Posted on 02/04/2012 5:43:26 AM PST by broken_arrow1
Not sure about that -- look at it from the judge's point of view -- from either the birther thing or the "Fast & Furious" scheme toppler; and, say, Obama could be deposed right today --
Who would you put in his place? Joe Biden?
“SCOTUS will decide”
Good luck with that. Peruse the recent opinion of Comrad/Justice Ginsburg that the Constitution is old and outdated.
I told everyone the fix was in. Anyone that expected this to yield the truth or justice was clearly delusional.
Obama and his lawyers don’t show, they poke the judge in the eye with a stick, legally speaking, and then the judge gives them a slam dunk and the gold key to the executive lounge.
Predictions:
SCOTUS will rule in favor of Obama care, but in such a mealy mouthed way that both sides will claim success, while in reality everyone will know Obamacare is the complete victor.
Unemployment is miraculously going to be below 8% by the end of the summer. No matter how many more people are out of work.
Romney will be blown out of the water by the Dems within weeks of getting the nomination, and will lose bigger than McCain did; his ads against Obama will be a milk toast love fest compared to the hit pieces he did on Newt.
Obama will appoint 2 communist oriented judges to the SC before the end of 2013. The rulings from there on will signal a clear all out war on liberty.
This country will never straighten out until the corruption in our government is stopped. From congress insider trading to Dept of Justice flaunting the laws and the President tearing up the Constitution we have the most corrupt government in our history.
There isn’t going to be any civil war.
"How does a judge determine Obama was “born in the USA” when he was presented with evidence of a FRAUDULENT birth record??"It appears that Judge Malihi found the witnesses (BC/SS#) were
'never tendered or qualified as experts'and dismissed the (BC/SS#) evidence based on the
lack of probative value. My understanding is, since Obama wasn't represented in this case, there could be no affirmation of the qualification of plaintiff's witnesses, so the plaintiff's evidence was of questionable/no legal value.
Shakespeare, The Tempest.
There isn’t going to be any civil war.
What mystifies me is why, with the Gazillion lawyers this country has churned out, hasn’t ONE well experienced high energy LITIGATOR stepped forward to help Orly and the other lawuers clean up their court room and document submission acts?????
Anyone who has watched an episode or two of Perry Mason or any other American Courtroom Drama scene knows about establishing the bona fides of an “expert witness”. How could ALL THREE of these lawyers blow such a BASIC trial procedure????
DO they ALL think that the qualification process is for the defense’s benefit alone, and since the defense was present, the expertness of the witnesses needn’t be established for the court record?????????
How in the he$$ can they expect a jury or judge to accept the testimony of an “expert witness” if the qualifications of the “expert witnesses” hasn’t been established???
UTTERLY and TOTALLY stupifying and disappointing that this group of lawyers, with ALL their BEST INTENTIONS committed such a moronic misstep during their one and probably ONLY real shot at finally bringing this whole stinking mess to the forefront of American discourse.
Why hasn’t Judicial Watch or one of the other watchdog groups with REAL, SEASONED litigators gotten involved in helping to prosecute this issue? WHO cares about the minor petty issues they are all wasting donated funds on when there is a travesty of this magnitude being perpetrated on this once great country???
PATHETIC 8-((
IMR 4350 asked: “Who from the defense disputed they were experts?”
Doesn’t the defense have to accept the qualifications of plaintiffs expert witnesses?
In this case, the defense wasn’t represented. It appears, all Obama has to do, is remain in contempt of court - simply refuse to present a defense and don’t show up.
There just is no denying that the birth certificate presented is a forgery. There is no denying that Obama (if that is his real name) is not a natural born citizen. There is no denying that Obama is using a fraudulent SS # issued to someone else. Not to mention that he is a radical Marxist, Muslim, traitor.
Have a nice day.
Of course not...I have said all along that if anyone thinks something will come of this...they are smoking crack.
The frustrating point here is they had a win in the bag and they choose to lose. That’s insanity.
It’s amazing when you go back and look at the crap that happened during Wilson and FDR a lot of same crony protection going on.
Sheeple aren’t interested in history nor the truth and we are being led to the slaughter.
Per Apuzo...(bears repeating) here is the Malihi fail in a nutshell:
quote
Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.
Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875.
end quote
Did you actually think the hearing was going to be about the rule of law?
No one is "naturalized AT birth." That's sophistry. Naturalization is strictly a statutory process.
By the Birther's own sainted Vittal "native born" and "natural born citizen" are interchangeable. The very first Congress itself shunned Vittal's constricting view by expanding "natural born citizen" to include those born to American citizens abroad or at sea.
This shows a few things: "natural born citizen" and "native born" are fungible and the definition of either is malliable along the lines of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.
The only "open question" that could exist for someone like Obama is if he ever made use of his possible dual citizenship or otherwise contended to be an immigrant for his benefit. If he made no assertion or positive claim, the matter is likely moot.
By contrast, George Romney was never eligible for Mexican citizenship since they had no Jus Soli policy for children of resident aliens. He was only ever American by birth and by the thinking of our first Congress and President Washington, evidenced by the "Naturalization Act of 1790," was a "natural born citizen."
My view is this: if SCOTUS took this up, they'd find "natural born citizen" is whatever Congress (and the State Dept.) says it is and interchangeable with "native born." In other words, if you weren't naturalized or never a citizen, they'd find you eligible to hold the office of POTUS. Given the nature of this SCOTUS, they'd leave questions of "divided loyalty" to the voter.
Having an attorney get hold of it and it's devastating just how much of a joke it really is.
I wouldn't be surprised if this judge steps down from the bench before he can be removed.
I guess that ends the Jindal and Rubio birther movement.
Both sides can simply choose to accept the other sides witnesses as experts or they can contest that they are not experts in their field and are given the opportunity to establish that they are not experts.
Defense did have an attorney, he chose not to appear and contest the case.
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.