to straighten us all out with your brilliance!


167 posted on 02/10/2012 4:57:36 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Thanks - I feel very much at home here.


168 posted on 02/10/2012 5:01:16 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

This is a stupid reply. You’re the one who commented on something I posted with random links to BP’s comments about Ben Franklin, followed by a pointless interjection about Norman Saxons. If anyone was worried, it was you by posting THREE different times in reply to me when you weren’t part of the previous conversation.


169 posted on 02/11/2012 12:33:11 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: edge919
...when you weren’t part of the previous conversation.
Ummm...this is a public forum subject to the rules of Mr. Jim and/or his designated subordinates and I was unaware that somebody couldn't join in on a "conversation" unless they were invited.

You have the option of completely ignoring my comments if you so choose, but I hardly see how you are authorized to tell somebody, whether they be right or wrong on the issue in your view, that they can't join a conversation in progress.

170 posted on 02/11/2012 9:59:25 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

How nice of you to change the topic. No one said anything about who can and can’t join a conversation. The topic was about allegedly being “worried” about what was being posted, and I gave the context of your dialogue to illustrate that you were being a hypocrite by posting a picture of a worry stone.


171 posted on 02/11/2012 10:27:59 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Okay, let's flesh this thing out so you can get on with other things.

@BP seemed to say the intent of the founders would not just prevent Obama from being a natural-born citizen, but also those non-Anglo Saxon Europeans. That would exclude plenty of white people.

@I don't agree with your Anglo-Saxon angle. None are more Anglo-Saxon than Germans.

@The French would have been out of luck under that as well as they descended from Gauls.

@Think Norman Saxon.
So, if I understand this properly, BP was saying, as he understood things, people of German (Saxon)/French (Norman) descent couldn't be POTUS. The phrase used was non-Anglo Saxon. By that reasoning basically only those of British/German (Anglo/Saxon) descent could be POTUS. Yet strangely enough Anglo-Saxons comprise only a small part of Britain because after the Norman (French)/Saxon (German) invasion their descendents predominately became Anglo-Normans after the Norman conquest of 1066. William was from Normandy (French) and Normandy was previously taken over by the Saxons/Franks (the Franks were Germans).

@Is the "race" component supposed to be because Franklin used the term "swarthy" to describe the complexion of the non-English Europeans such as Russians and Swedes??
Why are you asking me when, IMO, Franklin did a fine job of expressing himself in his own words? And BP isn't here to clear up his intent so one can only presume.
All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so.
And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Tawny and swarthy...Seems pretty clear cut to me as to what "races" Franklin meant.

England is a hodgepodge of national descendents and true "non-Anglo Saxons" are a small subset of that nation.

I hope I've made myself clearer this time.

172 posted on 02/12/2012 11:07:45 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

No. You say, for example, that you think it’s clear what races Franklin is talking about when he says tawny and swarthy ... well, what races?? Which race is “swarthy”??


173 posted on 02/12/2012 11:13:57 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Ooops
...and true "non-Anglo Saxons" are a small subset of that nation.
174 posted on 02/12/2012 11:18:55 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: edge919
...well, what races?? Which race is “swarthy”??

Christ, man, Franklin's words are right there in front of your face!
And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted...

175 posted on 02/12/2012 11:22:20 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: edge919
And if you look closely at the expressions he's using he's mostly using nationalities, not race.
176 posted on 02/12/2012 11:26:15 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Furthermore, if you actually look at what he was writing about it might help understand what he was trying to say and do.

@America as a Land of Opportunity
Perhaps the most important essay written by an American during the eighteenth century, Franklin's "Observations Concerning the Increase of mankind" was one of the first serious studies of demography.

177 posted on 02/12/2012 11:32:25 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Are things clearer yet?


178 posted on 02/12/2012 11:49:11 AM 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: edge919
Judging from your silence I'll take that to mean that things are very clear.
179 posted on 02/12/2012 12:13:10 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Well this sucks. No sooner do I get through @dealing with you I have to go deal with something else.
180 posted on 02/12/2012 1:11:01 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
And if you look closely at the expressions he's using he's mostly using nationalities, not race.

This would meant that BP was NOT being racist since those quotes were about nationalities and not race. No disagreement here.

181 posted on 02/12/2012 1:18:53 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: edge919
This would meant that BP was NOT being racist since those quotes were about nationalities and not race.
Well then go petition for BP's return. It's not my call.
182 posted on 02/12/2012 1:24:15 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Then maybe Gramps should have been deported.


183 posted on 02/13/2012 1:13:06 AM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Funny that in his 90 years, no one ever suggested he wasn’t a citizen. And of course if he wasn’t, then by the same rule my mother wasn’t and I’m not. Is that about right?


184 posted on 02/13/2012 7:36:50 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

I don’t know enough of your family history to say.


185 posted on 02/13/2012 1:26:53 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Well, if you’re saying that being born here to non-citizen parents means my grandfather was a non-citizen who should have been deported, then doesn’t it follow that his children and his children’s children are also non-citizens who should be deported?


186 posted on 02/13/2012 1:45:07 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Only if your people reproduce via mitosis.


187 posted on 02/13/2012 3:03:26 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
I think it may have been the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, but I can't be sure. There may have been preceding legislation passed during the war itself.

I assume you're looking into Santorum?

188 posted on 02/13/2012 3:11:04 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

Either you recognize birthright citizenship or you don’t. Either my grandfather, born here to non-citizen parents was a citizen or he wasn’t.


189 posted on 02/13/2012 3:16:21 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

If your great-grandfather was a legal permanent resident, your grandfather would have been naturalized at birth.


190 posted on 02/13/2012 6:49:02 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

The Secretary of State would have been glad to strike Obama from the ballot as long as he didn’t have to take a politically-incorrect stance to do so.


191 posted on 02/13/2012 7:04:42 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Could you elaborate on the specific language of the Jay Treaty on this? Thanks.


192 posted on 02/13/2012 7:22:10 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 03/02/2011 | Leo Donofrio, Esq

“The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.

Those who support Obama’s eligibility – despite his admission of dual allegiance/nationality (at the time of his birth) – routinely offer a rather absurd hypothetical which sounds something like this:

“The US is sovereign and not governed by foreign law so British law shouldn’t be considered as to Presidential eligibility. What if North Korea declared that all US citizens are also citizens of North Korea? In that case, nobody would be eligible to be President if dual nationality was a determining factor. Therefore, nationality laws of the United Kingdom are irrelevant.”

Since the US recognizes both Jus Soli (citizenship born of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis (citizenship born of the blood) as to its own citizens, it has also recognized the same claims to citizenship from other nations. It is well established – by a multitude of case law and the State Department’s own foreign affairs manual [a PDF] – that the US government must respect foreign law with regard to dual nationals.

But those who support Obama’s eligibility fail to acknowledge that the far-fetched North Korea hypo has no relevance as to Obama. For we are concerned with the United Kingdom’s nationality laws. And with regard to relations between the United Kingdom and the United States there are numerous treaties which require the United States to respect British law and to recognize the status of “British subject”.

The simple concept I reference is taken directly from Article Six of the US Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Treaties are United States law. In fact, according to the Constitution, treaties are “the supreme law of the land”.

The State Department maintains a list [a PDF] of all treaties which are in effect. Articles IX and X of the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (Jay Treaty)” are still in effect between the US and United Kingdom. (See pg. 281 of the list which is 291 for PDF pg. counter). That page also refers one to, Akins v. United States, 551 F. 2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1977), which states:

“The Supreme Court decided in Karnuth that the free-passage “privilege” of Article III was wholly promissory and prospective, rather than vested, in nature.
The Court stated in comparing Articles IX and III of the Jay Treaty:

‘Article IX and Article III relate to fundamentally different things. Article IX aims at perpetuity and deals with existing rights, vested and permanent in character…’”

So it is Article IX of the Jay Treaty to which we must now turn our attention:

“It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.”
In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land – to respect the status of “British subjects”. In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them. The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.

Therefore, regardless of any far-fetched hypos concerning North Korea, or any other country for that matter, the US and the United Kingdom are required by the Jay Treaty to consult the nationality laws of each sovereign state. The Jay Treaty is both US law and British law.

By authority of the US Constitution, the Jay Treaty requires the US to recognize British subjects and to protect these rights. To properly do so, the US must rely on British law in order to recognize British subjects.

So, with respect to Great Britain, the Jay Treaty denies Obama supporters the ability to rely on their favored argument.

BRITISH SUBJECTS ARE NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS US NATIVES ACCORDING TO THE JAY TREATY.

And herein lies the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Pay special attention to the following text taken from Article IX, “…and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives…”

The statement – “as if they were natives” – strongly indicates that, by this treaty, both countries agreed that British subjects were not “natives” of the US and could not be considered “natives” of the US. Article IX simply carves out an exception to this rule which allows British subjects to be considered “as if” they were natives of the US. There were numerous policies in play at the time this treaty was signed which could have influenced this choice of words. (But more on that in the forthcoming part 2 of this report.)

The plain meaning of these words bears testament to the fact that, by this treaty, the United States acknowledges that no British subject may be considered a “native” of the United States. The treaty also establishes that no US citizen may be considered a “native” of the United Kingdom.

As most of you are well aware, John Jay’s letter to George Washington was responsible for introducing the “natural born Citizen” clause into the US Constitution.

Furthermore, at the time the Jay Treaty was signed, the UK recognized “perpetual allegiance” which meant that no British subject could throw off their required allegiance to the King. Indeed, the theory of “perpetual allegiance” was one of the main causes of the War of 1812. So, just who was and who was not a “native” of the United Kingdom and the United States was an important designation which had grave national security implications.

The Jay Treaty sought to grant the highest form of citizenship rights to those British subjects and US citizens affected by Article IX. Both countries agreed upon the one word they knew would – according to the law of nations – serve the purpose. That word was “natives”. Both states could have agreed that “British subjects” were to receive the same rights as “US citizens” and vice versa, but they didn’t.

They specifically chose the word “natives” because that word had a definitive meaning in the law of nations.

In 1984, the US Supreme Court – in TWA v. Franklin Mint Corp. – stated:

“The great object of an international agreement is to define the common ground between sovereign nations. Given the gulfs of language, culture, and values that separate nations, it is essential in international agreements for the parties to make explicit their common ground on the most rudimentary of matters. The frame of reference in interpreting treaties is naturally international, and not domestic. Accordingly, the language of the law of nations is always to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties.”

The law of nations is “always” to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties. You all know where this is going now, right?

Consider this to be just the introduction. In part 2 of this report, I will go into much greater detail.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP”

From: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/the-jay-treaty-strongly-indicates-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/


193 posted on 02/14/2012 9:02:15 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
Donofrio is brilliant, and would make a great Supreme Court Justice.

He is certainly more qualified for the position than any of the current occupants.

194 posted on 02/14/2012 9:27:06 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
I have just noticed yesterday that bushpilot1 has been zotted, and I am at a loss as to explain why. If I read him correctly, he is pointing out what was common knowledge in 1787. Many of the founders were racists.

Well Duh.

I was under the impression that everyone knew this. Apparently it was a revelation to some.

That is not to say that ALL the founders were racist. I posted information pointing out how James Otis was vehemently advocating the abolition of slavery and advocating equality for all people. Samuel Adams was well inspired by him. The efforts of many of the founders went into limiting and abolishing slavery as explicitly written into the Final Document. Even some of the Virginians were not so enamored of it, Thomas Jefferson being but one example.

Abraham Lincoln was horribly racist. I just read something from him yesterday of which I had not been previously aware. From Gerard Vanderleun

"Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form.

"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world.

"You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.

"Turn it whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent." -- Abraham Lincoln. Speech at Chicago, Illinois | July 10, 1858

Nevertheless, His policies set about making all men equal under the law, as did those of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, etc.

It was the Democrats who have always been the racists, starting with Andrew Jackson (Indian Removal Act of 1830) to Slavery, To Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scot decision, to Nathan Bedford Forest's founding of the KKK, to Margaret Sanger's Eugenics policies, thru Jim Crow, to lynching, to opposition to the civil rights act of 1964, and numerous and sundry subsequent offenses (by Democrats) to the idea that people should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

That someone should be zotted for pointing out that (some of) the founders were racist indicates an excessive sensitivity to the issue in my opinion.

195 posted on 02/29/2012 11:05:05 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Fantasywriter
"I have just noticed yesterday that bushpilot1 has been zotted, and I am at a loss as to explain why. If I read him correctly, he is pointing out what was common knowledge in 1787. Many of the founders were racists.

Well Duh.

"That someone should be zotted for pointing out that (some of) the founders were racist indicates an excessive sensitivity to the issue in my opinion."

That was my thought as well. Apparently the moderator felt differently, or took the default safe position that it would be better to forgo giving the benefit of the doubt and instead zot a six-year member rather than take the risk that FR would appear to be somehow "tolerant" of "racism".

196 posted on 02/29/2012 2:49:25 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
I have only been here (officially, lurker for several years) for slightly less than a year. Is there an appeal process? I think Bushpilot1 got a raw deal.

If I understand correctly, he was a Vietnam Era Helicopter Pilot who served in combat. He deserves more consideration.

197 posted on 02/29/2012 3:20:05 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Is there an appeal process?"

I don't know that there is a formal one. I suppose an argument could be made directly to the Admin Moderator or even to The Man Himself. That's why I copied Fantasywriter in the forgoing.

It's my understanding that Bushpilot1 and FW were pretty tight, and since FW has been here since 2000, perhaps an appeal from that quarter would carry more weight than one by either you or I, who have relatively recent FR born-on dates.

198 posted on 02/29/2012 3:40:51 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; bushpilot1

Thanks for the ping, F_J. It’s not the same w’out bushpilot1. He was a good friend, and did not have a racist bone in his body. He was zotted for less than stellar communication skills. [I.e.: he tried to make a historical point, but didn’t phrase it correctly.] It’s a shame. I miss him A Lot.


199 posted on 02/29/2012 9:43:00 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; Brown Deer
PhotobucketPhotobucket
200 posted on 03/08/2012 12:59:16 PM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 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