It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

page: 13
122
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Don't you bring your facts and intelligent thought around here!



I know - how dare I!




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 
it was a joke ..figuratively and literally...peace


edit on 26-1-2012 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Updates to the sections of the United States Code contained in

Title 8

§§ 1001 to 1006. Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, § 403(a)(42), 66 Stat. 280, eff. Dec. 24, 1952

I am trying to get some information on it , and from what i am seeing .. it was repealed?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   


.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.

In other words…we won. Now it’s time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The Judge has already decided it just hasnt been written down yet.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Wait wait wait ... it doesnt matter about what? The presidency?

edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


Yes, go back and read the Title 8 quoted earlier. If both parents are US citizens, and retain residency, and actually live here within the year surrounding your birth, you are still a "natural born citizen."

According to the quoted portion anyway.


If that is true - - then why was it necessary to have a resolution to recognize John McCain as a Natural Born Citizen?

If action had to be taken - - that means there was an issue.


S.RES.511 Latest Title: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 4/10/2008) Cosponsors (5) Latest Major Action: 4/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. thomas.loc.gov...:S.RES.511:


EDIT: I can't get this link to work. But I did provide one


thomas.loc.gov...:S.RES.511:
edit on 26-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Congress only has the power to create naturalization laws, it does not have the power to make anyone a natural born citizen; that is reserved for article II section I, unless of course the constitution is amended.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Romney's grandparents left the US and went to Mexico (to escape polygamy persecution), where they had a baby. That child is a natural-born US citizen, because his parents were both US citizens. They never renounced their citizenship, or became Mexican citizens. When that child was 5, the family moved back to the US. When he grew up, he had Mitt, a natural-born US citizen.


I may be wrong on McCain, I recall a law written back in 1795 regarding two American parents and children born overseas..... although I'm not sure whether this law covered natural born citizenship. I've been trying to dig it up for a while now...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
This is a picture of Obama's dad arriving in Hawaii for the first time with with a few fellow Kenyans.






What is his future father-in-law doing in the picture with him? I ask this because, Barack's mother, Ann Dunham, had not met Barack's father yet.

Can anyone explain this?


Maybe it can help answer questions about Barack's past?




Sorry, forgot to add Barack's father is the one with the leis around his neck with someone holding up the "peace" sign behind him. Stanley Dunham is to the right of him(as u view the pic) in the white plain short-sleeved shirt.
edit on 26-1-2012 by freedom12 because: (no reason given)



Keep digging grasshopper.

The train will pull into uglyville very soon........



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrlqban
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Congress only has the power to create naturalization laws, it does not have the power to make anyone a natural born citizen; that is reserved for article II section I, unless of course the constitution is amended.


This is true, unfortunately in McCain's case. But seriously, his parents were serving his country, I think in all fairness he held the right just as any of the other candidates to run for the presidency. So while technically he wasn't constitutionally natural born, I'm pritty sure there would be minimal objection to an exception to be made for him and all foreign born children of military serving American parents.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Not perfectly clear to me leased or purchased. Sounds like purchased...

Here is a snippet from Wackipedia


In 1904, the United States, under President Theodore Roosevelt, bought the French equipment and excavations for US$40 million, paid the new country of Panama US$10 million plus more each year, and began work on the Panama Canal on May 4, 1904. (In 1921, the United States paid Colombia US$10 million, plus US$250,000 per annum for several years; and in return Colombia recognized Panama under the terms of the Thomson-Urrutia Treaty).
The United States purchase of the French concession for US$40 million included the Panama Railroad. Further, it was estimated that French excavation of about 30,000,000 cu yd (22,936,646 m3), primarily in the Gaillard Cut (then called the Culebra Cut), was of direct use to the U.S. construction effort and was valued at about $1.00 per 1 cu yd (1 m3), or $30,000,000. The remaining usable French equipment, engineering surveys, etc. were valued at about $10,000,000 more.[14]



On September 7, 1977, the treaty was signed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos, defacto leader of Panama. This mobilized the process of granting the Panamanians free control of the canal so long as Panama signed a treaty guaranteeing the permanent neutrality of the canal. The treaty led to full Panamanian control effective at noon on December 31, 1999, and the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) assumed command of the waterway. The Panama Canal remains one of the chief revenue sources for Panama.



edit on 26-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I believe there are a million nuances. #1, only the laws in effect at the time of your birth would apply, so if the law later changed, you would need a ruling or declaration. #2, McCain's parents may not have lived here within a year of his birth, I don't know for sure. #3, the portion I quoted may have been later repealed as per MilkyWay's post above.

But, as to you and BH's points, it would be simple to get a Congressional Declaration like they did for McCain. Right? I mean, you take your FBI file, and a Certified BC, and you get a Judge's precedent on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" and you get a friendlly Senator to present the Bill/Declaration, and it is a done deal, irrefutable, issue solved!

So, the question becomes, Why haven't they done exactly that? In 3 years? Prior to this re-election? They've gone to the trouble of releasing BC that just stirred more controversy. They've gone to the trouble of having Hawaii officially declared as his birthplace. I wonder why they haven't done something so short, simple, sweet, and decisive like they did for McCain? I mean, he had 2 years with total domination of the Congress. Surely they would have been more than willing?

That is the reason this issue won't die. It is so simple, yet it just doesn't happen, and to most of us, that means there is some hiccup in the gettyup. There is something holding up the simplicity of the process. There is SOMETHING TO HIDE!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


uh...wrong. military bases are leased, not owned. except for a select few. Coco Solo is not one of them.

McCain was Panamanian at birth and also never renounced his citizenship.

Feel free to check out Articles 8 and 9 of the Panama Constitution.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
anyone else thing they are calling those judges and saying Look, his mom was CIA and he was too early in his career - but we can't tell the public.

Cause that's what I think....


It's possible. Another thing is possible, that he could really be the son of Malcolm x and he nor his supporters want to expose this to the American people.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Nobody should be above the law. Plain and simple.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
OK I cant keep it in any longer.

Why is barracks mothers dad......no im not trying to confuse here.


Start again. Why is Barack's Grandpa cupping his dad's butt cheek, or squeezing it or whatever he is doing?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   




Let's not forget Frank Marshall Davis. Friend of Stanley and Mentor of young Barack



Once again, a slam dunk case that would end this debate once and for all



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I just called a friend of mine. I asked him about Birth on a host base. He said , the baby is only a Natural Born Citizen if BOTH parents are citizens of the United States and born in a US base / US Naval vessel. This also must be filed with the embassy or consulate within one year of the baby being born.

If the baby is born outside of the Military base , or to a foreign parent. The Baby has dual citizenship and is NOT a Natural citizen.

I will continue to look for a source i can post so you can see it.
edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee
 


I believe there are a million nuances. #1, only the laws in effect at the time of your birth would apply, so if the law later changed, you would need a ruling or declaration. #2, McCain's parents may not have lived here within a year of his birth, I don't know for sure. #3, the portion I quoted may have been later repealed as per MilkyWay's post above.

But, as to you and BH's points, it would be simple to get a Congressional Declaration like they did for McCain. Right? I mean, you take your FBI file, and a Certified BC, and you get a Judge's precedent on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" and you get a friendlly Senator to present the Bill/Declaration, and it is a done deal, irrefutable, issue solved!


Right - - there's also some issue that he may have been born in a civilian hospital and not a military hospital.

But - - this was handled correctly. I have no problem at all that McCain was declared Natural Born Citizen.


So, the question becomes, Why haven't they done exactly that?


Because there is no issue?

You wouldn't take action - if there is no issue. If they do take action - then they are saying there is an issue.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I'm a little tired of people using the "backwoods racists" excuse.

Yes yes. We know. And I'm sure the 42-49% approval rating for the president is because 47-54% of America are backwoods racists, right?
edit on 26-1-2012 by ManjushriPrajna because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by wutz4tom
reply to post by candcantiques
 


Never thought I would have been hearing that news.....
Is the Message being sent??? nobody is above the law?


the message is a couple of partisan scumbags in a state can use their power to
decide who people can vote for... Sounds truly Fascist


No... This proves that sometimes you aren't above the law. He could have gone to court and put that issue to rest. That is what courts should do all the time. That is to enforce the laws for everyone! I am black btw and it has nothing to do with it. I also voted for him which sucks now. lol



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join