I have very little sympathy for what birthers do, and for what they are trying to prove. Nevertheless, there is one thing that I share with them, and that is frustration over government foot-dragging when it comes to FOIA and Obama.
In January of 2012, I submitted a very narrow FOIA request to the US Department of State for specific information from the microfilm passport issuance cards that are kept, according to published sources, by the Department. The request was for the records of a known deceased person, and there has never been the slightest objection to the request by the government. They just aren’t responding. Having waited 18 months for a reply, I decided to ask for status. I did this by email to a special status email address at the Department. I sent the question on July 4 and today, I got this response:
Thank you for inquiring on your assigned case number [redacted1]. I apologize for our delayed response. The Statutory Compliance and Research Division initiated a search with the Central Foreign Policy Records (the principal records system of the Department of State) and the Office of Passport Services (PPT). The both searches are pending. I have asked for an estimated completion date (ECD) and the information may take a day or two (2) for a response. You may contact our FOIA Hotline by telephone or e-mail us with-in 48hrs or I will send you an e-mail for our response.
Anybody want to bet me that the response won’t be either (a) not in a day or two, or (b) we cannot tell you when to expect a response, or both?
1I redacted the FOIA case number just to prevent anyone else from using it to impersonate me while the request is ongoing. I’ll show it with the response if I’m still alive and blogging by then.
Which, all this is just another reason to buy Word Perfect 6 and create your own documents! I mean, you can do stationary for Birthers and stuff like that, and save it and re-use it. I mean, if I had actually done a FOIA request for communications between Orly and the IRS, all I would have gotten was the run around about privacy, and all that stuff, and if I ever got anything it would be like next century when I was in a nursing home or something.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I can’t imagine its foot dragging with it comes to Obama. I suspect it would be foot dragging re: any U.S. President. It’s just that no one’s been asking about any other president except this one…..wonder why????
George W. Bush had literally hundreds of FOIA requests. The Bush Administration was accused of stonewalling FOIA requests.
“Bush Orders Improved Public Information Act Response:”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/foiaeo.htm
FIFY
Doc, why don’t you avail yourself of the administrative appeal process?
Chairman
Appeals Review Panel
c/o Information and Privacy Coordinator/Appeals Officer
U.S. Department of State, A/GIS/IPS/PP, SA-2
Washington, DC 20522-8100.
A person who is a natural-born Citizen meets both Jus Soli AND 100% Jus Sanquinis. They are:
1. Born in the United States of America
2. They have Parents who were both American Citizens when said person was born.
An Obama birth in Hawaii does not help him. Even if he could prove it. Obama’s Father was a British Subject who never became an American citizen.
An NBC is “One born in the country of parents who are citizens”. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett.
Obama is DQ’d as was Chester Arthur. Both were usurpers.Both were Born Brits.
“There is NO ‘President’Obama”:
http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama
Obama has usurped the Presidency during time of war. That makes Obama a SPY under the UCMJ at Section 906,Article 106 and subject to Military Court-Martial and the death penalty,if convicted. Obama is a fraud,traitor,spy and RICO Criminal.
Fact is “Birthers” don’t have “to prove” anything. Obama’s constitutional disqualification to be POTUS is prima facie. He does NOT meet the 100% Jus Sanquinis requirement. He never was the bona-fide POTUS and never can be.
Refuse to pay your taxes. Put your taxes into escrow, to be released when Obama leaves office.
It’s legal.
Bobby dear,
1, There is no substance , legal or constitutional support for your thesis around your screed on citizenship
2. In this country there is an assumption if innocence and the burden if proof is on you the accuser
3. You go on an show us you not paying taxes, i await your interaction with the legal system with anticipation
Who said that I don’t pay my taxes?
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Give to God what is God’s”-Jesus Christ
Bovril, Obama is a fraud and a Usurper. That is a fact that has already been established. Obama has never been the bona-fide POTUS/CIC. He is a Spy.
These facts were determined by two “Presentment” Juries that I served on.
The evidence is there. Those whose duty it is to prosecute Obama are malfeasant misprisioners of treason and felony.
Even idf this were true — AND IT IS NOT — you still misconstrue the proper meaning of such a sentence in English.
As mentioned here many times before, with many examples taken from ordinary walks of life, e.g.: “Only children whose parents are members of club may use the swimming pool, a sentence like the one you use is a group plural, ie only ONE person needs to be a citizen (in that case) for the proposition to be true.
Your poor understanding of common English does not inspire confidence in your ability to understand legal texts.
Lemme try it this way:
Born in da coun’ry wiv either paren’ a citizen.
OK?
It’s true, birthers don’t have to prove anything; anyone can spout anything. You only need proof if you actually want anyone outside the bubble to listen. You only need proof if you want to convince any meaningful number of people to agree with you. You only need proof if you want most people to stop dismissing your arguments.
Birthers can’t even make most people laugh anymore. Stop me if you have heard the one about the two birthers, three Rabbis, and fourteen avocados.
Wrong! It is the job of the accuser to prove their claim.
We’re 200+ failed court cases later, and birthers have only proven how stupid they are. “Show us your papers, BOY!” isn’t a legal arguement, btw.
Incorrect. I notice you stopped responding on the facebook post you made on American Grand Jury. There is no rule for citizen parents. Minor V Happersett has no bearing it was a voting rights case and was made void through constitutional amendment. They never said the only way you can be a Natural born citizen is through having two citizen parents. Chester A Arthur was legit as is President Obama. He didn’t usurp he was legally and lawfully elected. You made this claim before Obama isn’t subject to the UCMJ as a civilian and Section 906 Article 106 has no bearing on him.
The first line of 906 106 makes you look like you have no idea what you’re talking about it reads: “(1) Any person subject to this chapter who”
Obama isn’t subject to that chapter.
Sorry but that’s incorrect. Obama is the President, his election was certified twice he was sworn in twice. He is constitutionally eligible. Do you just throw words together because they sound good? The onus is on you to prove your claims, he’s already President.
Fact is, Denialists are fascists, in the actual meaning.
In Orly’s world, the burden of proof is on the defendant. For them, it’s guilty until the accused can prove innocence.
OTOH, maybe it’s a good idea: Glenn Beck never denied raping and killing a girl. He never proved he did not.
Where did Mitt Romney bury the girl he strangled in 1987?
I don’t have to prove anything.
Oh Bobby,
Here in the reality based world we follow and adhere to these things called “laws” which here in the US flow from a thing called “The Constitution”
We have an entity called “The Supreme Court” who get to say what is and what is not “constitutional”.
We have these things called “Amendments” that allow variation to the “Constitution”
Then there is a process we like to call “elections” where people spend a lot of time and money saying “vote for me and not for the other guy”
Then individuals who pass certain “constitutional” barriers get to congregate at airless, institutionally painted and generally cheerless locations and “cast their vote” for one of a selection of people to become “President” (Well it’s at one remove where we actually vote for “electors” who then cast their votes based on the peoples decisions)
Once all the “voters” have had all their votes counted and the votes for this “Electoral College” (it’s not a real college by the way, no credits for work) are portioned out then these “delegates” tell a place and set of people called Congress (I know it can be a bit confusing but hold on in there) who has the most “votes”
Then these people in “Congress” count the votes and if they have any questions they can ask them and argue about it for a little while.
Once all this counting and possible arguing is done then one person gets to say that one person has “been elected” to “the position of President”
Then there is a special day put aside for a lot of speeches and talking and swearing and stuff and then the man with these “votes” gets to be “President”.
And if sore losers and bigots and Birthers and racists and the seditious don’t like it, they get to whine to all sorts of courts who look at these “Birfer facts” and real facts and get to tell the aforementioned…”no”
All legal and Constitutionally and everything and Birthers and other racist, bigoted, seditious scum get to shove a large ball of barbed wire where the sun doesn’t shine.
Delusional, thy name is Robert Laity.
Obama is a fraud?
Aren’t you the Robert C. Laity who told the New York State Supreme Court that you are a “100% Disabled Vietnam War Veteran with severe limitations?”
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/2012-039-319.html
And the same Robert C. Laity whose claims for service-related disability for PTSD and MVPS were denied by the V.A., a denial which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEsQFjAF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.charitableplanning.com%2Fdocument%2F1520428&ei=Rc3mUejNDJP94AP27oBw&usg=AFQjCNEqBJ5-iTY2i3j9r7OiEOVgXNvKkg&sig2=h9vVXqFXUy2sOaGVjh0CjA&bvm=bv.49405654,d.dmg&cad=rja
And the same Robert C. Laity who claimed to be a union steward when you were reprimanded for using profane language while working for the V.A. on 1/2/91, even though you had been suspended from your position as a union steward more than seven months earlier?
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/005/5.F3d.1504.93-3119.html
By the way, how is your New York State ballot challenge going? Not too well, it would seem.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144477025/NY-2013-05-13-Laity-v-State-of-NY-Appeal-Order
Well that’s good, because Birther’s haven’t managed to prove a single thing yet.
Not according to US law. Or the US Constitution for that matter. “Natural Born Citizenship” in the United States is not based upon “Blut und Boden” (Blood and Soil)
According to US law, someone who is a US citizen at birth (and therefore a “Natural Born” citizen” is either born in the US OR born out of the country to a US citizen parent or parents. That’s all.
Over 200 court cases have rejected your theory. You should know, since one of those rejected cases was one that you were plaintiff on.
But Bob,
I had a Presentment Jury, with my two cats, and a 9 year old from down the street- and we determined that Barack Obama is not only eligible, but that he is also King of Ireland.
Those are the facts…..
And five years later, birthers still haven’t proven anything, except an ability to waste the courts time and taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits.
Sorry, I served on 5 “Presentment” Juries who found the President eligible. Unfortunately for your ilk, Robert, the Chief Justice accepted our “Presentments” and went ahead and gave the President the oath of office. So Robert, SCOTUS knows the President is eligible and your “Presentments” are closer to being a quilting bee than ever having any chance of getting the President out of office.
Well, Bob, that’s good…because you haven’t and the President is leading the country. So tell me Bob, what have you birthers got left…spitting into the wind?
No fair! My dog and cat had a debate, and they decided Angel would get my pillow, and Max would get the futon’s corner.
…except an ability to scam people on a par with Goldline.
“These facts were determined by two “Presentment” Juries that I served on.”
That’s just incredibly stupid even for a wacky birther bigot.
And who organized those juries? How were their members selected from the population at large? If they were not selected randomly from the population at large, then why should we believe that they are an unbiased thing? And if you don’t see the problem with that, then you should have no problem with me getting together my friends, calling ourselves a “presentment jury”, and charging every birther with treason, by presenting the evidence to ourselves?
Main question, how is your “presentment jury” any different from a lynch mob?
The presentment jury couldn’t afford a rope.
They came with a free haircut and a bowl of soup.
That one made my day, sfjeff. I remember all the pomp and circumstance that these Fake Grand Jury morons went through to come up with their defecations, aka “Presentments” back in 2009. They were going to call them “Indictments” but some of us pointed them to laws in several states that made simulating a legal document a felony so they decided on calling them “Presentments”.
Some people in the make believe
juryMickey Mouse Club wore New Balance.FIFY
😆 😆 😆
If I recall, an indictment is made based on a proposal from a public prosecutor. A presentment would be report or statement made by the GJ on their own initiative. Since their GJ was not created by any public judicial or legal authority ordained by the people of the state or country, it is nothing more than a knitting circle.
Laity likes to make up his own laws and juries. Too bad for him.
It is common knowledge that Obama,Sr. was never a citizen of the U.S.A. On that fact alone Obama is DQ’d. What other proof is necessary? NONE!
If you’re going to post here, at least learn how to use the quote function. It’s not that difficult.
If you cannot carry on serious discourse you should go play with you cats. You fool.
I know how to use it.
We have proven that we have a RICO Government full of malfeasant misprisioners of Treason.
Who is going to DQ him? Not you, obviously.
Sandra Day O’Connor, retired Supreme Court Justice, nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan: “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
I suspect that Justice O’Connor knows a bit more about the Constitution and presidential eligibility than you.
Who did you “Present” your findings to? I presented mine to the Attorney General of the United States of America and all nine SCOTUS Justices,as well as ICE,the FBI and the Secret Service.
Yet Obama is still Presidenting while Black. How disappointing that must be for you.
After which they all had a hearty laugh.
Ignore the jackass.
It’s funny how you make claims about the french language when you’re addressing a French Lawyer who speaks natively a french Speaker. He understands more about his own language than you do. Vattel did not use the phrase Natural Born citizen.
No you’ve only proven you’re nothing more than a bunch of seditious morons.
And they flatly rejected your nonsense.
One of the absurdities about Birthers is how they believe everything….like this….Obama is ineligible because of X and everyone knows that but he also committed forgery to fool everyone
HUH?
LOL
Birthers
At least they are not living on the streets of San Francisco
And unicorns too- don’t forget the malfesant unicorns…
[Constitutionally, “Presentments” are the first step in the process before Indictment by a Grand Jury. In 1946 errant rule makers for the FRCrimP unconstitutionally ruled them as “Obsolete”. They aren’t “Obsolete”. Before 1946 and since 1776 they were in ubiquitous usage by “We the People”. They are STILL authorized by the Fiftth Amendment. We have a Constitutional right to empanel them until such time as the Fifth Amendment is repealed. There is nothing “felonious” about exercising a legal right secured by the Constitution. “Presentments” ARE “legal documents”].
“There can be NO RULEMAKING or legislation that would abrogate a right secured by the U.S. Constitution”-Miranda v Arizona,SCOTUS.
Your “presentments” have no legality to them just as your super best friends club has no power to indict anyone.
She is retired. She has no official duties. How could she be malfeasant?
You are an imbecile, as demonstrated by your long string of failures in State and Federal Court and your inability to comprehend Minor v. Happersett.
The “Race Card” does not work. One’s Race is not a License to usurp the Presidency of the United States. Obama’s racial make-up will not save him from the Brig. By the way,Obama is Mulatto. He is White,Black and Arab. ALL of his respective racial parts are treasonous.
I am going to have “the Last Laugh”.
That derelict Clarence Thomas laughed when he told Congressman Serrano that SCOTUS was “Evading the Issue” on Obama. Serrano laughed too as did the people in the hearing room. They WON’T be laughing in prison.
He used “Naturel” and ” Indigenes”. The founders gleaned some not all of the Law of Nations for use in starting the new nation. The term “Parents Citoyens” is Plural. Vattel DID use those words.
Vattel did not write the book. He translated it into French from Latin.
If every “Tom,Dick and Harry that happens to be born here can be our President then every “Anchor Baby” is eligible. That simply is NOT the case. The founders wanted 100% Americans to be POTUS/CIC. Anchor babies meet only Jus Soli and PARTIAL to NO Jus Sanquinis. An NBC is one who meets BOTH,100%.
Naturel doesn’t translate as natural born citizen. He didn’t use citoyen de naissance which is Natural Born Citizen.
Are you saying Vattel didn’t write his own book? That certainly is a novel concept.
Again english escapes you both words being plural doesn’t mean 2 citizen parents. Also as lupin has explained before Parens doesn’t necessarily even mean parent. Lupin is a french Jurist he knows what he’s talking about. I refer you here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/
Except he wasn’t a usurper. He was legally and lawfully elected. Also he’s not arab. You’re confusing the Arab Africans who are from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. Obama’s family is from Kenya they are not Arab. None of his “racial parts” are treasonous. You however are.
“Seditious” to whom, Obama the traitor and his cabal. That is not sedition. That’s duty to defend the Constitution. You are a silly fool.
I got news for you yes they are eligible which is why some right wingers are trying to change the 14th amendment. Again though Obama wouldn’t qualify as an anchor baby. The founders wanted one who was born on US soil to be Potus. Obama isn’t an anchor baby thus your claim makes no sense. An NBC is simply one who is born a citizen.
You’ve heard of the “Nuremberg Trials”. The Obama Cabalists may be laughing now. History will NOT be kind to them.
Seditious to the majority of america. Obama is no traitor. You aren’t defending the constitution you’re trying to overthrow it
Any. Day. Now.
“any day now any day now” You’ll be on your death bed claiming the same thing and it’ll never come to pass.
Henceforth I think I shall refer to him as Robert Levity. 😆
Do you refer to Malcolm “X” Shabazz? There was conjecture about Obama being Malcolm’s son years ago,which was reported and which I wrote about. Fact is that Obama’s BC and Selective Service Card ARE Forged. There is forensic proof of that by domestic AND foreign experts. Obama also uses the Social Security number of a dead person. “Believe everything”. The fact that we DON’T believe everything like you foolish Obamatoids do,is going to save this country from ruin.
Obama is ineligible for many reasons including the preclusion in 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381 from holding ANY office under the United States. Obama is a traitor.
I don’t think “fact” means what you think it does. Making random claims that are false are not facts. The BC is legit as attested to by the issuing authority. The selective service is legit as attested to by the Selective Service Department. He uses his own social security number as issued in 1977 by the SSA. Who is this supposed dead person?
Sorry but believing in delusions isn’t going to save anything not even your sanity.
He’s not a traitor either thanks for playing crazypants.
Do you have many hallucinations? Perhaps some Haldol would help you.
Because YOU say so?
Because the law says so, reality says so take your pick
Is that what you’re on while thinking up this nonsense?
From the Fuller’s Dissent in US v Wong Kim Ark:
They agreed with you, but the Supreme Court majority said otherwise. Notice they used the term natural-born citizen. The minority realized what the ruling meant and therefore, yes, “anchor-babies” would be eligible when they are 35, and have lived hear for at least 14 years.
Being elected… that is a little harder.
You may not like it, but that is the law and your are wrong.
Please identify your “dead person” and provide evidence of his Social Security Number.
She retired from SCOTUS and came here to New York State to be on our court. Judges with lifetime tenure are never retired.
probably because they won’t be in prison.
Grand juries are judicially empanelled and attended by a D.A. or U.S. Attorney if federal. Presentment hearings are NOT Grand Jury Hearings. Presentment hearings are non-judicially empanelled citizen juries. Presentment hearings are authorized by the Fifth Amendment and was “Ordained by THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY”.
Retired justices are called back into service from time to time, and Justice O’Connor has occasionally temporarily filled vacancies and has been a visiting judge. How that makes her responsible for Obama’s usurpation is a mystery to me, but feel free to let me know as soon as she is indicted for malfeasance.
Your group of super best friends aren’t a grand jury. You aren’t given any power by the DA or US Attorney. Your hearings are meaningless.
You can rest assured that they WILL one day have to face the Bar of Justice. The penalty for treason and espionage is Death. Obama’s usurpation makes him a spy under the UCMJ at S906,A106.
Nope I’ll guarantee you that long before your hallucinations would ever happen you’ll end up going to jail for a violent crime you committed while waiting for this supposed music.
I’m trying to understand the psychology of someone who holds a view solely based on their own reading of history, and supported only by like-minded unqualified persons in contradiction to no less than ten court decisions to the contrary and a consensus of legal scholars.
Just how does someone support such a belief system without breaking something?
I told YOU as much that Presentment Hearings are NOT Grand Juries. Grand Juries are Judicially empannelled. Citizen’s Presentment hearings are “Given…power” by the United States Constitution in the Fifth Amendment. The Presentment hearing is NOT “meaningless” I can assure you. They are Constitutionally secured under the fifth amendment and pursuant to the constitutional rights of “We the People”. The DA or US Attorney are NOT our bosses. They are employees of the People as are Judges,Congressmen and the President.
So your super best friends lack a point no your presentment hearing lacks power at all. It is very meaningless you sat on two and accomplished nothing. Why don’t you just call it what it is a mob wanting to do a lynching.
Birthers really don’t understand the grand jury system, or juries in any sense. This is a very important and monumental misunderstanding.
Real juries and grand juries are randomly selected to represent their community. For this reason, they have a presumption of impartiality.
Birther citizen grand juries are just a bunch of volunteers who all agree to get together and make a presentment. They are not randomly selected, and they do not represent the community. They have a presumption of absolute bias.
I could find a dozen people who would create a presentment against NASA for using taxpayer money to fake the moon landings. Is that significant? Does it mean anything? Does it have any validity? No, no and no.
I do not march to the drum of malfeasant,new world order globalists and anti-sovereigntists. Obama is NOT qualified to be POTUS. That is prima facie. This conclusion is based on American History pre-invasion by globalists. I am a “legal scholar” on this matter.The Courts have based their dismissals on “lack of standing”
or have overtly ignored or “Evad[ed] the issue” as Clarence Thomas admitted in open hearing. My view is the right view. The use of Alinsky tactics to somehow infer that my view is somehow born of a psychological disorder does not work on me. I do no illicit drugs,nor do I drink. I am quite clear minded and sane. I am RIGHT. That is a strong factor in my campaign to bring the usurper Obama to the Bar of Justice.
You will notice that he hasn’t denied that he lied to the U.S. Court of Appeals when he claimed that he was a union steward (he had been suspended from that position) or that he misled the New York courts when he claimed that he has a service-connected 100% disability.
Here is some more interesting information about Laity.
http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/01981668.txt
The list of things that birthers don’t really understand is too long to enumerate. And it is still growing.
So you said a bunch of words that don’t mean anything. Obama is qualified to be POTUS. You don’t know what prima facie means either. American history doesn’t support your delusions. You’re not a legal scholar you’re a bastardizer of history.
Sorry but several times the courts ruled on the merits of the case which you guys had no merit.
Also you lie again you know if you were under oath you’d be held in contempt for all the perjury? Thomas didn’t say he was evading the issue when it came to Obama. He was responding to Representative Jose Serrano who was born in Puerto Rico. Mr Serrano has a long running exchange with Thomas about how a Puerto Rican like Serrano could run for President. Since Puerto Rico isn’t an incorporated US Territory there are different rights involved. You can see the history of the exchanges at the following links: From 2008 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/197007-1 at the 2:20 mark, FY 2009 http://www.c-span.org/Events/House-Hearing-on-the-Supreme-Court-FY-2009-Budget/9817/ at the 2:30 mark, FY 2010 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/285453 at the 1:20 mark
You’ve been corrected on this lie before why do you continue to tell it? Your view is the wrong view. You do have a psychological disorder Laity
The American Justice Foundation, of which, I believe you are well acquainted disagrees with you. Their 1828 Elementary Catechism on the Constitution, page 48 says:
Your “education” location disagrees with you. This is a document from the early US that says nothing about parents. Please explain.
The Birthers do attract the most delusional.
guess again, bob:
Let me see, a group of people got together to plot the overthrow of the legally elected President at a time when our Country is at war. The Doc’s People’s Grand Jury and Laughing our Asses off at the Stupidity of birthers Society find you guilty of treason, aiding the enemy and a domestic terrorist. Would you preferred to be shot, hung, or just laughed at?
Damnit Jim, I’m a doctor but not even I can save the group from death by exploding sides from laughter.
You claimed to the New York Supreme Court that you are a “100% Disabled Vietnam War Veteran with severe limitations.”
You claimed to the V.A. that you suffer from service-related post-traumatic stress disorder.
You claimed to the EEOC that you suffer from clinical depression, obesity, and speech and hearing disabilities.
Yet you know more about the Constitution than Supreme Court Justices.
All I got from that was “Nuh uh!”
At least Scott’s drivel is short.
Ah yes, the ulterior motive of the Birther screed. Cast FUD on Obama, and get closer to disenfranchising an entire class of Native Born Citizens.
Mr. Laity, any person born in the Geographical United States, whether the parents are citizens, legal immigrants, tourists, foreign students, or undocumented immigrants are Natural Born Citizens, with the only exceptions being for the children of foreign diplomats or invading armies. I’m sure you have had this mentioned to you thousands of times.
You have one badly translated description of the European tradition which has been further badly misinterpreted to support your case. It just doesn’t say what you think it does, and you would be wise to listen more carefully to Lupin,
On the otherhand, you ignore more than 200 hundred years of precedent, many examples of Presidents and Vice-Presidents, written explanations by the very persons that wrote the Constitution, the works that those writers actually used on a daily basis (e.g. Blackstone not Vattel), dozens of court cases at all levels up to and including the Supreme Court, and the 14th Amendment itself.
The meaning of the Constitution is not secret; it has been poured over for more than 200 years by everyone from school kids to Supreme Court justices. Even if there was a secret code left behind for only you to discover, it wouldn’t matter; the Constitution means exactly what Americans have agreed it means for more than 200 years. Once, when a racist court twisted that meaning of the Constitution into such a repulsive image of what Americans knew it to mean they immediately promulgated the 14th Amendment to ensure that the long understood meaning was enshrined in the Constitution beyond the reach of racist Courts or Congresses.
Notice the first words are ‘All persons born’, not ‘Some persons born’. Nowhere in that statement is there any mention of parents (except for that implied by ‘jurisdiction’).
You are wrong, Mr. Laity, and your unAmerican bigotry is showing, especially when you voice your anti-American attack on the American Natural Born Children of undocumented immigrants.
Your summary caught all of the main points of his “argument.”
Try this Alinsky tactic: You are clinically insane, from what I have read about you. It used to be called ‘shell shocked,’ now it’s PTSD.
Like this: http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/01981668.txt
So what chapter, in what book, is my Alinsky tactic from? Your “campaign”? You mean your keyboard kommando pounding.
Get an
indictmentinvitation against me from yourcitizen grand jurybowling league.The Birthers attract a certain element: Orly Taitz, Liz Cheney, Robert Laity.
FIFY
“Bartender, gimme a pitcher.”
How can you tell the groom at a birther wedding?
He’s the one wearing a bowling league shirt.
Actually you’ve proven no such thing. You’ve spewed a long debunked conspiracy theory that the courts have yet to take seriously, and in the process become the punchline to a political joke.
I think you are wrong there, Misha. The guy wearing the bowling shirt just might be the celebrant.
You too could become a Dudeist Priest. I am, but I haven’t been asked to celebrate a wedding (yet).
Wrong again. The fifth amendment says
As you admit, a Grand Jury is not an ad hoc group of malcontent nincompoops; its a legal body established according to the laws of the State. The whole purpose of the rule is to ensure due process of law, not lynch mobs on witch hunts. The Amendment says that a Grand Jury can produce a ‘presentment’ or an ‘indictment’. It doesn’t say anything at all about an ad hoc group of citizens running their own agenda beyond disallowing such mobs from meting out their own mob rule ‘justice’.
You can, of course, gather and make any reports you want, and call them whatever you want, and it isn’t the Fifth Amendment that guarantees that, its the First Amendment. Naturally, you and your reports have no moral or legal effect what-so-ever.
Laugh all you want. I am going to have the last laugh.
You are off to a really crappy start then Robert.
It’s like deja vu all over again.
— Yogi Berra, still alive and kicking
So…..how, given that, do you explain the total failure of your “campaign”?
A horse walks into a bar. “Why such a long face?”, asks the bartender.
“You’d have a long face too, if you were a horse.”
I win.
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby
You seem to have skipped right past my earlier response to you drivel. I provided you with a quick Civics 101 of how the world of reality works.
President Obama ran for election then re-election. On both occasions he won the greatest number of the popular vote as well as the overwhelming number of electoral college votes.
On both occasions Congress counted an certified the votes, on both occasions Congress had the opportunity to query the vote, on both occasions they passed and on both occasions the President was sworn in.
The actual Constitution and Amendments therof are very very plain. They say SHALL BE PRESIDENT. Not MAY, not COULD BE, it says SHALL.
He is the President, he remains the President, he SHALL be President until he hands over at the end of his term.
Don’t like it, tough titty, convince enough Senators and Congressmen to raise articles of impeachment. Until then you are and remain a deluded, bigoted, racist, seditious LSOS.
That is just silly. The Constitution mentions “Grand Jury” not “Presentment Hearing”. Both the word “Presentment” and the word “Indictment” are in the same sentence that mentions “Grand Jury” and describe alternate legal ‘work products’ that that Grand Jury might produce in the examination of some issue.
From the Legal Dictionary section of the Free Dictinary by Farlex:
—–
(from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. )
—–
(from A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856. )
—–
What is the difference between a presentment and an indictment?
—–
Presentments are Grand Jury ‘work products’. Indictments are Grand Jury ‘work products’. Grand Juries are mentioned in the Constitution. Presentment Hearings of ad hoc, unofficial, witch hunters is not mentioned in the Constitution.
The entire concept of a “Presentment Hearing” is just made up out of thin air, air so thin it isn’t even air, its a vacuum. I choose not to speculate on the location of that vacuum but I suspect that there might be a hat located somewhere nearby.
Robert, what you’re suggesting could bring the justice system down…
What you’re suggesting is the following:
Any group of citizens can get together, call themselves a “presentment jury”, and admit any evidence that they want (whether or not it’s actually legally admissible in a court of law), then draw up a legalese document that they call presentment, indicting someone with any crime that they deem fit, and the state should be forced to be forced to try it?
Let me put it to you this way…
The Ku Klux Klan can get together, call themselves a “presentment jury”, and then admit evidence that they know will not be admitted in a court of law, and then “present” charges that every black man in America is guilty of Murder of every white man (even the living ones), and the prosecutor should be forced to try this?
And if not, then what is fundamentally different in your “presentment jury” system from what I put up there? And if the prosecutor should have discretion whether or not, then why are you accusing them of “misprision of treason and Felony”?
And if that’s what you truly believe, then I know exactly how to get off when I commit a crime. Get a bunch of my friends together, and then indict a ham sandwich for everything under the law. The Prosecution will be forced to try every one of those cases, and that will gum up the works of the courtrooms until eternity, and then the prosecutor’s office will not be able to try my case. And if they refuse, I’ll get the same friends together and indict the prosecutors of “misprision of felony”, and start the entire process over again…
No it is not. You are woefully ignorant about the entire matter which was clarified here many times before.
Vattel does *NOT* say that someone has to have both parents citizens (which in Vattel’s parlance actually means “relatives” and not parents as you understand it) to be born a citizen. One relative will do.
The lie you quote was made up entirely by Apuzzo or Donofrio but has no reality whatsoever.
At this point this has been so thoroughly debunked that only liars and fools cling to that notion.
Even if the Constitution required citizen parents (it does not), it is obvious that either parent would do (Vattel selected the father, but that’s another issue entirely), but not both, otherwise the sentence would be phrased differently.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. Maybe you should go back to school?
That has become quite clear.
No you don’t.
This statement somehow reminds me of Herbert Lom’s character Commissioner Dreyfus in the Pink Panther movies.
Ok, I have to ask. What the hell is a RICO government? Not to mention “malfeasant misprisioners of Treason”?
I think it was cribbed from the Sibley/Strunk Manual of Legal Nonsense for Delusional, Vexatious Litigants.
1/22/2013
Robert Laity wrote:
On the Contrary. I have (40) years of Legal experience before various administrative forums and courts including the U.S.Supreme Court.
My case against Obama is air tight.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/washington-dc/TEES6726U3HD6872A/p3
“malfeasant misprisioners of Treason”
2/2013 robert c.:
“What makes you think that will stop Obama? He is a dictator. He has usurped the Presidency unfettered by Congressional and Judicially Malfeasant misprisioners of Treason in our Government.”
“Obama is a CRIMINAL degenerate,fraud,traitor and spy. America wins when HE is arrested and tried for treason and if convicted,HUNG BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD.”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-admin-has-thus-far-lost-10-out-of-14-federal-court-cases-on-obamacare-does-america-win-when-o/question-3501897/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s
PUERTORICO“It was my car when I met you. Why is it your car now?” – Jesse Chryssa
H. Res. 593
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
Whereas August 21, 2009, marks the 50th Anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s signing of Proclamation 3309, which admitted Hawaii into the Union in compliance with the Hawaii Admission Act, enacted by the United States Congress on March 18, 1959;
Whereas Hawaii is `a place like no other, with a people like no other’ and bridges the mainland United States to the Asia-Pacific region;
Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961…
Also:
…Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court)
And again:
“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise” Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012)
I can tell you who will be having the last laugh if you can tell me who coined the phrase “the last laugh.”
Robert C. Laity: The Courts have based their dismissals on “lack of standing”
or have overtly ignored or “Evad[ed] the issue”
Sorry Bob, courts have looked at your evidence. (not direct quotes, summarized because I don’t want to look them up again)
Judge Land: Unlike Alice in Wonderland, saying something is so, doesn’t make it so.
Judge Carter: Evidence is not something you read on the internet
Judge Windgate: So far, the only evidence this court has seen is the verifications from the State of Hawaii.
They’ve looked at all your so-called evidence, and see just a lot of personal opinions and unproven theories…no evidence.
Well that’s ironic.
And then what happened?
You mean all those Founders who had been born British subjects themselves? THOSE Founders?
Well, at least you got the last part right.
Oh he did, did he?
The same thing that happened when I “presented” our findings to the local state’s attorney…we laughed and he bought the next round.
History will not even remember your name.
And your presentments have legality to them because YOU say so?
You’re going to put President Obama before the “Nuremberg Tribunal?” This is an interesting idea…
Let’s see. Which nations will be judging and prosecuting this case? In 1945, it was the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. Who will try this case?
What will be the subject matter of the indictment? How will international jurisdiction apply? How will British, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, or Maldive Islands law be applied to this situation?
What laws has President Obama alleged to have broken in any of the aforementioned nations? How do they have a vested legal interest in such a prosecution?
How will President Obama defend himself? Will he need a Canadian lawyer or an American lawyer? Will he be given full disclosure and information prior to trial? Who will handle arrest, arraignment, and pre-trial confinement? Will he have to sit in a cell in French Guiana or the Philippines pending trial?
How will this case be tried? Where will it be tried? How will the decision be enforced? Will you support the deployment of foreign troops into the United States to march into the White House and arrest President Obama, take him captive, and haul him off back to the landing craft?
The Nuremberg precedent is four counts: Crime Against Peace, Crimes of War, Crimes Against Humanity, and the Conspiracy or Common Plan for the above. How does the possible forging of a birth certificate connect with any of those?
Will this court have the power of death sentences, bearing in mind that many nations in the world do not use the death penalty? If not, what kind of punishment would be appropriate?
Finally, isn’t having foreign nations try violations of American law kind of treasonable, seditious, and anti-American? What are you going to do if the German, Dutch, Brazilian, and Australian judges find him guilty? Who will replace President Obama? Will we have to submit to foreign rule?
Finally…didn’t you learn your lesson when a Brooklyn federal judge berated you in public?
Since I’ve heard variations on this theme since July of 2008, I’m not exactly going to hold my breath over the thought.
Here’s one of the problems with the whole “The Founders based the Constitution on “The Law of Nations”.
Ignoring the fact that neither the French original or the first English translation uses the terms the Birthers like to cite, the Law of Nations has such things like:
(Book One)
“ 114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.”
So much for “Freedom of the Press”
“ 129. Public establishment of religion.
But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.”
“ 141. The sovereign’s authority over the ministers of religion.
To the prince’s inspection of the affairs and concerns of religion we have joined an authority over its ministers: without the latter power, the former would be nugatory and ineffectual; — they are both derived from the same principle. It is absurd, and contrary to the first foundations of society, that any citizens should claim an independence of the sovereign authority, in offices of such importance to the repose, the happiness, and safety of the state. This is establishing two independent powers in the same society — an unfailing source of division, disturbance, and ruin. There is but one supreme power in the state; the functions of the subordinate powers vary according to their different objects: — ecclesiastics, magistrates, and commanders of the troops, are all officers of the republic, each in his own department; and all are equally accountable to the sovereign.”
So much for that whole “The State shall establish no religion” thing.
176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.
…Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms, and subjected to corporal punishment — even the punishment of death, according to the grossness of the insult…
…Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only."
So much for the entire Second Amendment.
And in Book Two:
“ 81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.
Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person.”
Hmm….I can’t seem to find anything in the Constitution like this…
“ 122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force”
You know, I can’t seem to find where in the Constitution that the United States has the right to raid, oh, say, Canada or Mexico for breeding stock.
I have no doubt he’s going to have the last laugh…in a padded room…wearing a very nice jacket. I’ll be sure to send him a cake, then he can imagine a metal file to escape. He can then see how the imaginary file compares with his imaginary evidence.
I’ve seen quite a few birthers call for foreign governments to invade the US and help them remove President Obama and the current US Government.
Which tends to show just what kind of “patriots” they really are.
Thanks for playing.
Robert C. Laity: The Courts have based their dismissals on “lack of standing”
or have overtly ignored or “Evad[ed] the issue”
In the case of Farrar v. Obama Orly Taitz presented witnesses, among them Douglas Vogt and Felicito Papa, who testified to the alleged forgery of the LFBC. She also presented exhibits including the analysis of Paul Irey. Judge Malihi, in his order, stated that he had decided the case “on the merits of their arguments and evidence”. In regard to the allegations of forgery, Judge Malihi said: “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.”
In conclusion, Judge Malihi ruled: “President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(b).”
“Whatever criticism one may raise against that trial, still the authenticity of Obama’s Long Form birth certificate WAS litigated ON THE MERITS and Obama was found eligible.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/on-the-merits/
And of course he has lost every one of his cases, although I doubt his claim about 40 years since he was only 21 years old 40 years ago. He really should get together with Chris Strunk, as they both have unbroken strings of legal fails.
No, Vattel translated it into French from Esperanto.
What is your position on Marc Rubio and Ted Cruz?
I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in WKA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#Dissent
“In the dissenters’ view…reliance on jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which “the children of foreigners…whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency…”
Joe Vogler enlisted the help of IRAN, and other rogue nations to further his agenda of Alaska seceding from the USA. We don’t have to worry about sitting down with Iran, the AIP has already done so during the time when Todd Palin was a member!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/12/628387/-Sarah-denounce-Joe-Vogler-now
So if she breaks out the old robe, packs herself a nice lunch and shows up for work like the nine sitting justices, what happens next?
How, exactly, do you reconcile your first sentence with your second sentence?
My irony meter just turned into shrapnel. Thanks.
And I’m a particle physicist. I’m an unaccredited, unschooled, incognizant, incompetent and downright pitiful excuse for a particle physicist, but while we’re just making stuff up I figured I’d aim high. It saved Solzhenitsyn’s ass.
Dead giveaway, Bob.
But Bob, how would you know if you weren’t?
“Complainant, a Housekeeping Aide,
sought EEO counseling after he was issued an admonishment on May 14,
1996 based on the charge that, on May 1, 1996, complainant raised his
voice to a Personnel Specialist. The record reflects that the Personnel
Specialist was representing the agency in a matter being heard before the
Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) and complainant was representing
the employee. Complainant contended that because his mother is profoundly
hearing impaired, he generally speaks loudly. However, a supervisor who
was present described complainant as “screaming at the top of his lungs”
in a hostile and angry manner.”
Gosh, Bob, were you in the habit of screaming at the top of your lungs in a hostile and angry manner at your MOTHER?
Just so you know, Robert, real legal scholars don’t misuse quotation marks unless they’re trying to be ironic. As in: That Robert C. Laity is one hell of a “legal scholar,” isn’t he?
And it’s going to sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-eafUBULWA
That doesn’t sound like the birthers I know.
I’m the official Brain Surgeon for birfistan…work’s been kind of slow, still looking for my first birther brain.
A housekeeping aide at the V.A. is essentially a janitor. Presumably that is where Laity honed his legal skills.
http://mycareeratva.va.gov/careerpath/pages/job.aspx?job=42_356610
That’s a pretty prestigious position. They won’t let just anybody handle such a rare commodity.
I’ll let you know when I find a birther with a brain…still looking.
I feel as if somehow I just stumbled into a thread here from back in, like, 2008, which was also chock-full of birther brainz like “Bob” the “Legal Scholar” (sic), where each one was saying virtually the same thing. Yet, here we are, 5 years later, and the birthers haven’t proved, let alone won, anything.
Any. Day. Now.
To a birther, janitor in a courthouse qualifies as legal scholar.
Ah yes….memories. Started back on The Washington Independent arguing with these folks…I think they’re still the same ones we’re seeing on here today!
Admirer: Just think. The children would have your brains, and my looks.
Shaw: But what if our children had my looks and your brains?
The only guy I know who is really getting the last laugh is Leslie Nielson.
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/neilsengravestone.jpg
Here is the truth about Orly Taitz’ legal skills: http://spreadingtaitz.tumblr.com/
I was there. And on topix.com.
😀
Like it. See also: “Oh no, I just stepped in dog taitz!”
I’ll edit it. Send it to your friends – get the word out.
I am the queen of England
I love to sing and dance
And if you don’t believe me
I will punch you in the pants.
The only thing presented were grilled cheese sandwiches and boxes of Depends.
Jim: I’m the official Brain Surgeon for birfistan…work’s been kind of slow, still looking for my first birther brain.
sounds like the Maytag Man
He probably looks a little flushed.
If the zombie apocalypse happened in Birtherstan, the poor undead bastards would starve to death.
Yes. I was a Housekeeper. I cleaned up the facility and Government “Dirt” at the same time in my concurrent role as a Service Employees International Union Officer and as a trained Statutory Appeals Specialist. I also went to school to become a legal assistant while I worked and was the Chairman of the Divisional Legal Research Committee. After I retired in 2003, I continued my education. I have a perspicacious knowledge of the Law. Do not underestimate me.
“Flushed”? I caught that. Droll. Very Droll.
Obama was born illegitimate. Senior was still married in Kenya at the time he was “Married to Stanley Dunham. Obama is the “Bastard”.
By the Dunning-Kruger effect, that means you know less than you think you do.
Leonard Daneman (ParalegalNM) is what came to my mind.
So what is your won-lost record in Federal and State lawsuits?
According to some birther conspiracy theory that won’t hold up in a court of law.
And let’s not forget Jerry “Gifted Legal Mind” Collette.
So was James Buchanan, the 15th president of the USA. So what?
What difference would that make? I’d say that what you’ve chosen to make out of yourself as an adult is a lot worse than anything anybody could be born into.
I’m not sure that would even be possible.
Oh, and by the way– that “persipcacious knowledge of the Law” isn’t consistent with that “bastard” nonsense.
I don’t think it’s possible to underestimate you…
Wow, illegitimate? Why, that’s… irrelevant
Obviously,my grasp of the Law is stronger than yours.
Obama Sr. himself told Dunham that he had divorced his African wife before marrying her. The Washington Post said that he lied. I don’t know any authoritative reference to decide whether that is right. Maybe Maraniss’ book has a footnote or something. Attorneys have commented to me that even if the Obama-Dunham marriage was declared void, Barack Obama would not be legally considered illegitimate.
I cannot say about the law, but your grasp of reality is weaker.
Bob’s been hearing that from judges so much that he’s just been dying to use it somewhere.
My response was made in response to Vrba’s reference to Inhabitants of a fictitious “Birtherstan” being “Poor Bastards”. Obama is the Bastard.
Reality is that Obama has usurped the Presidency and has a lot of obamatoid dupes like you to defend him.
It was U.S. Magistrate,Leslie Foschio of the U.S. District Court-Western District of New York that advised me that the proper venue for my charge against Obama IS the U.S. District Court in D.C. to which the case was filed. Magistrate Foschio once ruled in a Court case defending a wrongfully terminated employee ,that I was “an Expert” in Statutory Appeals and Labor Union issues. After over 30+ years of representing employees of the Federal Government,I believe I’ve have the experience and that I’ve earned that status. I have the degrees in Law to back it up.
Aaaaand Q.E.D.
To my knowledge Polygamy was not allowed in Hawaii in 1961. A marriage conducted under fraudulent circumstances is null and void. No actual weight to the “I do”. Senior and Dunham were not legally married. Obama was illegitimate.
Doc C. any response?
You should get that framed and hung on your wall, if you haven’t already done so. So how’s all that been working out for you lait-ly, outcome-wise?
Have you by any chance consulted the actual law?
338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child is prima facie evidence if:
(1) The alleged father is:
(A) The husband of the mother; or
(B) The acknowledged father of the child; or
(2) The father and child relationship has been established under chapter 584. Data pertaining to the alleged father acknowledging paternity of the child is admissible as evidence of paternity in any family court proceeding, including proceedings under chapter 584. [L 1949, c 327, 16; RL 1955, 57-15; HRS 338-12; am L 1975, c 66, 2(2); am L 1994, c 23, 1]
What isn’t “possible” is to deter me from my current mission in life, to bring Obama to the Bar of Justice.
That will be a life long mission for you because it will never happen.
I did not say that Obama,Sr. was not Junior’s father. I said that he was born illegitimate. Bastards are persons born out of wedlock. That is what Obama is. It may be evidence of Paternity in a Family court proceeding but it is NOT evidence of having met the Constitutional requirement that Obama,Jr. be a “Natural-Born Citizen”. If Senior was his real father,which IS in dispute since Junior’s BC is a proven forgery,Obama is DQ’d Senior was a Brit and Junior was conferred British Citizenship at Birth by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1948 which Senior and Child WERE subject to. Senior never naturalized and was not a U.S. Citizen. Junior had dual citizenship at birth.
Geez, it must suck to be you.
If need be I will work on this matter until my last breath. I believe that Obama will be in the Brig before that.
I am quite content and happy. I am on the Right side.
You can see how it is working out by the many pro-Obama comments on this blog/
I have many people to convince that Obama has hurt this country. I am up to that task.
Bastards cannot hold office. Here’s an example:
“That bastard could not get elected dog catcher.”
Obama was twice elected president, so he’s not a bastard.
Most children from Mormon polygamists are illegitimate. Take it up with Mitt.
He’ll have a presidential library before that.
What are you going to do when Ted Cruz runs for prez?
So you’ve cut back on the screaming at the top of your lungs in a hostile and angry manner at people? That’s good. I saw a show the other night where a guy had an invisible 6-foot squirrel for a friend to help him cope. Whatever it takes, Bob.
Bob, never mind that you’re not exactly the most compelling and persuasive advocate that’s come down the pike– that doesn’t even make any sense.
So, what you’re saying is that International Law determines who can and cannot become our President?
Here you go, champ:
580-21 Grounds for annulment. The family court, by a decree of nullity, may declare void the marriage contract for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the parties stood in relation to each other of ancestor and descendant of any degree whatsoever, brother and sister of the half as well as the whole blood, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, whether the relationship is the result of the issue of parents married or not married to each other;
(2) That the parties, or either of them, had not attained the legal age of marriage;
(3) That the husband had an undivorced wife living, or the wife had an undivorced husband living;
(4) That one of the parties lacked the mental capacity to consent to the marriage;
(5) That consent to the marriage of the party applying for annulment was obtained by force, duress, or fraud, and there has been no subsequent cohabitation; and
(6) That one of the parties was a sufferer of or afflicted with any loathsome disease and the fact was concealed from, and unknown to, the party applying for annulment. [CC 1859, 1313; am imp L 1866, p 3; rep L 1870, c 10; ree L 1876, c 48; am imp L 1870, c 24, 1; rep L 1872, c 23, 2; am imp L 1872, c 23, 1; am L 1903, c 22, 1; RL 1925, 2955; RL 1935, 4450; am L 1935, c 184, 1; RL 1945, 12201; am L 1949, c 53, 29; RL 1955, 324-1; am L 1957, c 72, 1; am imp L 1965, c 232, 1; HRS 580-21; am L 1980, c 43, 1; am L 1984, c 119, 2; am L 1997, c 52, 8]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0021.htm
So a marriage for which there was an invalid contract because of an undivorced wife living could be voidable.
580-23 Former husband or wife living. A marriage may be declared null on the ground that one of the parties has an undivorced husband or wife living, on the application of either of the parties during the lifetime of the other, or on the application of the former husband or wife. [CC 1859, 1315; RL 1925, 2957; RL 1935, 4452; RL 1945, 12203; RL 1955, 324-3; HRS 580-23]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0023.htm
But that marriage would only be declared void under limited circumstances.
580-27 Legitimacy in case of annulment. Upon the annulment of a marriage on account of nonage, lack of mental capacity of either party to consent to the marriage, or of a marriage that is prohibited on account of consanguinity between the parties, or for any other ground specified in section 580-21, the issue of the marriage shall be legitimate. [CC 1859, 1319, 1320; am imp L 1870, c 24, 1, rep L 1872, c 23, 2; am L 1872, c 23, 1; RL 1925, 2961, 2962; RL 1935, 4456, 4457; am L 1935, c 115, 1, 2; RL 1945, 12207; RL 1955, 324-7; HRS 580-27; am L 1980, c 43, 3]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0027.htm
And even if the marriage were declared void, the issue of the marriage would remain legitimate. How civilized.
Especially in juxtaposition to “Bastards are persons born out of wedlock.”
Yeah…..is it any coincidence that Birthers like to claim that Obama is an actual Bastard or that his mother was a slut- who slept with black men…..?
Re Laity’s “claims” regarding Obama’s purported dual citizenship:
Let’s remember (to use only the most incontrovertible case) that James Madison was a French citizen BEFORE he ran for President. Nobody minded and that didn’t disqualify him.
Laity appears to be a lunatic, with no grasp at all of 200+ years of legal scholarship in two (three, counting England) different countries on the subject. It’s pathetic that people like him can mouth so much nonsense.
I suggest you consider embarking on more likely quests such as finding the Fountain of Youth, the Holy Grail, Unicorns or Elvis.
And yet the courts ruled otherwise.
How funny
ROTFL… You and the black knight…
Poor Robert, a mission into futility.
Wow… And still a natural born citizen…
Not a very logical argument…
Here Bobby,
You seem to have skated past my little primer on the Constitution and the law around the President so, just as a reminder
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby
You seem to have skipped right past my earlier response to you drivel. I provided you with a quick Civics 101 of how the world of reality works.
President Obama ran for election then re-election. On both occasions he won the greatest number of the popular vote as well as the overwhelming number of electoral college votes.
On both occasions Congress counted an certified the votes, on both occasions Congress had the opportunity to query the vote, on both occasions they passed and on both occasions the President was sworn in.
The actual Constitution and Amendments therof are very very plain. They say SHALL BE PRESIDENT. Not MAY, not COULD BE, it says SHALL.
He is the President, he remains the President, he SHALL be President until he hands over at the end of his term.
Don’t like it, tough titty, convince enough Senators and Congressmen to raise articles of impeachment. Until then you are and remain a deluded, bigoted, racist, seditious LSOS
So sad, no “usurping” going on………. 8-(
That’s easy – just look in the frozen food isle.
It’s easy for us to laugh, but he and his ilk are being egged on by the likes of Boehner and Liz Cheney. She is going to run for Senator, and she’ll get in a shout-out to the Denialists, just like Palin and Romney.
“But setting that aside, one of the reasons you see people so concerned about this, I think this issue is, people are uncomfortable with having for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas …”
Asked directly by King if she actually thought Obama was born in Kenya, Cheney responded, “No, I’m not saying that.” But then she kept going. “I’m saying that people are fundamentally uncomfortable and fundamentally I think increasingly uncomfortable with an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America, stand up for what we believe in.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/liz-cheney-defends-birthe_n_242555.html
She’ll fan the embers with glee. Mark my words.
It’s pathetic that Boehner, Arpaio, Cantor and Liz Cheney fan the embers.
I would not vote GOP for dog catcher.
Aside: I am glad Cheney is going to run for Senate. It’s going to be a vicious, bloody campaign and she’ll win. She’ll pander to the Denialists whenever a microphone is near.
And she’ll confirm to the rest of the world that conservatives are Adolf, Benito and Coughlin redux. She’ll confirm that conservatives are reptiles at best, and Neanderthals at worst. She’s as awful as Sharron Angle, only she doesn’t carry a revolver and she’ll win.
Enjoy reading: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/17/liz_cheney_for_senate/
Apparently, you are not alone in that opinion:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/washington-dc/TEES6726U3HD6872A
and http://www.topix.com/forum/city/washington-dc/T66VUI5CU1RDP96JN
and many more.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
– Carl Sagan
You make my point for me.
Reality is you should go back to your padded cell. Obama is legally and lawfully the President.
Are you going to pick up his tab?
You do know your claims are rather contradictory? If Obama is a bastard as you say under birth theory he would have solely inherited his mother’s citizenship regardless of where he was born. Thus he was a United States Citizen at birth and wouldn’t have had dual citizenship since he would have no claim to his “illegitimate” father’s citizenship. So how can you believe two contradictory things at once?
Only the fringe of the fringe think that Obama is not a US citizen. You remind me of the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who after his arms and legs were cut off in a fight said that it was “just a scratch.”
Proven how and where and to whom?
Has it been proven in court? Is it a consensus view of experts?
No and no. You have a very odd notion of proof (and an entirely fantastical one). Just because you and your weak-minded conspiracy buddies were suckered in doesn’t make it proven to anybody else.
Well I hope that keeps you busy and away from doing anything actually destructive.
Only if by “Brig” you mean Presidential library.
Here is my prediction – President Obama will served out his term and leave office in January, 2017. He’ll probably write some books, possibly create some type of charitable foundation, give a whole bunch of lectures and interviews, be named to the boards of several corporations, attend the openings of his Presidential library as well as of schools being named after him. And probably become extremely wealthy.
And will that “last breath” be the word “usurper”?
Attendants in the Barak Obama Home for Seniors will wonder, briefly, what that could have meant. Assume it was dementia induced, joke about it for awhile and by the end of their shifts, they will have completely forgotten it.
Birthers have never had an alternative narrative that was internally consistent with itself and with the evidence. Birthers base their belief on alleged anomalies in the standard narrative alone. They have no positive evidence of the alternative.
This does demonstrate that Mr. Laity is not too bright.
As I’ve explained to you before, Obama isn’t subject to the UCMJ.
And some people wonder about the point at which an ordinary conspiracy nutcase becomes a potential terrorist….
Oh brother! Lawyers think of EVERYTHING! They obviously have foreseen that surrogate mothers could be used to nefariously acquire citizenship. Imagine: a Fifth-Column Surrogate Mommy Brigade popping out little commies from sea to shining sea. Heavens, what if one of those little Pinkos became President of the United States!!
How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCzgdF_WjOg
“I just cut off your arm!”
“‘Tis just a scratch.”
You are a sorry excuse for a human being.
You blamed everyone but yourself for your anger management issues when you worked for the V.A.
You then tried to blame your 3+ years in the Navy for your depression, your alleged PTSD, and your mitral valve prolapse syndrome in an unsuccessful effort to get V.A. disability benefits.
A now you are wasting your life directing your anger toward the twice-elected President of the United States.
As Dave B. succinctly put it, it must suck to be you.
Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl. Mitt Romney strangled a girl in 1987.
What other proof is necessary? NONE!
You forgot hermaphrodite.
In detail:
“7 FAM 1131.4-2 Citizenship in Artificial and In Vitro Insemination Cases
a. A child born abroad to a foreign surrogate mother who is the natural/blood
mother (i.e., who was the egg-donor) and whose claimed father was a U.S.
citizen is treated for citizenship purposes as a child born out of wedlock. The
procedures for proving citizenship under section 309(a) INA (8 U.S.C. 1409(a)),
as amended apply (see 7 FAM 1133.4-3 b). The blood relationship between the child and the putative U.S. citizen father must be proven. Additional evidence beyond the child’s birth certificate and statement of the parents is required.
Certification by appropriate medical authorities of all facts and circumstances
surrounding the entire insemination procedure is required. Examples of appropriate supporting documentation include hospital records from the facility where the sperm donation was made, affidavit from the doctor who performed the operation, and possibly blood tests.
b. A child born abroad to a foreign surrogate mother who was not the egg-donor and whose claimed mother (egg-donor) and/or claimed father was a U.S. citizen is treated for citizenship purposes either as a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother (if the sperm donor was not a U.S. citizen) or as the child of two U.S. citizens. The applicable sections of law generally are sections 309(c) and 301 INA.
c. The status of the surrogate mother is immaterial to the issue of citizenship
transmission. The child is considered the offspring of the biological parents and
the appropriate INA section is applied. Evidence to establish the blood relationship between the child and the biological parents would be similar to that mentioned in 7 FAM 1131.4-2 a.”
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
(page 4)
So basically a child born outside the US to a US citizen surrogate mother with non-US citizen egg and sperm donors wouldn’t be born a US citizen.
FIFY
I’ll drink to that.
Robert C. Laity: to bring Obama to the Bar of Justine.
misha marinsky: I’ll drink to that.
Jim: I got the pretzels…first round on Bob.
Robert, one more question…
I’ve been divorced, with one child, and the child lives with her mother across the country. Their mother belongs to a nice country club with a pool. Now, the pool has a sign on it that says “Only children of members may use the pool.”
My daughter wants to use the pool, however there’s a couple of problems that only someone with your legal training can sort out…
1. Children – The sign clearly says children. Does that mean that my ex-wife and myself need multiple children in order for them to use the pool? The sign clearly says “children” which is plural, therefore, I must need to have two or more in order for any of them to use the pool, right?
2. Members – The sign also clearly says members. Does this mean that I have to join the country club and pay an exorbant fee for a service that I will never personally use in order to become a member so my daughter can use the pool? After all, the sign clearly says “members” that must mean more than one, right.
British Nationality Act, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56, Sec. 32.–(2)
“Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
So which is it, Bob, since your grasp of the Law is OBVIOUSLY stronger than anybody else’s– is he illegitimate or is he a dual citizen? You can’t have it both ways.
Thanks, Dave! I overlooked that this was specifically for foreign-born children. But if the baby is born in the USA, he/she is still an NBC regardless, right?
You realize what this means, don’t you: the International Jewish Conspiracy(TM) – that’s right, I’m looking at YOU, Misha!! – could still hook up Boris and Natasha with unsuspecting American surrogates to create an army of anchor baby Socialistas right here in the land of the free! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!! THE FLOURIDE THING IS JUST THE BEGINNING!!
I think this comment really shows your inner thoughts quite clearly.
And, BTW, ignoring the fact they were legally married in the State of Hawaii, illegitimacy doesn’t affect one’s citizenship in the slightest.
Well, yes, it can. It would determine whether or not 8 USC 1409 would apply. Under 8 USC 1409, it’s possible– for a variety of reasons– that a person who would otherwise acquire US citizenship at birth would not acquire US citizenship at birth because of illegitimacy.
Here’s a real mind-warper:
http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/47-2/47arizlrev313.pdf
It does affect holding public office:
“That bastard couldn’t get elected dog catcher.”
Sounds to me like she’s fond of talking out of her fundament.
I like to think that every day Obama is in office, is physically painful for birthers like Robert here. Like, getting stuck in acid rain or something.
There is something basically fundament-al about birtherism.
Or getting stuck on the planet that rains glass:
http://science.time.com/2013/07/12/found-a-blue-planet-that-rains-glass/
I voted for “nutcase”! 🙂 Thanks!
I’m not sure she’ll win. The locals don’t seem to like her very much.
I’ve tried that argument before. He is completely impervious to logic. His reply (as much as I could decipher his babbling) is that common English rules used in normal everyday occurrences do not apply to the Constitution which uses only super-english or mutant-english or something only Laity speaks.
Here you go:
http://tarnishyabq.es.tl/marquis-de-sade-juliette-text.htm
Since her dad is Satan, that could be to her advantage.
And I shall name it Dethklok, because that is the most metal thing I’ve read in my life!
Let’s revisit Minor case.
Justice Waite tells us that Minor has standing to sue under the 14th Amendment as a citizen of the United States. Nowhere in the opinion did Justice Waite declare Ms. Minor to be a natural born citizen; in fact, he mentioned Ms. Minor as a citizen several times. He mentioned “natural born citizen” four times in the opinion but none in reference to Ms. Minor.
He mentioned natural born citizen in reference to Constitution wherein he quotes “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President” and when he quotes the section of Naturalization Act of 1790 that “that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”
He mentioned “natural born citizen” in the following paragraph in which he defines who is natural born citizen:
“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Id at 167-168.(emphasis added)
Note in this paragraph that Justice Waite doesn’t preclude the idea that children of aliens could be considered natural born citizens but there were doubts and he further stressed that for purposes of this case it was not necessary for the court to address these doubts.
The reason that Justice Waite’s language regarding natural-born citizen is dicta is that he never mentioned that Ms. Minor was natural born citizen; in fact, he never discussed the citizenship status of Ms. Minor’s parents. Moreover, Justice Waite recognized that Ms. Minor as a citizen had standing under the 14th Amendment to sue but that the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any citizen.
Ms. Minor’s right to vote wasn’t contingent if she were a natural born citizen but rather if United States CITIZENS both natural born or naturalized had a right to vote based on the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
The Court concluded that no such right exists to United States citizens under the 14th Amendment.
I think the last sentence of this paragraph from Chief Justice Waite’s opinion in Minor throws a little bit of light upon just exactly what those “doubts” he referred to would’ve been:
“Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen—a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”
So we have questions of whether “certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time.” Who could those “certain classes of persons” have been? Well, we clearly have, among others, the “certain classes of persons” excluded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Sandford from being “part of the people.”
Where was there no doubt? Turning to Justice Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark,
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
Beyond doubt.
“To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Always.
Referring to the Senate debate over the Civil Rights Act, Justice Gray said:
“During the debates in the senate in January and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: ‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.’ Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked ‘whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?’ Mr. Trumbull answered, ‘Undoubtedly;’ and asked, ‘Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?’ Mr. Cowan replied, ‘The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.’ ”
So before the passage of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment, white persons were “undoubtedly” considered to be “part of the people”, and various non-white persons were not.
I’ve been looking through a little book called “Citizenship of the United States of America” by one Sidney Kansas, dating from 1936, when even at that late date naturalization was limited to “aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent”; and it becomes obvious that the context of naturalization statutes provides another window into who would have been considered “part of the people.” Justice Sutherland, writing in Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), said
“On behalf of the appellant it is urged that we should give to this phrase the meaning which it had in the minds of its original framers in 1790 and that it was employed by them for the sole purpose of excluding the black or African race and the Indians then inhabiting this country. It may be true that those two races were alone thought of as being excluded, but to say that they were the only ones within the intent of the statute would be to ignore the affirmative form of the legislation. The provision is not that Negroes and Indians shall be excluded, but it is, in effect, that only free white persons shall be included. The intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified. It is not enough to say that the framers did not have in mind the brown or yellow races of Asia. It is necessary to go farther and be able to say that had these particular races been suggested the language of the act would have been so varied as to include them within its privileges.”
Included: “only free white persons shall be included…that class of persons whom the fathers knew as white.”
Excluded: Everybody else.
Now, spiraling downward into a pedantic madness, I’ll turn to Justice Sutherland again as he expounds on the meaning of “free white persons”, in United States v. Thind, 261 US 204 (1923):
“In the endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the statute we must not fail to keep in mind that it does not employ the word “Caucasian” but the words “white persons,” and these are words of common speech and not of scientific origin…in this country, during the last half century especially, the word by common usage has acquired a popular meaning, not clearly defined to be sure, but sufficiently so to enable us to say that its popular as distinguished from its scientific application is of appreciably narrower scope. It is in the popular sense of the word, therefore, that we employ it as an aid to the construction of the statute, for it would be obviously illogical to convert words of common speech used in a statute into words of scientific terminology when neither the latter nor the science for whose purposes they were coined was within the contemplation of the framers of the statute or of the people for whom it was framed. The words of the statute are to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man from whose vocabulary they were taken. See Maillard v. Lawrence, 16 How. 251, 261.
…It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today…The question for determination is not, therefore, whether by the speculative processes of ethnological reasoning we may present a probability to the scientific mind that they have the same origin, but whether we can satisfy the common understanding that they are now the same or sufficiently the same to justify the interpreters of a statute — written in the words of common speech, for common understanding, by unscientific men — in classifying them together in the statutory category as white persons.”
“The words of familiar speech, which were used by the original framers of the law, were intended to include only the type of man whom they knew as white. The immigration of that day was almost exclusively from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe, whence they and their forbears had come. When they extended the privilege of American citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person,” it was these immigrants — bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh — and their kind whom they must have had affirmatively in mind. The succeeding years brought immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Middle Europe, among them the Slavs and the dark-eyed, swarthy people of Alpine and Mediterranean stock, and these were received as unquestionably akin to those already here and readily amalgamated with them. It was the descendants of these, and other immigrants of like origin, who constituted the white population of the country when 2169, reenacting the naturalization test of 1790, was adopted; and there is no reason to doubt, with like intent and meaning.”
Adrien Nash only wishes he could come up with stuff like that.
So in matters of who could be “part of the people,” we see where doubt lay, and where there was “no reason to doubt.” Those doubts were by no means extinguished by Minor, or even by Wong Kim Ark– and for some people, some things never change.