It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Georgia Courts and The President - Live Feed today 9am, letter from attorney Jan 25th

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by timetothink
both parents must be us citizens at the time of your birth

repeating a untruth does not magically make it true - both parents do not have to be citizens.

Worked in Nazi Germany.

But indeed, it seems people really want it to be true so the just keep repeating it till it does become true in their view of reality.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by GrouchyGrouch

Here it is again...Born of citizen parent 's' !! right from the mouth of the framer of the 14th it or's a fact.

House of Reps Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US. Leo Donofrio ^ | 3/9/2011 | Leo Donofrio Posted on March 9, 2011 5:50:25 PM EST by jzlouis Leo Donofrio and friend uncover a definitive statement of the definition of the term "natural born citizen" on the House Floor in 1872 by John Bingham the principal framer of the 14th amendment. TOPICS: Politics KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor: “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.) Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US. John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by timetothink
like it or's a fact.

No, you are wrong. That is a opinion, not a fact. You really must hate the fact that Obama is the legal POTUS, and will get re-elected.

No matter how many times you repeat a untruth it will not magically become true.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:44 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by spoor

Unless you have some facts to back you up..I am not wasting time on are just a trouble making Obot...spewing opinion, with nothing worthwhile to share.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:08 PM

Originally posted by timetothink
Unless you have some facts to back you up

Just look at who the legal POTUS actually is.... pretty good facts!

All you have is your hatred for Obama, a black man who is the POTUS

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:25 PM
Just dropping in to add an update, rather than start a new thread.

February 2, 2012
Obama Got Served


According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.


Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi. Irion asserts that "... Defendant Obama willfully defied this Court's order to appear and testify[,]" and his "actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers between the branches of government." Irion argued that "[s]uch a declaration cannot go without response from this Court" and moved that the Court refer the "matter to the Superior Court of Fulton County for confirmation that the Defendant violated Administrative Rules of Procedure ... and to determine appropriate sanctions."

Now, will we get the opportunity to debate the meaning of "subpoena" -- or whether the law even applies to this president?

(emphasis mine)

Interesting turn of events.

In case the trial confused you, there were 3 seperate cases, all 3 were heard the same day. The first case was Weldons, which argued the simple case of Natural Born Citizen, and argued that Minor V. Happersett outlined clearly the meaning of Natural Born Citizen v. Citizen, and that the 14th ammendment cannot change the context of the base meaning of the Constitution, which in and of itself is written into the Constitution. It was a very powerful argument that I think flew largely under the radar with all the hupla over Squirly Orly. Remember, 3 different cases, Orly was only one, and the one that anti-birthers will throw up and vomit ad nauseum to throw rocks into the werks. However, Orly had nothing to do with the first case, nor did the birth certificate.

I still hold that the judge will find for the defendants by simple default, for failure to appear. Any attorney or judge will tell you that simply failing to appear will end in a default win outcome, it is as plain as the nose on your face. Obama's huge mistake was simply not taking this seriously.

The judge actually agreed Obama should not be compelled to come to court, however, and this is what he wrote in the letter.

The judge asserted that "Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority."

Instead of doing the obvious, and replying with legal reasoning, they went over his head, which promptly failed. The hearing went on as scheduled. Big fail on Obama's attorneys' part. I do believe the judge told them they would win by default due to a now show, and I do believe he allowed them the opportunity to have the hearings to get the evidence into record. It is totally reasonable this was the case, I see no reason to disbelieve this wasn't what happened.

The rest yet remains to be seen. Stay tuned!

ETA: Link to the PDF of the Motion for Contempt filed today
edit on 2-2-2012 by Libertygal because: added ETA

ETA: They also filed their proposed findings, which is not the judges ruling, but a proposal on how the judge should rule in the case.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Libertygal because: another ETA

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:02 PM
Ah, found some more information:

UPDATE: From Plaintiff, in one of the Georgia challenges, Carl Swensson: To all my friends in battle,

The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.

Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment. - Carl

So there you have it.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:42 PM

Recommendation sent to Sec of State Ga.....not eligible!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by timetothink

Recommendation sent to Sec of State Ga.....not eligible!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, that is wrong, Obama was found to be eligible.

So once again a birther site publishes false information about Obama

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:10 PM

Today we mourn the end of our constitution...still holding out hope the Sec of State isn't to scared to make the right decision.

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:09 PM
Well, it seems settled. Time to move on and forget it for me. Seems I agree, the Constitution is no more.

Nothing left to do but try to vote unwanteds out of office, but we all know even that doesn't work.

Take care of you and yours.

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in