GA judge denies motion; orders Obama to appear in court 1/26

[aloneibreak]

Here is a blow by blow by someone at the hearing in Georgia today:

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

.

thanks for linking to that update

[uthminsta]

I don't understand. They think this is going to take him off the ballot for the NEXT election... which is a good thing. But why isn't their emphasis TAKING HIM OUT BEFORE THEN? Or declaring the enactments/decisions of someone ineligible for office to be unconstitutional, and revoking those decisions?

[IdahoCopper]

I don't understand. They think this is going to take him off the ballot for the NEXT election... which is a good thing. But why isn't their emphasis TAKING HIM OUT BEFORE THEN? Or declaring the enactments/decisions of someone ineligible for office to be unconstitutional, and revoking those decisions?

It is best to fight a battle that can be won. Who knows how fast things could snowball against Zero, once this thing in Georgia is finished.

[theo]

Wow! I thought they were just going to address Habbersett, but they also have expert testimony that both his SS# and birth certificate are fraudulent. Even if the judge rules in favor of Obama on a technicality, you have evidence which has been submitted to and accepted by a court of law; evidence that can be submitted to other courts. Obama will have to respond to this evidence at some point.

[theo]

Before we get too excited. Here is an account of the proceedings from another newspaper.

http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-us ... ring-today

There has been much controversy in just what a “natural born” citizen really is. The only place in the Constitution where that phrase is used is in the qualifications for one to become President. Other cases have been decided on just what constitutes a “citizen,” but the Supreme Court has never given an opinion to what the term “natural born citizen” means.
While conferring with a Constitutional Law Professor in Texas, it was asked if the Supreme Court had ever defined that phrase and his answer was:

“You are correct that the U.S. Supreme Court has never made a definitive decision on the meaning of the term. However, I believe, and many legal scholars agree that it means that a person must be born on U.S. soil or territory and/or have parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. Obama's own birth certificate that he produced shows that his father was a citizen of Kenya. I believe that the court in Georgia is looking at the situation for that reason and whatever the judge decides will eventually reach the Supreme Court.” Michael Connelly

The counter arguement here is that in Happersett SCOTUS defines what a natural born citizen is, but does not clearly state what it is not. SCOTUS points out (almost in passing) that Minor is a natural born citizen because she was born in the U.S. and had two U.S. citizens for parents. This statement implies but does not explicitly state that both conditions must be met in order to confer natural born citizen status. This allows room for detractors to make the "and/or" argument. Having said that I believe historical documents exist which show that the framers intended for both conditions to be met.

[HPMBTT]

There is more than enough substantial evidence to clearly indicate what a natural-born citizen is, vs a citizen.

Here is more conclusive proof, over at Leo Donofrio's website (link from Oct 2011): http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -eligible/

Leo also indicates that the justia.com website intentionally removed/manipulated pieces of the Minor vs. Happersett outcome on their website, prior to the Nov 2008 election: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -election/

[agmoose]

Hmmm, and today word comes that Hillary is planning to step down as Sec of State..........maybe she is seeing an opp to run as the DNC candidate when this blows up.

[Engineer]

Geitner has also said that he doesn't expect to be there for Obama's second term.

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Before we get too excited. Here is an account of the proceedings from another newspaper.

http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-us ... ring-today

[b][i]There has been much controversy in just what a “natural born” citizen really is. The only place in the Constitution where that phrase is used is in the qualifications for one to become President. Other cases have been decided on just what constitutes a “citizen,” but the Supreme Court has never given an opinion to what the term “natural born citizen” means.
.

Hmmmm... I don't think that is correct. You must consider the Elg case from 1939.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."

This case has some similarities to the situation with BHO. He has a birth certificate that says he was born here. His parents took him out of the country and he was a child citizen there. Then Obama came back home. The biggest difference is BHO's father. BHO senior was never a US Citizen, nor would have accepted an offer of citizenry for he was a rising star within the Kenyan government.

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830) states that people born on US soil are US citizens. It also states that citizenship follows the father, thus, BHO is a citizen of the USA. He is also a citizen of Kenya and thus a British Subject, for his citizenry follows that of his father, BHO, sr. Dual citizens do not qualify as natural born Citizens because of conflicting allegiance to more than one country.

That is how the founders and framers of the constitution wanted it. They would have viewed a dual citizen, a citizen of the British Empire with horror. They had spent most of their lives in fear of Great Britain and had purchased their freedom at a very high cost. The cost of their blood, treasure, the lose of their loved ones and posterity. They would be rolling over in their graves if they knew a British Subject now was the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military.

[Roadrunner]

I have one question:

Why is this completely new news to me? I follow the news, but I have to go Realcent to get my news?!?

[68Camaro]

Before we get too excited. Here is an account of the proceedings from another newspaper.

http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-us ... ring-today

[b][i]There has been much controversy in just what a “natural born” citizen really is. The only place in the Constitution where that phrase is used is in the qualifications for one to become President. Other cases have been decided on just what constitutes a “citizen,” but the Supreme Court has never given an opinion to what the term “natural born citizen” means.
.

Hmmmm... I don't think that is correct. You must consider the Elg case from 1939.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."

This case has some similarities to the situation with BHO. He has a birth certificate that says he was born here. His parents took him out of the country and he was a child citizen there. Then Obama came back home. The biggest difference is BHO's father. BHO senior was never a US Citizen, nor would have accepted an offer of citizenry for he was a rising star within the Kenyan government.

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830) states that people born on US soil are US citizens. It also states that citizenship follows the father, thus, BHO is a citizen of the USA. He is also a citizen of Kenya and thus a British Subject, for his citizenry follows that of his father, BHO, sr. Dual citizens do not qualify as natural born Citizens because of conflicting allegiance to more than one country.

That is how the founders and framers of the constitution wanted it. They would have viewed a dual citizen, a citizen of the British Empire with horror. They had spent most of their lives in fear of Great Britain and had purchased their freedom at a very high cost. The cost of their blood, treasure, the lose of their loved ones and posterity. They would be rolling over in their graves if they knew a British Subject now was the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military.

While I follow your logic, it breaks down at the end, as both BHO and his father hates/hated the Brits as much as anyone can. You need to sharpen that part of your argument a bit.

[uthminsta]

Why is this completely new news to me?

This is what my best friend said. He was quite angry that there was absolutely NO coverage of this. And by coverage, I don't mean the mainstream media -- we all expect them to sweep this under the rug. It doesn't fit their agenda -- but this seems to be NOWHERE. I sure hope it blows up so big, causing REAL consequences, they all end up HAVING to report it. It will be a delicious day when I get to see them playing catchup. Or maybe they are just writing their spin right now, so when the world finds out about all this, it will all be about "Republicans on a witch-hunt... badmouthing our beloved King O."

[Mossy]

There has to be something going on to keep this out of the news, and off even the conservative blogs.

[HPMBTT]

I have one question:

Why is this completely new news to me? I follow the news, but I have to go Realcent to get my news?!?

This is news to you because the lame stream media has never reported it, both before AND after the Nov 2008 election. I have been researching and following this since summer 2008. The lame stream media has been bought and paid for a LONG time ago...and WAY before 2008.

There has to be something going on to keep this out of the news, and off even the conservative blogs.

That's correct.

[HPMBTT]

[quote="theo"]Before we get too excited. Here is an account of the proceedings from another newspaper.

http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-us ... ring-today

[b][i]There has been much controversy in just what a “natural born” citizen really is. The only place in the Constitution where that phrase is used is in the qualifications for one to become President. Other cases have been decided on just what constitutes a “citizen,” but the Supreme Court has never given an opinion to what the term “natural born citizen” means.

Theo - this is the newspaper speculating, at best. There is NO controversy. The Supreme Court gave a direct and firm statement/opinion in Minor vs. Happersett (1874). Here is what the Supreme Court stated:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

In addition, you may also read NJ attorney Leo Donofrio's direct and conclusive opinion on this here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... visited-2/

[theo]

Before we get too excited. Here is an account of the proceedings from another newspaper.

http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-us ... ring-today

[b][i]There has been much controversy in just what a “natural born” citizen really is. The only place in the Constitution where that phrase is used is in the qualifications for one to become President. Other cases have been decided on just what constitutes a “citizen,” but the Supreme Court has never given an opinion to what the term “natural born citizen” means.

Theo - this is the newspaper speculating, at best. There is NO controversy. The Supreme Court gave a direct and firm statement/opinion in Minor vs. Happersett (1874). Here is what the Supreme Court stated:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

In addition, you may also read NJ attorney Leo Donofrio's direct and conclusive opinion on this here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... visited-2/

I agree the newspaper was spinning the facts to fit their world view. I just thought it was important to bring up the counter-argument flawed as it may be. Although Happersett makes a compelling argument by stating those who were born in the U.S. of parents who are citizens are natural-born. However it does not state definatively that those born on U.S. on soil of at least one non-citizen parent are not natural born citizens. Even though you and I might agree this is clearly implied, it may have just enough vagueness for Obama's lawyer's to make an argument.

I doubt our court system will allow Happersett be the final word on this. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to rule here. Now if they follow the law and the intent of the framers, they should rule against Obama. However, this is a politically charged case with the potential to turn Washington on its ear and make our nation a laughing stock. We might relish the idea of our Federal Government grinding to a halt, but I fear the economy would closely follow suit (at least for short time) as businesses would be unsure whether Obama's thousands of laws, rules and regulations still hold legal force. Thus, most judges (even conversatives) will likely be instinctively baised toward overturning Happersett.

[uthminsta]

Next step... Schwarzenegger!




PS: I spelled that right without looking it up. how about that!

[HPMBTT]

Before we get too excited. Here is an account of the proceedings from another newspaper.

http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-us ... ring-today

[b][i]There has been much controversy in just what a “natural born” citizen really is. The only place in the Constitution where that phrase is used is in the qualifications for one to become President. Other cases have been decided on just what constitutes a “citizen,” but the Supreme Court has never given an opinion to what the term “natural born citizen” means.

Theo - this is the newspaper speculating, at best. There is NO controversy. The Supreme Court gave a direct and firm statement/opinion in Minor vs. Happersett (1874). Here is what the Supreme Court stated:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

In addition, you may also read NJ attorney Leo Donofrio's direct and conclusive opinion on this here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... visited-2/

I agree the newspaper was spinning the facts to fit their world view. I just thought it was important to bring up the counter-argument flawed as it may be. Although Happersett makes a compelling argument by stating those who were born in the U.S. of parents who are citizens are natural-born. However it does not state definatively that those born on U.S. on soil of at least one non-citizen parent are not natural born citizens. Even though you and I might agree this is clearly implied, it may have just enough vagueness for Obama's lawyer's to make an argument.

I doubt our court system will allow Happersett be the final word on this. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to rule here. Now if they follow the law and the intent of the framers, they should rule against Obama. However, this is a politically charged case with the potential to turn Washington on its ear and make our nation a laughing stock. We might relish the idea of our Federal Government grinding to a halt, but I fear the economy would closely follow suit (at least for short time) as businesses would be unsure whether Obama's thousands of laws, rules and regulations still hold legal force. Thus, most judges (even conversatives) will likely be instinctively baised toward overturning Happersett.

With all respect, I don't find it to be vague at all. Also, this is NOT a political issue; this is a legal issue.

Having said that, I do agree with you, Theo, in that the powers that be could try to intentionally provoke citizens (directly or indirectly) into some sort of violence (especially uneducated minorities), which would then allow them to implement some sort of martial law or any variants thereof. On a separate note, there is also a possibility that we have already been in a continuous state of martial law since the 1860s (Lincoln), although I have not researched that thoroughly. I'll just stick with this particular issue.

In the end, I think we can win with just one thing: Education. The more that become educated, the better off we will be.

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."

This case has some similarities to the situation with BHO. He has a birth certificate that says he was born here. His parents took him out of the country and he was a child citizen there. Then Obama came back home. The biggest difference is BHO's father. BHO senior was never a US Citizen, nor would have accepted an offer of citizenry for he was a rising star within the Kenyan government.

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830) states that people born on US soil are US citizens. It also states that citizenship follows the father, thus, BHO is a citizen of the USA. He is also a citizen of Kenya and thus a British Subject, for his citizenry follows that of his father, BHO, sr. Dual citizens do not qualify as natural born Citizens because of conflicting allegiance to more than one country.

That is how the founders and framers of the constitution wanted it. They would have viewed a dual citizen, a citizen of the British Empire with horror. They had spent most of their lives in fear of Great Britain and had purchased their freedom at a very high cost. The cost of their blood, treasure, the lose of their loved ones and posterity. They would be rolling over in their graves if they knew a British Subject now was the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military.

While I follow your logic, it breaks down at the end, as both BHO and his father hates/hated the Brits as much as anyone can. You need to sharpen that part of your argument a bit.

I don't know that I can sharpen my logic to fit what you want to hear, but I will try.

The purpose of the natural born Citizen clause is so that only a person with sole alliance to the United States of America will become the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army (Military ). It is not my logic, but the logic of the framers of the Constitution. Here is the original language of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in a letter to George Washington on July 25 1787 (This was during the deliberations of writing our current Constitution):

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The founders & framers did not want foreign influence to take control of the American Army.

It does not matter if BHO hates the British. He has multiple citizenships none the less. His citizenship issues are controlled by too many laws for me to list here. Two are Sailor's Snug Harbor (1830) and Elg (1939) I mentioned earlier. Another is the British Nationality Act of 1949. Britain claims him as one of their own.

Also he is a citizen of Kenya. BHO traveled to Kenya, and as a Kenyan citizen campaigned for the election of the now current leader of Kenya. He did this while he was a US Senator in violation of federal law.

Twice he has done what no US President has ever done before him. He has bowed to reigning monarchs. Bowing to a monarch is an act of a feif, a subject, not the leader of the free world.

That is the best I can do right now, Camero. If it does not help, maybe HPMBTT will jump in and help.

[slickeast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBJihJBePcs

Michelle Obama stating that Obama's home country is....wait for it.........................................................Kenya.

[68Camaro]

...
It does not matter if BHO hates the British.
...

Ah, but your previous point was that he owed allegiance to the Brits, was one. (Both of which are incorrect, BTW.) But you got it now.

That is the best I can do right now, Camero. If it does not help, maybe HPMBTT will jump in and help.

Nope, you've got it now.

[HPMBTT]

Quick update. For those that are wondering, the GA judge has done two things:

1. Moved up the decision from Feb. 5 to Feb. 1 (the judge should make a determination the afternoon of Feb. 1 or on Feb. 2).
2. Requested some documentation from the Hawaii courts (via letters rogatory).

Even if the judge rules in favor of the Plaintiff, I would imagine that there would be a move to file in the GA Appeals Court. Also, the news has hit at least 122 articles on the internet worldwide. Even an israel agency wrote about it. Many of my friends have become more aware in the last few days as well; even all the guys at my Barber Shop know. However, many of the Sheeple are still clueless; for example, I mentioned it to an older guy (in his sixties) at his small business the other day and although he doesn't like Zero, he was not aware at all of what's been going on in the last four years. The only point I'm trying to make here is that the more that people are educated, the better off the American people will be.

[uthminsta]

This calls for one simple response: tell someone.

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Here is an excerpt from the Emergency Letters Rogatory sent to HI:

"Under rule 338-18(9) access to the original records is allowed
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
This court is a court of competent jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s attorney has travelled to the state of HI 5 times at her own expense to obtain access to the original birth records under Federal Subpoena and under UIPA (unified Information practices Act) which is equal to the state of HI freedom of information act.

Director of Health Loretta Fuddy by and through her attorney, Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine is refusing to cooperate."

HI will not comply with it's own laws. We have been here before just months ago.

Obama hides behind one law after another. When he can't hide behind a law, he ignores the law. He clearly has something to hide. He states he was born in HI. He claims he has a BC to prove it, yet, both BC's released by him are clearly photo-shopped to hide the truth.

He has something to hide and he is lying to us.

Defeat this liar. Vote him out of office.

[theo]

Quick update. For those that are wondering, the GA judge has done two things:

1. Moved up the decision from Feb. 5 to Feb. 1 (the judge should make a determination the afternoon of Feb. 1 or on Feb. 2).
2. Requested some documentation from the Hawaii courts (via letters rogatory).

Even if the judge rules in favor of the Plaintiff, I would imagine that there would be a move to file in the GA Appeals Court. Also, the news has hit at least 122 articles on the internet worldwide. Even an israel agency wrote about it. Many of my friends have become more aware in the last few days as well; even all the guys at my Barber Shop know. However, many of the Sheeple are still clueless; for example, I mentioned it to an older guy (in his sixties) at his small business the other day and although he doesn't like Zero, he was not aware at all of what's been going on in the last four years. The only point I'm trying to make here is that the more that people are educated, the better off the American people will be.

I'm surprised he moved up the decision date, especially considering the request for additional documents. You'd think the judge would allow a few weeks for HI to comply. I know HI hasn't cooperated yet (and probably won't in this case), but when dealing with the law you must dot every "I" and cross every "T."