Obamas birth certificate goes to yet another court

reply to post by hellobruce


So, which side is this "racism" falling on, the white or black side of his family? I personally hope we get a real black American president some day. Obama isn't the first black president. It would be a shame to call this comunist the first black president so we should call it as it is, the first mixed race president. That way it leaves room for a great black man to be the first black president. I nominate David Webb, a great black man and a true American.

Pladuim

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

Or it could be these people didn't have standing. In the US in order to have standing one must first show the injury has been caused or is imminent. This injury must be concrete and not abstract. Second, you must be able to show how the person you're suing directly caused the injury. Third, you must demonstrate how suing this person will redress the injuries suffered. None of the people Taitz has represented has been able to demonstrate how Obama has directly and concretely had a negative impact on their life.

Let me ask you a question. If Obama is clearly ineligible to be President like so many birthers claim why do they see the need to keep forging evidence? You'd think that if they had a slam dunk case they wouldn't need to create fake Kenyan birth certificates and take small sections of interviews out of context.

I understand the definition of "Lacking standing to sue" as defined by the courts. One point: When a judge dismisses a suit for plaintiff's "lack of standing", the judge is not looking at the evidence presented at all. Period. So the case was not judged on it's merits. It was simply removed from the court. Then the court tally of ..... +1 to "another case failed" ...... ends up being skewed beyond anything useful.

As far as the definition of standing, I disagree completely. The top federal federal politician has the ability to turn the country upside down. When this politicians sidesteps all due process and creates "law" out of thin air, with executive orders, he has the ability to harm or affect every single citizen whether or not they are legal age. This harm is real and a clear danger to the public at large. Additionally, defendent's criminal conduct in not prosecuting theft and fraud has/is contributing to economic instability and has direct harmed millions. A lawsuit showing false credentials is meant to start the process of removing a Constitutionally unqualified individual from the office of the president. The illegal conduct of this perp can then be addressed.

As far as the "birther" movement, the people/organizations seeking the truth about obama's background are not monolithic. The lawsuits, evidence and the players are as varied as the populace. Please note that I have never talked about the lawsuits from White Supremacist organizations. Or several others.

As far as the evidence, I have only addressed the evidence and lawsuits brought forward by Attorney Taitz. Note that I speak for no one except myself - a taxpayer, a voter, a citizen from birth - like many of you. I believe that the evidence Attorney Taitz has collected appears to have merit.

Now .... the anti-birthers consistently claim that obama is vetted and he's the real deal. I'm waiting for one of these knowledgeable anti-birther-types to come forward with concrete evidence of a case number and judge's decision on the facts of one of Attorney Taitz's lawsuits concerning false documentation.

All I ask is just one case. Surely with all this common knowledge floating around, somebody has specific knowledge case that will deny my ignorance?

Originally posted by EricR
So the case was not judged on it's merits. It was simply removed from the court.

But it WAS judged on its merits - they had no merit for their case.

Then the court tally of ..... +1 to "another case failed" ...... ends up being skewed beyond anything useful.

But it IS useful, it shows that every single silly birther case has failed, every single time....

When this politicians sidesteps all due process and creates "law" out of thin air, with executive orders, he has the ability to harm or affect every single citizen whether or not they are legal age

Just like every other previous President... but you ignore all those executive orders!

A lawsuit showing false credentials is meant to start the process of removing a Constitutionally unqualified individual from the office of the president.

But in Obama's case he has no false credentials, nor is he constitutionally unqualified....

Again, if birfers have such strong evidence against Obama why do they have to make up false documents, and lie about Obama's documents?

I believe that the evidence Attorney Taitz has collected appears to have merit.

The worst lawyer in the whole world cannot even get a subpoena served properly, is sanctioned several times for bad conduct....

I'm waiting for one of these knowledgeable anti-birther-types to come forward with concrete evidence of a case number and judge's decision on the facts of one of Attorney Taitz's lawsuits concerning false documentation.

Have a look here

Here Obama wins even though no one from his side bothered to turn up - the birthers lost to a empty chair!

['The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. 3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence']

['For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent;however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general']

[' None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive. 5 ']

['For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary
election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). SO ORDERED,
February d ,2012. MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge']
www.scribd.com...

So TWLITWW could not even present proper evidence, her "experts" were not experts and none of their "evidence" had any value. The court declared that Obama was constitutionally qualified....

Originally posted by hellobruce

['The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. 3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence']

['For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent;however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general']

[' None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive. 5 ']

['For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary
election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). SO ORDERED,
February d ,2012. MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge']
www.scribd.com...

So TWLITWW could not even present proper evidence, her "experts" were not experts and none of their "evidence" had any value. The court declared that Obama was constitutionally qualified....

Interesting. I'll look it up. Thanks very much.

This could be completely valid, procedural snafu, corrupt or incompetent court. The judgment that obama is "natural born" is subject to diverse definition and may not hold in other courts due to the fact obama's father was a foreign national.

In the document, judge states:

"Mr. Obama is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Georgia Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory
qualifications for holding the Office of the President of the United States."

There was talk of Pelosi tampering with the state nomination documents in several states in the 2008 election. Is there a central source to access the individual state '08 and '12 state documents?

Originally posted by EricR
The judgment that obama is "natural born" is subject to diverse definition and may not hold in other courts due to the fact obama's father was a foreign national.

What has Obama's father being a foreign national got to do with Obama being a naturally born US citizen?

There are only 2 types of US citizen, naturalised or naturally born. Obama was not naturalised as he was born in the USA, thus he is naturally born.

reply to post by hellobruce


I just have to comment on the feedback to saying that previous presidents have also pulled laws/exec orders out of thin air - sidestepping the constitution, and how they are ignored and people are only targeting Obama. Who cares when change starts. Just because other presidents have done this does not mean it is now permissible. So I think if people want to challenge Obama on using his power inappropriately it should not come with the argument of "well other presidents did it and your not saying anything about them". Change begins today. I hear those statements a lot in here and it implies that the argument should be shut down. Two wrongs don't make a right and we have become complacent with these abuses of power. If Obama is the fall guy it doesn't mean people aren't aware of past presidents. They just can't do anything about them anymore.