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

There are 189824 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#162690 Jul 5, 2013
"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"

Sorry, George, the evidence does not support. No DNA under Martin's fingernails. No marks on his hands. No blood at the ends of his sleeves. Meanwhile Z had a scratch on the back of his head, and minor nose injury. Both could have been self inflicted and did not require "force so great".

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#162691 Jul 5, 2013
"The Court of Appeal found that victim's testimony was sufficient to invoke Section 776.041 and instruct the jury that the defendant may not claim self-defense if he "initially provoked" the attack. The court was careful to state that the acts constituting "initial provocation" must be "contemporaneous" with the actions of the victim."

-Professor Wilson Hahn

What part of "initially provoked" does the play law justice not comprehend?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162692 Jul 5, 2013
You did read the Florida Statute, right? Then you read how it can be applied. Stick your head in the sand if you want. Makes no difference to me. You lost. Get over it.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#162693 Jul 5, 2013
And even if George could invoke self defense against a murder charge, it would not relieve him of culpability under manslaughter statutes.

I think jail time is very likely for George. His fellow inmates not like an aspiring cop.

Wait 'till he meets Bubba.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162694 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"
Sorry, George, the evidence does not support. No DNA under Martin's fingernails. No marks on his hands. No blood at the ends of his sleeves. Meanwhile Z had a scratch on the back of his head, and minor nose injury. Both could have been self inflicted and did not require "force so great".
You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#162695 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
You did read the Florida Statute, right? Then you read how it can be applied. Stick your head in the sand if you want. Makes no difference to me. You lost. Get over it.
The Court of Appeal also read the statute, DUH! It's the Court's opinion not your or my opinion that counts. If the court says "this is what the law means" then that is what counts. You may disagree with the court, but your disagreement and $1.25 will only get you a ride on the bus.

Sorry.

"Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense."

That may seem at odds with 776.041, but that's not my problem.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162696 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
And even if George could invoke self defense against a murder charge, it would not relieve him of culpability under manslaughter statutes.
I think jail time is very likely for George. His fellow inmates not like an aspiring cop.
Wait 'till he meets Bubba.
I'm not talking about the Zimmerman case. I've made that perfectly clear. Personally, I don't see enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict him but I know better than to try and predict a jury's verdict.

Where does your hatred for Zimmerman come from? Where does your love for Martin come from? Did you know either of them? Once again hatred is making decisions for you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162697 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
"In the Zimmerman case the prosecution will make the following argument. Based upon his own statements to the police dispatcher Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, and then exited his car and followed him armed with a gun. Zimmerman suspected Martin of committing a crime and was intent that Martin should not get away. Martin was completely innocent of any crime; he was simply walking home from a trip to the store. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the ensuing struggle, no matter who struck the first blow. There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation. Accordingly, under 776.014, Zimmerman may not claim that he acted in self-defense."
Well I disagree with you. Revelations so far today are, Trayvon's "brother" said the first time he heard the the audio of the screams he was not sure if they were Trayvon's because he didn't want them to be. But later he decided he wanted them to be!!! I wonder if anyone convinced him they were?!?
Next, again they are talking about evidence the PROSECUTOR withheld from the defence. And just why would the prosecutor do that?!?
And about 776.014, all it says if that he wants a SYG defence, he may request a hearing. If the hearing agrees, then there can be no prosecution. But no where does it say he can not bring the issue up at the trial.
Next, Zimmerman, as a PRIVATE citizen can on public property follow anyone. He did not get off the sidewalk and stopped when Trayvon got off the sidewalk and ran around the building. Trayvon then double back and assaulted him.
You still have not explained what right Trayvon had to assault Zimmerman!!! Why, are you a coward?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#162698 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron.
I've read the exchanges between you and wojar. So polite and affable and well-behaved were you. And I wondered : How long can that last before ad hominem, filth and profanity spring forth? And I answered my own question : Why, the moment wojar stuffs him (which he did after the initial exchange but you didn't get it) and he has no intelligent reply. And there it is : "You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron."

And I noted "You're not worth shooting. Moron." Yup, more death threats that you set aside for the time being. For now. So far, you've threatened to deport wojar, now considered shooting him, threatened to rough me up, hoped that my plane carrying my wife and over 150 passengers would crash 'cuz I showcased your ignorance to one and all, threated LTR with death, not to mention mumbling that even Air Force 1 can loose bolts.

LMAO (Justice ha ha LRS tm reg'd)
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162699 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Court of Appeal also read the statute, DUH! It's the Court's opinion not your or my opinion that counts. If the court says "this is what the law means" then that is what counts. You may disagree with the court, but your disagreement and $1.25 will only get you a ride on the bus.
Sorry.
"Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense."
That may seem at odds with 776.041, but that's not my problem.
This is what statute says: Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force.

There it is. Plain and simple. Each case is obviously going to have its own set of circumstances that determine the verdict. We're not talking about any particular case, or at least I'm not. I'm referring to what the statute says. And as you can plainly see, it is possible. It's quite easy to come up with numerous and plausible scenarios.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162700 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
And even if George could invoke self defense against a murder charge, it would not relieve him of culpability under manslaughter statutes.
I think jail time is very likely for George. His fellow inmates not like an aspiring cop.
Wait 'till he meets Bubba.
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not talking about the Zimmerman case. I've made that perfectly clear. Personally, I don't see enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict him but I know better than to try and predict a jury's verdict.
Where does your hatred for Zimmerman come from? Where does your love for Martin come from? Did you know either of them? Once again hatred is making decisions for you.
Obama told him whom to hate and whom to love. What ever Obama says, his minions will believe.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#162701 Jul 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I disagree with you. Revelations so far today are, Trayvon's "brother" said the first time he heard the the audio of the screams he was not sure if they were Trayvon's because he didn't want them to be. But later he decided he wanted them to be!!! I wonder if anyone convinced him they were?!?
Next, again they are talking about evidence the PROSECUTOR withheld from the defence. And just why would the prosecutor do that?!?
And about 776.014, all it says if that he wants a SYG defence, he may request a hearing. If the hearing agrees, then there can be no prosecution. But no where does it say he can not bring the issue up at the trial.
Next, Zimmerman, as a PRIVATE citizen can on public property follow anyone. He did not get off the sidewalk and stopped when Trayvon got off the sidewalk and ran around the building. Trayvon then double back and assaulted him.
You still have not explained what right Trayvon had to assault Zimmerman!!! Why, are you a coward?
Yup, logic it is. If you're not on Zimmerman's side, you're a coward.

And, rogue-kind change of subject, if you don't like nuclear bombs, you're a nuclear bomb bigot.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#162702 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
You did read the Florida Statute, right? Then you read how it can be applied. Stick your head in the sand if you want. Makes no difference to me. You lost. Get over it.
Like all Birfoons, Romper can't comprehend court decisions, so he declares them to be irrelevant.(How much you want to bet Lil Romper was chanting "rule of law" on a constant loop only a few years ago)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#162703 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what statute says: Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force.
There it is. Plain and simple. Each case is obviously going to have its own set of circumstances that determine the verdict. We're not talking about any particular case, or at least I'm not. I'm referring to what the statute says. And as you can plainly see, it is possible. It's quite easy to come up with numerous and plausible scenarios.
The judge must rule according to binding precedent, not what you think.

Sorry, not my problem. It's George's problem.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Court of Appeal also read the statute, DUH! It's the Court's opinion not your or my opinion that counts. If the court says "this is what the law means" then that is what counts. You may disagree with the court, but your disagreement and $1.25 will only get you a ride on the bus.
Sorry.
"Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense."
That may seem at odds with 776.041, but that's not my problem.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#162704 Jul 5, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not talking about the Zimmerman case. I've made that perfectly clear. Personally, I don't see enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict him but I know better than to try and predict a jury's verdict.
Where does your hatred for Zimmerman come from? Where does your love for Martin come from? Did you know either of them? Once again hatred is making decisions for you.
Ha ha ha ha.

After at least half a dozen posts about the Zimmerman case, even quoting Hussein & Webber on the Zimmerman case, the Play Justice is not talking about the Zimmerman case.

What a riot.

Hatred? Love? I simply cited case law per Professor Hahn.

Sorry.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#162705 Jul 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
And even if George could invoke self defense against a murder charge, it would not relieve him of culpability under manslaughter statutes.
I think jail time is very likely for George. His fellow inmates not like an aspiring cop.
Wait 'till he meets Bubba.
<quoted text>
Obama told him whom to hate and whom to love. What ever Obama says, his minions will believe.
Love? Hate? I simply cited case law. Not my problem if you don't like it and have no rational rebuttal.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#162706 Jul 5, 2013
And yet another lawsuit against the Obama administration. Obama must be the most sued president in history.
Rogue

EAA [Experimental Aircraft Association] Protests ATC Fees In Court By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

When the FAA sent EAA a bill of nearly $450,000 last month to cover expenses for air traffic controllers during AirVenture, the organization had little choice but to comply -- but at the time, Chairman Jack Pelton said "This isn't over," and this week, the EAA took its argument to a U.S. Court of Appeals. On Wednesday, EAA filed a petition with the Seventh Circuit court in Chicago, asking for a review of the case and relief from the payments demanded by the FAA. EAA says the fees were imposed without following standard notice and comment procedures, making the demand "improper and unlawful."

As part of its petition, EAA is asking the court to reverse the FAA's decision to seek these payments, return the fees already paid, and reimburse EAA for other costs incurred. "While we understand the FAA's position and the temptation to augment its congressional appropriation, we naturally don't agree since we believe this approach unlawfully circumvents congressional approval and standard due process," said Pelton in a statement on Wednesday. "This affects AirVenture and numerous other aviation events throughout the nation in an unauthorized and unjustified manner. That is why we are seeking review, relief, and clarification from the court." EAA has posted the full text of its petition online (PDF).
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EAAProte...
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162707 Jul 5, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the exchanges between you and wojar. So polite and affable and well-behaved were you. And I wondered : How long can that last before ad hominem, filth and profanity spring forth? And I answered my own question : Why, the moment wojar stuffs him (which he did after the initial exchange but you didn't get it) and he has no intelligent reply. And there it is : "You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron."
And I noted "You're not worth shooting. Moron." Yup, more death threats that you set aside for the time being. For now. So far, you've threatened to deport wojar, now considered shooting him, threatened to rough me up, hoped that my plane carrying my wife and over 150 passengers would crash 'cuz I showcased your ignorance to one and all, threated LTR with death, not to mention mumbling that even Air Force 1 can loose bolts.
LMAO (Justice ha ha LRS tm reg'd)
Still crying over the clown-stomping I gave you yesterday, huh? Don't worry, it will get worse. This is kind of funny, who "could" possibly take "you're not worth shooting" as a threat. Only jackiepoo.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162708 Jul 5, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha ha ha.
After at least half a dozen posts about the Zimmerman case, even quoting Hussein & Webber on the Zimmerman case, the Play Justice is not talking about the Zimmerman case.
What a riot.
Hatred? Love? I simply cited case law per Professor Hahn.
Sorry.
I know how you like to dance around the subject. I made a clear statement that I was talking about the law in general. Would you like to deny that? Might as well, huh?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#162710 Jul 5, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the exchanges between you and wojar. So polite and affable and well-behaved were you. And I wondered : How long can that last before ad hominem, filth and profanity spring forth? And I answered my own question : Why, the moment wojar stuffs him (which he did after the initial exchange but you didn't get it) and he has no intelligent reply. And there it is : "You're such a frickin' liar! Martin had injuries to his left hand. You're not worth shooting. Moron."
And I noted "You're not worth shooting. Moron." Yup, more death threats that you set aside for the time being. For now. So far, you've threatened to deport wojar, now considered shooting him, threatened to rough me up, hoped that my plane carrying my wife and over 150 passengers would crash 'cuz I showcased your ignorance to one and all, threated LTR with death, not to mention mumbling that even Air Force 1 can loose bolts.
LMAO (Justice ha ha LRS tm reg'd)
Hey, will you be jacques today or Ascendo or Don? LMAO!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Yeah 1,232,567
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr Net Workit 5,997
News 17 shot-2 fatally-in bloody start to Memorial D... 4 hr BLDM 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr OzRitz 53,486
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 5 hr Ratloder 70,018
Amy 5-24-15 6 hr tiredofit 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 hr Go Blue Forever 99,534
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]