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

Skip to comments.

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
scribd ^ | 10/29/09 | Judge Carter

Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; carter; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; obamaisfafraud; obamathugs; orly; orlytaitz; romney4obama; romneyantigop; romneybotshere; romneybotsvsbirthers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 651-670 next last
To: kukaniloko
The oral oaths are ceremonial. There is a written oath signed shortly before the inauguration.

Got a reference to that? First I've ever heard of any written oath, for the President and VP that is. My oath was done that way. Written and oral, belt and suspenders. I've posted that observation several times, and no one ever brought up any Presidential written oath. I thought there should be one, executed any time after the counting of the electoral votes and before noon on January 20th, so I'd be anxious to see evidence that there really is a written version, presumably on file somewhere.

501 posted on 10/29/2009 6:06:29 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko

You know what koo koo - you are a plant. You have only been here since October. We have NOTHING to learn from you. CO


502 posted on 10/29/2009 6:06:48 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Feeding a t.... is wasting time!!!


503 posted on 10/29/2009 6:08:43 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: mlo

It’s YOU that doesn’t have an arguement. YOU cannot explain why this blank slate will NOT reveal a single thing about himself. That speaks volumes alone. You are clearly an Obama supporter and I understand that but your reasoning makes NO sense. WHY would you not be interested in the truth if you care about your country? Because, you drank all the Kool-Aid and now you just parrot the left’s talking points. Good luck with your future. CO


504 posted on 10/29/2009 6:13:49 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko

There is a written oath signed shortly before the inauguration.


Can you link or cite where this comes from.


505 posted on 10/29/2009 6:14:55 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

There are a few working on prying the Hawaiian door wide open at this time. Hawaii has some ‘splaning to do!!!


506 posted on 10/29/2009 6:15:48 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage

Hi CO!! Thank you and good to hear from you! I’d like to trade a few squatters here in USA - do nothings - for a few Canadians! Come on down.


507 posted on 10/29/2009 6:16:49 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"You did not answer the question. Those cases all had to do with local rules and procedures being followed or not. Not injury to opposing candidates, even though they might be the ones challenging access."

First, many of these kinds of cases fall to specific eligibility requirements of the candidates themselves. For instance, an opponent may challenge that another candidate hasn't met the residency requirements specified in a state or local law. While signatures on petitions are the most common grounds for these challenges, they aren't the only grounds for challenges on ballot access.

Be that as it may, McCain's "injury" in last years election, or the injury in any other election contest would most likely be based in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, the challenger would argue, "If an eligibility requirement applies to me, it must also equally apply to my opponent." That would easily meet the requirement of specific and unique injury that a plaintiff must meet for a case to be heard.

508 posted on 10/29/2009 6:20:20 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

LOL right now, I think I’ll stay put. We have a Christian Conservative Prime Minister right now and Canada is doing the best it has ever done. I will NEVER forget the 13 years of true RED Liberalism under Chretien and ALL the damage they did. It is still evident in our young folks today. What a terrible thing has happened to your country. CO


509 posted on 10/29/2009 6:20:25 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
Who’s been denied this?

Lack of "standing" is lack of a chance to prove your case before a jury. The jury box is the next to last box.

510 posted on 10/29/2009 6:20:27 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: CJacobs
After the swearing in, it is learned that the Chief Justice didn’t ask the age of the Speaker of the House, and just assumed that they were old enough per the Constitution.

Much more likely would a Speaker who was a Naturalized citizen, but naturalized as a child as part of their parents naturalization. (per 8 USC 1401 for example) That fact could easily get lost in the case of the Member of the House, who need not be a natural born citizen, especially if the child was quite young at the time of naturalization.

511 posted on 10/29/2009 6:25:40 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
You could also make an argument for the armed Black Panthers standing guard outside polling places as being sufficiently intimidating to people unlikely to be Obama voters.

Wrong box, the ballot box is the second box, or 3rd from the last.

But of course denying it isn't too helpful either.

512 posted on 10/29/2009 6:28:35 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I had ‘em switched too.

Thought you meant ballot box.


513 posted on 10/29/2009 6:32:42 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

An interesting take, haven’t thought about that, but one should not be surprise when you see what Glenn Beck has dished up???


514 posted on 10/29/2009 6:33:37 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: thecraw

Yes - an Orly thread is feeding time for the Obots. Their leader - who promised transparency to his groupies; yet hides who he is. They are still in the state of adoration and just as twisted as he is.


515 posted on 10/29/2009 6:33:58 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Be that as it may, McCain's "injury" in last years election, or the injury in any other election contest would most likely be based in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, the challenger would argue, "If an eligibility requirement applies to me, it must also equally apply to my opponent." That would easily meet the requirement of specific and unique injury that a plaintiff must meet for a case to be heard.

Would that also not equally apply to Keyes or any other candidate on the ballot?

Problem is, there is no requirement, except in Hawaii, for candidates for the general election to certify that they meet the Constitutional requirement in order to appear on the ballot. So, in not doing that, Obama was not treated any differently than McCain or Keyes, who also were not required to certify eligibility, although IIRC, the Republicans did it anyway.

516 posted on 10/29/2009 6:35:33 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Secondly, which of the causes for impeachment listed above does "not eligible?" come under? It's a not a crime to not be eligible, not even a misdomeanor. It's not Treason to not be eligible, and there have been no formal accusations of Bribery.
"Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a very broad ground for accusation, including obstruction of justice for Nixon and perjury for Clinton. The other "high crime" which would presumably provide grounds for impeachment of Obama would be some variety of fraud, which would be the appropriate charge if Obama claimed to be eligible to be President, when he in fact was not. Ultimately, though, since the House has the sole ability to impeach, it also has the sole ability to define the grounds for impeachment. The House then, of course, must persuade the Senate to convict.
517 posted on 10/29/2009 6:40:01 PM PDT by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Leo Donofrio is impressed with Judge Carter's ruling. He said all along this case of Orly's would fail, and now it's quo warranto time. His blog is here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/judge-carter-the-writ-of-quo-warranto-must-be-brought-within-the-district-of-columbia-because-president-obama-holds-office-within-that-district/

(From Leo's blog) Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.

518 posted on 10/29/2009 6:46:42 PM PDT by thecraw (God allows evil...God allowed Hussein...Lord willing he'll give us Sarah to clean up the huge mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
What a terrible thing has happened to your country. CO

Well, we kinda knew it would happen but didn't know how. I had no idea how clueless some Americans are - and some here. However, I'm more concerned about our military than these useless idiots here.

We have a Christian Conservative Prime Minister right now and Canada is doing the best it has ever done.

That's good news!! That's why you are blessed and highly favored now - the voters did the right thing! When there is evil at the top, we are cursed - and we can see it all being played out. Voters fell for the deception and some here are still gleeful about it.

On this conservative site and in our political arena - one can see who is wheat and who is chaff. May God continue to bless you, CO, and Canada!
519 posted on 10/29/2009 6:48:17 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Just so. The more different routes we pursue, the better. Those who think that this distracts from more important issues, are, IMHO, mistaken.

Of course we should be concerned about healthcare. But it helps us with healthcare when Obama’s numbers drop, and one of the many things that are making his numbers drop are doubts about his past which the press managed to cover up earlier.


520 posted on 10/29/2009 6:49:44 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
***That’s just ducking. If they wanted to look into it, there was plenty to look at. They made their choice and now that this stuff is going on in the courts, it could make them look very compromised. There was a reason why the founding fathers gave SCOTUS employment for life, it was to keep them from considering the political ramifications of their decisions and choosing selfishly. The system did not work in this case.

The Supreme Court does not look into anything; they are not an investigative body.

521 posted on 10/29/2009 6:53:51 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"Would that also not equally apply to Keyes or any other candidate on the ballot?"

It might. Carter doesn't completely discount Keyes as a plaintiff with standing. Furthermore, you would probably find a more sympathetic ear in a state court and in a pre-election suit, where the "stakes" would be so much more dilluted - you'd just be arguing someone either should or should not be on the state ballot.

"Problem is, there is no requirement, except in Hawaii, for candidates for the general election to certify that they meet the Constitutional requirement in order to appear on the ballot."

I can't speak to HI or the other 48 states, but I can address my state OH. Ohio's revised code does require that candidates in primary and general elections for POTUS sign a "Declaration of Candidacy" (the process is outlined on the Ohio Secretary of State website). That candidacy requires that you swear, under penalty of "election falsification", that you are Constitutionally eligible for the office of President.

This is one reason I'm so dubious of the many stories that have come out recently that there was some impropriety with the DNC's certifications of eligibility. Ohio doesn't accept a standardized form. They only accept their own, propriety declaration of candidacy. I suspect Ohio isn't alone in that requirement.

522 posted on 10/29/2009 6:54:18 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Thanks friend. I know, I was just reading this morning in Proverbs, “Where the rulers are evil the people groan, when the rulers are Godly, the people rejoice”. Sounds about like now huh? CO


523 posted on 10/29/2009 7:02:31 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Evidence of what? The COLB is only prima facia (meaning at first impression) evidence of the information on it

Yes, that is correct. That means that unless you can show the document to be invalid, his date and place of birth are legally established to be as given on the COLB. That proves that he is at least 35 years of age and American-born. More might be needed for other cases, and if you think more is needed here, the burden is on you to prove it.
524 posted on 10/29/2009 7:08:46 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
Jesus Murphy - IT IS CLEARLY FALSE.

Ummm, what is CLEARLY FALSE? If you mean the COLB, it's certainly not clear to me. Make your case.
525 posted on 10/29/2009 7:08:50 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

I have said before that he has one hand on his keyboard, and the other hand somewhere else below, every time he posts here!!!


526 posted on 10/29/2009 7:12:18 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; mlo

Yes, Congress certainly has the power to subpoena individuals and documents, but congress, in addition to being controlled by the democrat party is an institution that is not predisposed to rock the boat. It would take some outside influence such as a court determination of lack of eligibility to force them to act.

My point is that any case filed in court must demonstrate a tangible damage and seek a type relief available to the judge before it can proceed to the discovery or hearing stage. In the event the plaintiff ultimately wins, it is the weight of a federal court ruling that would pressure the congress to act.


527 posted on 10/29/2009 7:14:56 PM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage

Perfect! One part of that scripture Canada is proof, the other part USA is proof - that His Word is true and every man a liar!


528 posted on 10/29/2009 7:22:52 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko

Hey newbie; I live under NAZI tyranny for five years when my country was invaded by thugs very similar to your friend usurper’s Chicago style brown-shirts temporarily now occupying OUR W.H. I pretty much experienced, for real, a situation you refers to!!!


529 posted on 10/29/2009 7:34:01 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
can show the document to be invalid

Has the document proven to be valid?
530 posted on 10/29/2009 7:37:16 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Prof. Jorgen

I just asked you a simple question and you did NOT answer it!!!


531 posted on 10/29/2009 7:37:54 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Has the document proven to be valid?

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, official state documents are presumed to be valid. The burden is on the challenger to show otherwise.
532 posted on 10/29/2009 7:45:31 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Lurking Libertarian

You know what I’ve always found so strange about that statement, especially coming from a judge now. When I was with the LP working on a Presidential Campaign, and a US Senate campaign, and a CO House campaign — I didn’t know ANYONE who ever said as a candidate (one I was volunteering or working for or otherwise), or a campaign volunteer that wanted to NOT win, or was in the race just to hurt Republicans (as many Conservatives think - of all 3rd parties that is, not just the LP and the Rep “equation”...).

In fact, when I sat on the BOD for LPCO there wasn’t one of us in that room that EVER made a decision based on “losing” an election. There are SO many “natural” obstacles in place for 3rd parties to overcome — especially in the media (think we had it bad trying to expose Obama? Imagine just trying to get your candidate OUT there in a 3rd party!).

Now, I will admit that in states where one has to win a certain percentage of the state’s percentage in a Statewide and/or National election a 3rd party may run a candidate in some states and not others. Then, there is also getting ON the ballot in some states which was hard — even for the LP which had money to pay workers (I know nothing of other 3rd parties) we STILL had to work our BUTTS off like CRAZY to go around (walking) and getting petition signatures in MANY states — no small number of signatures when you are talking about ballot access in a Presidential election. We were lucky in Colorado as our candidates had done pretty well in past elections, and we had a public citizenry as well as politicians who encouraged 3rd party involvement in the process. As a matter of fact, the year I sat on the BOD we ran MORE candidates than the DEMOCRATS did that year — and again, not ONE of them didn’t WANT to win - their actual real prospect of winning due to various campaign problems notwithstanding. And, it had nothing to do with viewpoints as much as non-professional politicians wanting to SERVE their communities who just didn’t know what to do in order to get “in the game” so to speak, those who had no real idea how to raise money for their campaign (it’s not as easy as it would seem - 3rd party candidates run on issues not on party recognition in most cases), or just those who plain did NOT understand the time committment required to RUN a good campaign (especially without enough money to pay professionals salary to help!).

I just wanted to put this out there because I got SO tired of hearing this attitude/belief when I was with the LP, and even now — even when I no longer support any particular party and consider myself an Independent Conservative — it STILL bothers me. As Conservatives we should NEVER undervalue a 3rd party candidate. If people valued party name over CONTENT of CHARACTER (as the Dems did in this last election in fact) the GOP would not exist, and may NEVER have existed.

Knowing that Judge Carter has said this now makes me actually a LOT more upset with this judgment because he made this ruling without considering the fact that had Obama been HONEST it would’ve been an entirely different ballgame for EVERY candidate in EVERY race, really... No-one can really KNOW what would’ve happened had Obama been forthright at the same time McCain was right after the primaries. I don’t know for sure, but depending upon the deadlines in various states for ballot access, etc... Third party candidates might have found themselves with potential HUGE turnouts had Obama been exposed as a fraud.

OK, I know this response is SO much longer than your quick one. I apologize for that. Honestly thought it ticks me off that a judge would use this line of BS within his ruling and when looking upon standing of Keyes.

To me, hearing this line of argument against 3rd parties, is like the Obama blinded trolls continually making fun of ALL of us so-called “birthers” on these threads, and elsewhere.

It also sort of reminds me of the feeling I got when that other judge said this issue had been “decided” in the blogs and on twitter so why should he consider it? (Sorry I don’t remember his name now...).

[I hope this makes sense I may not have explained this as clearly as perhaps I could have, please ask me to explain if I’ve confused you (or anyone else reading this) — I’ve got a killer headache from running errands in stores filled with hyper Halloween shoppers, and kids! I don’t like Wal-mart during this time of year — not even for a quick “pick-up”.]


533 posted on 10/29/2009 7:47:39 PM PDT by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ ANTI-OBAMA STUFF : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Yes, so true!! CO


534 posted on 10/29/2009 7:49:55 PM PDT by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Please cool down and let the day shift play here alone!!!


535 posted on 10/29/2009 7:51:31 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: wideminded; BigGuy22

No, that’s was just one part of the information I was speaking of, and at the time as I was rushing I could NOT even remember the dude’s name I was “seeing” in my mind as I remembered the post I had previously saved months ago...

ANYWAY, ran errands, made dinner, ate, cleaned up dinner, ran some more errands, and now I’ve got a killer headache so any “research type reading” will have to wait — or others can fill people in if they would be so kind as to do so... I know I won’t be able to get to it tonight - I think it’s a migraine. :(


536 posted on 10/29/2009 7:55:26 PM PDT by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ ANTI-OBAMA STUFF : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with what Leo Donofrio and others are doing challenging the Hawaiian law on full disclosure AFTER the usurper’s COLB has been displayed on a few sites, and especially Dr. Fukino’s press release???


537 posted on 10/29/2009 8:01:48 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I was referring to his final decision. There is NO way to describe your asinine comments and know it all attitude on Orly threads. You don't have the brass to take on what Orly did - lackey's are only capable of criticizing.

If Orly got smacked, fined, disbarred - that cannot take away her character and the guts - inner strength - she has to stand up for our country and OUR MILITARY on a MAJOR issue. All you piss ants who come here to criticize Orly can't hold a candle to her. What wusses!
538 posted on 10/29/2009 8:02:08 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Sorry about the migraine — been there! — and I look forward to taking it up with you another time.


539 posted on 10/29/2009 8:04:08 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
'There is NO way to describe your asinine comments and know it all attitude on Orly threads."

Oh, there is. I actually understand how the law works, Orly - and her band of merrymorons - don't, in any way. I've practiced law for 25 years, I haven't been sanctioned a single time. Orly has been practicing for 25 minutes and is already at $20K and facing at least one bar complaint, and given Carter's remarks, probably at least one additional complaint.

She's a joke - not only as a lawyer, but as a conservative as well.

540 posted on 10/29/2009 8:10:38 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
If Orly got smacked, fined, disbarred - that cannot take away her character and the guts - inner strength - she has to stand up for our country and OUR MILITARY on a MAJOR issue.

It's interesting, it almost sounds like you would like her to be a martyr. It sounds like you're egging her on, like you're encouraging her to produce the kind of pleadings you she submitted on Rhodes.

Not that I think you lack the guts - inner strength - to get disbarred yourself; I think the evidence shows that pretty well.
541 posted on 10/29/2009 8:12:51 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

From what I read cursorily of the opinion, Keyes and the other candidate-plaintiffs came closer to standing than any of the others; however, that was knocked out becaue of the timing of the filing of the brief, i.e., after BHO was no longer a candidate or even president-elect, but had already been sworn in. I have to read it more carefully.


542 posted on 10/29/2009 8:15:47 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Thank you. See post # 529!!!


543 posted on 10/29/2009 8:17:39 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: mlo; LucyT; rodguy911; Las Vegas Ron; BP2; MHGinTN; pissant; Gemsbok; little jeremiah; ...

In the past year, you have posted ONLY on BC threads, harassing and starting fights. You post on no other threads. It’s easy to check people, just go look. You basically were MIA from 2004-2006-2007. Then you came back with a vengeance and for a solid year, have done nothing on FR excpet defend Obongo on the BC threads and start fights. Is that the only topic that interests you? How odd.


544 posted on 10/29/2009 8:26:59 PM PDT by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
official state documents are presumed to be valid - The burden is on the challenger to show otherwise.

I asked was document PROVEN to be valid. There are forgeries daily, money, BC's, drivers licenses. So why is 'being assumed' valid - proof to you of something being valid.

Why are bars heavily fined and/or closed down when they allow someone underage in but person has shown a birth certificate that shows they are of age? Isn't the bar owner entitled to the same assumption - that it's valid?

A cop - if he/she has suspicion that a drivers license is not legit - he has the power to make sure it is! He doesn't have to assume anything!

Yet, to hold the highest office in the land - the courts, the voters, the military are to assume a document is valid and not question the validity. Even when $1+M is spent to prevent any questions/searching to prove the documents validity.
545 posted on 10/29/2009 8:31:00 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
LOL, very cute how you snipped the first words of my answer.

I said, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, official state documents are presumed to be valid. These are not rules I made up; it's the law.

So you can spout on and on about how unfair you think it is, but there's no point in arguing with me. The law is what it is, as much as you may rail against it.
546 posted on 10/29/2009 8:35:50 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

547 posted on 10/29/2009 8:37:31 PM PDT by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
'These are not rules I made up; it's the law."

In birtherdom, the FRCP, the FRE, US Code, reams of case law and common law and even the Constitution are completely and entirely irrelevant. If you say otherwise, you must be working for Barack Obama in the basement of the White House. Don't waste your time pointing out facts - they won't be listened to.

548 posted on 10/29/2009 8:39:38 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (Obamacare - So bad, even Joe Lieberman isn't going to vote for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
It sounds like you're egging her on, like you're encouraging her

Get off your seat, your brains need some oxygen! Is Orly on this thread? You can't handle anyone w/gumption as you type away your worthless dribble. The lady's got guts - chow down on that, chippy!

Inner strength - I understand how you twisted that - lackey's have no idea what it is.

Big Guy - get used to it - a little lady named Orly has more character, more guts, more tenacity than you could ever hope for. A wuss she isn't!! Win, lose or draw - she fought the good fight while you only typed away!
549 posted on 10/29/2009 8:47:05 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: danamco; BP2; LucyT; mojitojoe; pissant; Red Steel; Beckwith; Danae; MestaMachine; Polarik; bert

When the moderator removes my post #309 yet ignores the post of obot deckhand (#320) using as ‘offensive’ language, you can bet there is little reason to continue on FR threads where the speshul obamanoid goonsquad is working freerepublic. Such moderator bias is becoming common of late.


550 posted on 10/29/2009 8:47:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 651-670 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