I may have overlook someone posting this, but I didn't see it. And, well,
I thought it should be given the light of day on the forum.
Obama could easily have lost Georgia eligibility case by “no-show” default
A hearing was held on January 26, 2012, in the Georgia Administrative Court room of Judge Michael Malihi for considering the eligibility of President Obama to appear on the Georgia 2012 Presidential Ballot.
...
It was reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily that the judge considered granting a default judgment because President Obama did not appear. However, this was not what those attorneys who brought the case wanted. They wanted a definitive decision based on the facts; and for them to be recorded as part of the court records for any future appeals.
Not appearing may have been a big mistake on Mr. Obama’s part as often times appeal judges do not wish to hear evidence that was not presented in the original hearing.
...
According to this complaint, he was born of one parent who was American and one who was subject to the United Kingdom.
If the Cons ution requirement is that a candidate for US President be that of a “natural born” citizen – and the determination is that both parents must be either born in America or be a naturalized citizen and the child born in America – then President Obama would not qualify.
The lead attorneys representing the plaintiff in this case were J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation. They said they were under no edict from the judge to remain silent about the hearing; so they felt it was prudent to let the public know that the Judge had considered ending the hearing by default since the President failed to answer a legal subpoena.
In Georgia, state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the cons utional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
The Judge determined that Georgia Law allows any citizen to challenge a candidate’s qualifications to be on the state ballot.
...
Many questions arise if the case is found to be against President Obama; and his name does not appear on the Georgia Ballot. Will it go to higher courts? For sure!
If Obama wins then will that be the end of it? If he loses how will this affect his name on the ballot of all the other states?
...
http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can...o-show-default
Arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic and holds himself above the law.
I present to you our President. But will it be his downfall?
Nothing on the networks that I have seen either.
Those aren't the requirements for being a "natural born" citizen. If you're born in this country, and he was, you're eligible to be president. That includes a kid with a Mexican mama who barely crosses the RG, and drops him on the US riverbank. NEITHER of your parents needs to be a US citizen.
Perhaps you should consider that the primary source of this article is the same website that beat the "Where is Obama's Birth Certificate?" drum for three years.
Exactly. Arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic ray and his birther friends never read the Cons ution.
Here's why this ultimately not going anywhere:
Georgia Birther Hearing Proceeds Without Obama, Without Effect
LOL @ Obama showing up to that redneck kangaroo court. It would have gotten overturned by a higher court anyway.
I never thought xray was this desperate.
That's because it's non-news.
xray bringing the extreme right-wing crap so bad it might embarrass even WC. Nothing new here.
Judging my history of posting here on SpursTalk it is obvious I am not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but wasn't Obama born in the United States?
Why did this case even get to a trial?
Good question. Check out the information below.
Minor v. Happersett () 100 U.S. 1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0162_ZO.html
And this:
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services do ents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those do ents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Do ents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, cons utionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding do ents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC do ent DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indonesian. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original do ent.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Do ent entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in do ent imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is su ious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any do ent showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original do ent would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama do ents should not be in exact same place on various do ents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s do ents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the do ent by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
......
http://www.independentamericanparty....eblow-by-blow/
Now I understand there are some lawyers on this forum and supposedly
well versed in the Cons ution. So how about they give their learned
opinion on an ongoing court case.
It is in court and will be determined by the courts in Georgia. But
I am sure the usual suspects on this forum will blow and go and show
their superior intelligence, or lack thereof, to all who will read this
thread.
Now you all have a great day.
pull it together, ray.
Gee Clam, how would we ever have a decent conversation without people like you
contributing. You are so damn brilliant in your observations.
Do you have a book with all those one liners written down. I find it doubtful you
could remember all those word in one sentence without prompting.
except, Minor v. Happerset didn't rule on citizenship; the remark about it in the opinion was obiter dictum.Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
Winehole23, my understanding is that your cited case would have no bearing on the
opinion that was submitted to the courts in Georgia. There are, the way I read it
and described by the opinion I gave "natural born" citizens and other citizens, not
natural born.
And this opinion has never been superseded by any court. And I don't see where
your citation changes that since the opinion you gave cites the 14th amendment
which did not alter the opinion given in my post.
But I am not making a binding decision, that will be up to the court in Georgia and
on up the line if the judge rules against Obama.
You and I posted at same time. I posted not knowing you latest post.....
any reaction to that?
Orly Taitz is a serial abuser of process. Following the train of her legal arguments mightn't be advisable.
I went back and read my original post and link. Putting in the context of
your citation about the opinion I cited was obiter dictum. It does shed
a different light, if what you said is true. Not doubting you, but I didn't
"literally" find that written....
I assume and could be wrong, you based your post on the fact that in
the opinion I posted the Judge wrote several times what he wrote really
had no bearing on the case at hand. A woman's right to vote.
My post is about a clear as mud, for that I apologize. But I thought about
trying to re-word my post, but I am not a lawyer, so I will leave it alone
and hope it is understandable.
About you other post about the abuser. It was my understanding she
was only a part of the case, the birther thing. Which I have no idea
if his birth certificate is a true copy of not. But IMO nothing is above
these cats and their shenanigans. Any President who has cir vented
our laws and Cons ution like him and his administration, I feel they are
capable of anything.
uh oh
treating obiter dictum as a holding is an example of Taitz's legal incompetence. That the obiter dictum related to birth citizenship in Minor v Happerset has never been overruled is of no consequence. Courts don't overrule btws.
That is correct. Minor v Happerset turned on privileges and immunities, not citizenship.
in this respect Obama strongly resembles his predecessor.
They don't. They why appeal a "ruling" to a higher court? Then can
we say "judges" overrule? (I'll bet the ninth in California would argue with
you about "overruled())
Obiter dictum[Latin, By the way.] Words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case. A remark made or opinion expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause, "by the way", that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before the court or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Such are not binding as precedent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
