Federal Judge Grants Temporary Petition To Remove Obama From Ballot

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Golf66

 

Right. A judge who would negate the law because it would be an inconvenience to the country???? Oh please.

If you don't believe that a Judge even the Supreme Court would consider the possible negative consequences of their legal "opinions" and might lean one way or another perhaps omitting one "fact" (or several) and instead citing another to forestall the possible collapse of the world as we know it you are naive at best.

Originally posted by karen61057
If there was a leg to stand on they would have to act on it but the fact is they don’t have a leg to stand on. But know that if they did, there would be no choice but to act on it.

If by "they" you mean the judges in this sentence I disagree. Actually, I don’t think any court can decide to hear the case since he is POTUS and only subject to impeachment rather than the regular legal system.

Even if they could - I don't think they'd want to even hear the case.

If you mean "they" to be the lawyers calling his legitimacy into question they haven't even been given a chance to appear. In every instance (that I know of) it’s been either dismissed or summarily judged based on technicalities.

The "case" has yet to be ruled on as the defendant has never appeared in court - nor will he as I think he can only be "charged" via impeachment. I don't see that happening as none of the other elected leaders wants to touch it either. Why? It would be the end of our system of government and likely western civilization.

Now has this issue been brought before the fact (while he was a candidate) perhaps we'd have seen something but since the media was all hear, see and speak no evil from Obama before the election we'll never know.

Originally posted by karen61057
They couldnt let it be as that would also be a crime.

You think this concerns the Judges that if they throw out this case for technical reasons without calling the defendant or hearing the facts they might be guilty of committing a crime? I think they'd all sleep just fine letting it go unanswered if that meant the end of the USA. That is just my opinion BTW.

I think they'd rather risk that than be the Judge(s) who toppled the US Government and our Nation by calling the sitting POTUS to testify for fraud and perhaps risking national security in the process.

If you don't believe national security trumps the law - try NDAA, Patriot Act, the Kill List, and Drone Strike on a US Citizen etc... Just to name a few.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Orly must have passed the California State Bar or she can not be considered for "DISBARMENT" in the State of California, and yes Michelle was able to practice law, but now CANNOT. Under what duress she and Barack surrendered their licenses or did not renew them is not certain, but it could be to avoid something.

Lawyers let their license lapse for very compelling reasons, often to avoid or escape censure or outright criminal charges. As an example, Bill Clinton kept active his law license even when he became president. In 2000 the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct called for Clinton’s disbarment, saying he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In January 2001 Clinton reached an agreement under which he was ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state’s bar officials and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years. The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him. Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com...

Both Obamas voluntarily set their law licenses to "inactive," then both to "retired." Michele's can be found to be set that way by order of the court, but this is because at the time she wanted to be set inactive, the law required that she actually petition the court to do it, and the court had to order it.

In order to maintain a law license in the state of Illinois, you must pay an annual fee and take continuing law education. In the position that he currently has as President, I dont imagine that he really has the time to keep up with the Illinois state requirements for continuing education.

As regards the thread title...."Federal Judge Grants Temporary Petition To Remove Obama From Ballot"....the judge/court concerned is NOT a "federal" judge/court and the judge has NOT granted a temporary petition to remove Obama from the ballot....apart from that it's spot on accurate lol.

The judge has simply set a date for a 'hearing'. It is highly unlikely that it will even transpire to be an evidentiary hearing so Taitz is blowing smoke up everyone's rear end as usual. Stand by for her usual shrieks of treason and "the judge has been got at" when things don't pan out for her.

Originally posted by kozmo
You stated "There's no requirement for US citizenship in Obama's case, other than being born in the US, and no law at all against dual citizens being President. Obviously. "

Try reading Article II of the US Constitution.

No where in the constitution does it define what "Natural born citizenship" is. This has been left up to the courts to decide on the matter, and they have time and time again:

Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party,

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise

www.scribd.com...

Farrar v. Obama,

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,"

www.ajc.com...

Ankeny v. Governor

President Obama was a United States citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship at birth all constitutional qualifications have been met. There is no basis to question the presidents citizenship or qualifications to hold office

www.scribd.com...

Voeltz v. Obama

I have reviewed and considered the legal authority submitted by the plaintiff and the Defendants on this issue and conclude as a matter of law that this allegation, if true, would not make the candidate ineligible for office. Cited Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana.

www.scribd.com...

Tisdale v Obama

The eligibility requirements to be president of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, S1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g United States v Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898)

www.scribd.com...

Supreme court justice J. Grey in his ruling on the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization

www.law.cornell.edu...

Then read minor v. happersett.

Minor v. Happersett was not based on natural born citizenship, the judge made an opinion and that opinion merely stated that there was doubt:

Minor did not exclusively define "’natural-born" citizen’ as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’" Indeed, the court expressly left open the question of whether a child born to alien parents is a "natural born citizen" because it was not necessary to the disposition of the case.

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

Birthers sure like to tell everybody else to read things they can't seem to understand themselves.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You seem to be under the impression that anyone born in the States can become Prez? Please tell me you are not saying that....

Well it partly depends on what you mean by "can" become President.

According to settled law anyone born in USA is certainly "eligible" to be President. You only need to look at the judgements in all recent relevant Obama eligibility challenge court cases to see that is how the law stands right now. The notion that anyone born in USA need any other kind of parental or other birth qualification has been rejected by the courts, every time without exception.

The illegitimate son/dughter of Osama Bin Laden and Ahmadinijad's sister, if born in USA and meeting the age and residency requirements, would be eligible. However, like many others who are eligible he/she would not be "electable". The system works. Nobody ineligible has ever been elected President yet.

I thought I'd address this very interesting post here:

reply to post by Golf66

First of all you have called me a birther when I made no such claim. While it is possible he was indeed born in Hawaii I think that it is plausible however improbable that he could have been born in Kenya and his grandparents posted a birth announcement there and registered the birth there to cover for it. I have not made my decision

Clearly you don't know what a birther is. A birther is anybody who doubts that the president has proven he was born on U.S soil. I've come across many birthers, there have only been afew whom I've come across who outright believe he was born in Kenya. Most birthers merely doubt that he has proven his eligibility. Most birthers don't call themselves birthers because they wish to be taken more seriously.

Call yourself a concerned citizen for all anybody cares.

I do not believe the "image" of his certificate is genuine.

Which is really suppose to be the key piece of evidence pointing to his birth on U.S soil.

reply to post by agentoftrvth

Somebody at the time decided BHO needed an American BC and filed for one after the fact. Not uncommon in that location at that time. The problem is that it lacked key information, or had information that could be damaging. Since then, somebody decided it needed to be changed to make the publically given narrative work. I'm not even claiming he is foreign. The fact his father was a British citizen is enough to disqualify him. A genuine BC presented in a court with BHO sr listed as daddy would be enough to sink him.
The ads in the papers were automatically triggered when the weekly bundles of BCs were sent in from the hospital to the Dept of Health for official registration.

****Yawn****

Here we are, 4 years down the road and the birthers are still tilting at windmills. You know, instead of barking up this tree - supporting Romney with your energies would have a greater impact in getting Obama out of office. What's done is done. He's not being booted from office. Period. Deal with it and mobilize in another direction.

Originally posted by robobbob
The fact his father was a British citizen is enough to disqualify him.

based on what exactly? Your say so? Courts have stated that Obama is a natural born US citizen, so who should people listen to, a birther or the courts..... very hard decision there!

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I thought I'd address this very interesting post here:

reply to post by Golf66

 

Call yourself a concerned citizen for all anybody cares.

I do not believe the "image" of his certificate is genuine.

Which is really suppose to be the key piece of evidence pointing to his birth on U.S soil.

You are of course free to label me as fits your world view…I remain unconcerned.

As I stated I don't so much question the birth location (I remain ambivalent on the matter) as his parentage. I doubt his mother knows and Barrack Sr. happened to be just one of many possible men. I also believe that at some point ole Barry (or at least his parents claimed he was so he could attend school there) claimed to be an Indonesian Citizen; however, if he traveled and resided there before the age of 18 that would not make him a dual citizen.

The mystery remains for me as to whether he registered as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia to get grants or reduced tuition/entry standards for quota purposes. That would mean he is a dual citizen since he made the claim after the age of 18. Which as some have said is not a disqualifier. However, even if it is not a disqualifier - it means a coordinated cover-up and a conspiracy. Proving again that it’s not the crime it’s the cover-up that gets you.

birthers.....keep it coming...i am entertained and frankly id love for any of these conspiracies to be true...
If he's Kenyan do we get some natural resources??

Originally posted by robobbob
reply to post by agentoftrvth

 

Somebody at the time decided BHO needed an American BC and filed for one after the fact. Not uncommon in that location at that time. The problem is that it lacked key information, or had information that could be damaging. Since then, somebody decided it needed to be changed to make the publically given narrative work. I'm not even claiming he is foreign. The fact his father was a British citizen is enough to disqualify him. A genuine BC presented in a court with BHO sr listed as daddy would be enough to sink him.
The ads in the papers were automatically triggered when the weekly bundles of BCs were sent in from the hospital to the Dept of Health for official registration.

edit on 10-9-2012 by robobbob because: clarity

Your first post. Welcome to ATS.

Oh yeah, you are incorrect/mistaken and have no proof of a single bit of what you have said above. Would you like me to baby step you through each point?

Originally posted by Golf66
I also believe that at some point ole Barry (or at least his parents claimed he was so he could attend school there) claimed to be an Indonesian Citizen;

What makes you think you have to be a Indonesian citizen to attend school in Indonesia?

The mystery remains for me as to whether he registered as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia to get grants or reduced tuition/entry standards for quota purposes.

That claim was a April fools joke that birthers keep falling for years after it was made! How silly are they1

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You seem to be under the impression that anyone born in the States can become Prez? Please tell me you are not saying that....

I'm not saying that. However, I will say I have been unable to locate a single instance of official documents, regulations or laws saying he can't serve based on his being born here. That whole 'Natural Citizen' thing sounds dandy on paper....but it's like the other requirements they set but then left no one to check as a job.

There just isn't anything clarifying it. Courts have taken a stab here and there, but the judicial record on the definition of Natural Citizen is as foggy as the whole birther debate. I used to stand with those saying both parents HAD to be citizens...but then something came over me a few months back and I stopped repeating things I'd merely heard and started looking for proof, for myself at first, how much was true.

After all.....such things should be painfully easy to prove and just end the debate on a win, while making everyone on Obama's side look like fools, right? Err.... I'm STILL looking for that material and still striking out with a perfect 0 on finding anything to show he isn't fit to serve...at least, fit by the requirements laid out in the Constitution. His realistic fitness as a man for that post is a whole different debate and thread.

Originally posted by Rubicant13
I am not sure where there is any racism involved in this thread at all. If I were to use multiple social security numbers that did not belong to me, I have committed fraud. Doing this is a federal offense. If this has been done by our president, regardless of skin color, he deserves to be punished. Period. Racism has nothing to do with this type of an offense. If you are found to be guilty, you're guilty.

But he did not do any of that and there is nothing that even hints that he did. Just birther lies. When people start making up things to attack the first black president on, you have to wonder. I mean, if he was that bad, you would not need to make anything up.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Romney's Birth Certificate is not in question. This is not about goal posts. This is about a person who has never submitted his true long form birth certificiate, and many circumstances around him have led people to believe he was possibly not born in the US, his father was not a US citizen, and it's possible he could even have British or Indonesian citizenship.

He has too shown his birth certificate but when he did, the goal posts shifted. It had to be an original long form from a state that does not issue long forms and a form that no one is ever issued the original of.
Perfect example of the shifting goal posts.
His father's citizenship has nothing to do with it. That is another birther red herring.
Just because you do not understand what information you have been given does not mean I cannot choose to be as willfully equally ignorant on the other side. Where is Romney's original long form BC?

It is likely that someone knows and is not telling. If he has dual citizenship that also makes him ineligible, the goal post of that being his loyalty to the country he is serving as President of.
His behavior and decisions makes people aware that he may not have our best interests at heart.

You just made that up but I cannot help but believe you have been in this long enough to know what you just wrote is not true.

You may not like Romney, but all the things about Bain that have been bandied about by the media are just a campaign by the Left to discredit Romney. All the attacks on him such as accusing him of felonious acts is just a blustering around of the administration. But naive people fall for it, while POTUS supporters defend the indefensible.

edit on 10-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

WTF are you on about?
If the PRESIDENT needs to show his original long form BC to prove he is eligible, why doesn't Romney or any other candidate for that office?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Easy to say that about someone who got a law degree without Haaarvaard. She studied and got her law degree, passed the bar exam and everything. Her problem is her excitability and probably a lack of mentors who would give her opportunities to do internships and learn the ways of the courtroom. Also she has been dogged by a group of Obama supporters who played wicked jokes on her to purposely make her look ridiculous. These people are nasty and I have had conversations with them online. Most of the time in their chatrooms they post nasty pictures of people ridiculing them. They are good at photoshopping and other computer activities. One of them reportedly works at ICANN, or so I was told by one of their number.
You just never really know what is truly going on behind the scenes.

I am going to go ahead and just assume you have an excuse already why you have no real evidence that any of the above is true. It starts wrong with the statements about Orly which are easily checked facts so I suspect their may just be a bit of prevarication going on in the rest of this post. What do you say?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I believe she is still more eligible to practice law than Michelle O. by the way.

Do you know anything about the significance of the Bar Association? Some things are actual facts and you do not have to believe what you like, you can just check.

Originally posted by kozmo


How quickly you trolls forget the Bush years!

The amount of hate and vitriol was disgusting. Hypocrite much, or only when it's your guy???

I remember. I remember having perfectly valid reasons for expressing anger at Bush. What is funny is all those things that bothered me...Republicans refuse to defend. So I guess I was right. I never had to make things up about Bush. I hope you will see the difference at some point.

reply to post by wascurious


McCain released an untouched BC, at best obama's is fraudulent.
Bush had to release his college transcipts and military record so why doesn't obama?