BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

[Jacques Ottawa]

Justice Dale wrote:

<quoted text>International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations, a treaty is a good example.

False. Take, for example, extraditions treaties. They are executed when it suits both parties only. We have had such a treaty with the U.S. for decades now. Yet, we extradited not one draft dodger who came to Canada during the Vietnam war even though there was a request for every single one of them from the U.S. Also, we will not extradite, not even American murderers arrested in Canada, unless, if subsequently found guilty in U.S. courts, the death penalty is waived by U.S. authorities. Never mind whether we agree or not with those decisions, I am only stating facts. Many other such examples come to mind between other countries that have extradition treaties.

[wojar]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
Who says he didn't purchase it?
Do you know for a fact that he did not?
Maybe he stole it.
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

First the Birfoon suggested he purchased it, and then that he stole it.

The fact is the Birfoon is clueless.

Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."

Got Alzheimer's?

You made the claim, you own it. Burden is on you, MORON.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>(emphasis added)
Again, who says he purchased it?
The fact is you don't know how he acquired the ring.

[wojar]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
False. Take, for example, extraditions treaties. They are executed when it suits both parties only. We have had such a treaty with the U.S. for decades now. Yet, we extradited not one draft dodger who came to Canada during the Vietnam war even though there was a request for every single one of them from the U.S. Also, we will not extradite, not even American murderers arrested in Canada, unless, if subsequently found guilty in U.S. courts, the death penalty is waived by U.S. authorities. Never mind whether we agree or not with those decisions, I am only stating facts. Many other such examples come to mind between other countries that have extradition treaties.

I'm sorry, Jacques, but according to PLAY LAW you are incorrect. If you don't believe me just ask Dale.

[President Starky]

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
First the Birfoon suggested he purchased it, and then that he stole it.
The fact is the Birfoon is clueless.
Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."
Got Alzheimer's?
You made the claim, you own it. Burden is on you, MORON.
<quoted text>

You have a link proving he didn't buy it?

[Jacques Ottawa]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand your bewilderment and why you cannot think of women as sexy.
Perhaps they have songs in Cantnada about little boys to help you out.

Lame, not satisfactory. At all. Join your birther comrade LRS in the corner. Wait, don't forget your pointy dunce hat.

[LRS]

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
And James Madison was wrong?
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
The court in Gardner v. Ward was wrong?
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.
Zephaniah Swift was wrong?
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term ‘citizenship.’” A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: Zephaniah Swift, In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795).
The high court of Kentucky was wrong in 1822?
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
The Oregon District Court was wrong?
Ex parte Chin King 13 Sawyer 333 (Oregon District June 25, 1888).“By the common law, a child born within the allegiance —the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents.”
Supreme Court Justice Noah H. Swayne was wrong, along with the concurring judges in the appellate court of Kentucky?
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.… We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.” U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb.U.S. 28, 1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22, 7 Am. Law Reg.(N.S.) 233, 27 F.Cas. 785, No. 16,151 (C.C.D.Ky. 1866)
But ignorant BirfoonBoy says they are all wrong throughout the history of this country.
Grow up!
<quoted text>

I don't care what kind of case you post, if he was born the son of a Kenyan then he is a Kenyan. His father's allegiance was to his homeland, just as his son's. Watch cha cookin' up tonight Mobarf? Better back off on the juicing, I'm tellin' ya.

[Jacques Ottawa]

First debate :

Romney 60, Obama 40

Second debate :

Biden 85, Ryan 15

No contest.

[LRS]

How do you flappers reach such heights of lunacy? LOL Cya...

[Johannes]

LRS wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care what kind of case you post, if he was born the son of a Kenyan then he is a Kenyan. His father's allegiance was to his homeland, just as his son's. Watch cha cookin' up tonight Mobarf? Better back off on the juicing, I'm tellin' ya.

I'm so glad you cleared that up.

Since George Rmoney was born in Mexico and was a Mexican citizen, then Willard must also be a Mexican citizen.

[President Starky]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Lame, not satisfactory. At all. Join your birther comrade LRS in the corner. Wait, don't forget your pointy dunce hat.

Can'tnadian opinion is worthless as usual.
You be thankful that we allow you the illusion of referring to yourselves as a country.

[President Starky]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

First debate :
Romney 60, Obama 40
Second debate :
Biden 85, Ryan 15
No contest.

VP debates are almost as meaningless as Can'tnadian opinion.

Majority saw biden as rude and disgusting.
Very similar to can'tnadians.

[wojar]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
You have a link proving he didn't buy it?

Sorry Birfoon, I didn't suggest he bought it or didn't buy it.

I didn't suggest he PURCHASED A RING with the "muslim saying that there is no god but allah".

You make the claim, the burden is on you.

Capisce?

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
First the Birfoon suggested he purchased it, and then that he stole it.
The fact is the Birfoon is clueless.
Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."
Got Alzheimer's?
You made the claim, you own it. Burden is on you, MORON.

[wojar]

LRS wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care what kind of case you post, if he was born the son of a Kenyan then he is a Kenyan. His father's allegiance was to his homeland, just as his son's. Watch cha cookin' up tonight Mobarf? Better back off on the juicing, I'm tellin' ya.

You don't care the opinion of James Madison, and courts in the days right after the country was founded?

You don't care what every court has held throughout the history of this nation?

Madison was a founding father who spoke directly to the issue. The Courts of the United States are authorities.

You are a schizophrenic birfoon.

Who cares what you think? What force of law has your opinion? ZIPPITY, BUPKUS, NADA, ZERO.

But ignorant BirfoonBoy says they are all wrong throughout the history of this country.
Grow up!

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
And James Madison was wrong?
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
The court in Gardner v. Ward was wrong?
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.
Zephaniah Swift was wrong?
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term ‘citizenship.’” A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: Zephaniah Swift, In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795).
The high court of Kentucky was wrong in 1822?
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
The Oregon District Court was wrong?
Ex parte Chin King 13 Sawyer 333 (Oregon District June 25, 1888).“By the common law, a child born within the allegiance —the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents.”
Supreme Court Justice Noah H. Swayne was wrong, along with the concurring judges in the appellate court of Kentucky?
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.… We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.” U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb.U.S. 28, 1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22, 7 Am. Law Reg.(N.S.) 233, 27 F.Cas. 785, No. 16,151 (C.C.D.Ky. 1866)
But ignorant BirfoonBoy says they are all wrong throughout the history of this country.
Grow up!
<quoted text>

[loose cannon]

Jacques,
They both looked like a couple of yo-yo's.

[President Starky]

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Birfoon, I didn't suggest he bought it or didn't buy it.
I didn't suggest he PURCHASED A RING with the "muslim saying that there is no god but allah".
You make the claim, the burden is on you.
Capisce?
<quoted text>

You asked if he bought it.
Well? did he or didn't he?
Are you accusing him of stealing?
Possession is nine tenths of the law.
He owns it.
You have evidence that he didn't buy it?
Link?

[wojar]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

First debate :
Romney 60, Obama 40
Second debate :
Biden 85, Ryan 15
No contest.

Even Karl Rove warned that though Obama was overconfident and overly polite in the first debate, the Dems weren't going to lie down and play dead. The gloves are off. Now it's a scrum.

[wojar]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
You asked if he bought it.
Well? did he or didn't he?
Are you accusing him of stealing?
Possession is nine tenths of the law.
He owns it.
You have evidence that he didn't buy it?
Link?

Huh?

You ASSUMED that he bought it.

Got Alzheimer's?

Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."

You made the claim, the burden is on you.

Now when and where did he purchase the ring?

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Birfoon, I didn't suggest he bought it or didn't buy it.
I didn't suggest he PURCHASED A RING with the "muslim saying that there is no god but allah".
You make the claim, the burden is on you.
Capisce?

[President Starky]

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh?
You ASSUMED that he bought it.
Got Alzheimer's?
Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."
You made the claim, the burden is on you.
Now when and where did he purchase the ring?
<quoted text>

You assumed he didn't buy it.
Are you calling him a thief?
Do you have a link proving he didn't buy it?
There is no burden on me whatsoever.
I don't own such a ring.
I would never be in possession of such a thing.
Either you have proof or you don't.
Which is it?

[wojar]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
You assumed he didn't buy it.

There is no burden on me whatsoever.

Sorry, BirfoonBoy, I made no assumption. YOU did.

Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."

Got Alzheimer's?

You made the the claim, burden is on you.

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh?
You ASSUMED that he bought it.
Got Alzheimer's?
Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."
You made the claim, the burden is on you.
Now when and where did he purchase the ring?

[President Starky]

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, I made no assumption. YOU did.
Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."
Got Alzheimer's?
You made the the claim, burden is on you.
<quoted text>

So provide the link which proves your assertion that he did not buy it.
The burden is on you to prove otherwise.