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

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 ... Full Story

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131550 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
Roids R Us,
So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States, that is to say, not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States as a nation – not merely its laws only.
In other words, there is no such thing as American citizenship without allegiance to the nation. Why make citizens of those who owe no allegiance to the country, who might join the forces of another country against you? This goes to the core of American allegiance.
Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the “Republic for which it stands,” not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.
If anyone needs any confirmation of the above conclusion, need only to view Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress had adopted as national law in the year 1866:“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Wrong.

“It was a fundamental rule of the common law of England, that persons born in England and under the allegiance and protection of that government, were English subjects regardless of the nationality of the parents. Those born in England of ambassadors and of enemies having hostile occupancy of a portion of English soil, were not subjects; because not born within the allegiance. An alien domiciled in England owes temporary allegiance in return for protection afforded him and, hence, his child born in England is born in the allegiance of the crown which allegiance, in the child's case, is permanent. Such was the law of the colonies and the law of the United States down to the 14th amendment; and such is still the law here and in England.....The 14th amendment affirms the common-law rule that citizenship follows birth. An alien owes allegiance to the United States while domiciled here, and his children born here are born in the United States and under its jurisdiction. Such allegiance is but local and temporary; still it is strong enough to confer citizenship on his children born here. Samuel Fox Mordecai, Dean of the Law School, Trinity College.“Law Notes –Brief Summaries of the Law (1911) page 167
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131552 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then disprove it jacqazz. Remember your opinion doesn't disprove it.
Disprove what? How can I disprove something that has not been substantiated? How childish. How ignorant. Let him show SOMEthing that proves what he advanced, then I will either say he's right or if I don't agree, will attempt to disprove it. Sigh.

LRS to neighbour and his wife : "You've been cheating on your wife"
Neighbour : "No, I haven't. Prove it"
LRS : "No, you disprove it".

Get it? Grow up

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131553 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the difference between lying and fraud? Are they not both fraud?
The legal difference?

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:(1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Lying is telling a false statement.

Fraud is a tort that a defendant can be held liable if all the above elements are proven. Whereas, lying itself is not a tort unless it is part of a fraud.
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#131554 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the difference between lying and fraud? Are they not both fraud?
Actually they are not the same thing. However, if her intent when she made the statement to the police was to receive financial gain, they could eventually charge her with fraud if she were to receive donations, otherwise she might just be charged with making a false statement. If she were to make that statement to her insurance company, it's definitely fraud.
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#131555 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't had a drink in 13 years. You?
That's surprising since you are so easily amused.

Last Friday night.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131558 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't had a drink in 13 years. You?
Just me wrote:
<quoted text>
That's surprising since you are so easily amused.
Last Friday night.
I suggest he resume his drinking, as Nurse Rached's transquilizers seem to have lost their potency.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131559 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, we left England a long time ago. Try and keep up. You have no argument. And English Common Law was not followed as it was in England. Why make enemies citizens of your own Nation? DA
Uh, well our jurisprudence is based on English Common Law.

Despite the rhetoric from the Vattelities there is a reason why our legal system is referred to as Anglo-American jurisprudence instead of Roman-American jurisprudence or Franco-American jurisprudence. Since the founding of our nation, courts have acknowledged our common law heritage that is rooted in the English common law.

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S.____(2010) observed:”After declaring their independence, the newly formed States replaced their colonial charters with constitutions and state bills of rights, almost all of which guaranteed the same fundamental rights that the former colonists previously had claimed by virtue of their English heritage....... Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution's text.“

Furthermore, courts have acknowledged that the common law was a barrier to arbitrary power of the government.”Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege "as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power." Thompson v. Utah, 170 US 343, 349-350 (1898) quoting 2 Story's Const.§ 1779

Moreover,“When it is said that we have in this country adopted the common law of England, it is not meant that we have adopted any mere formal rules, or any written code, or the mere verbiage in which the common law is expressed. It is aptly termed the unwritten law of England; and we have adopted it as a constantly improving science, rather than as an art; as a system of legal logic, rather than as a code of rules. In short, in adopting the common law, we have adopted its fundamental principles and modes of reasoning, and the substance of its rules as illustrated by the reasons on which they are based, rather than by the mere words in which they are expressed.' Fung Dai Kim Ah Leong v. Lau Ah Leong, 27 F. 2d 582, 584 (9th Cir. 1928 )(internal citation omitted)

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888).

DA

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131560 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Question, how many people on food stamps have $800 cash in a $200 wallet in a $400 purse? I thought so!!!
The say the average waste and fraud in the private sector is about 15% but in government it is about 30%. And you want me to pay for tax?
MISSING:$400 PURSE HOLDING $800 CASH, PLUS FOOD STAMP CARDS
By: John Hayward
A woman said she noticed her purse missing from her car just before 5 P.M. Sunday. The car was parked at her residence on Hornet Drive. The woman said the car had been locked, and the purse was in the back seat.
The purse was valued at $400, her wallet was valued at $200, and she said there was $800 cash in the purse, according to the police report. Also missing were the woman’s food stamp cards.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/05/07/missing ...
Just me wrote:
<quoted text>
Rogue, why is the original article not to be found on-line anywhere?
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so right and it's what I've already said. Rogue can't resist a hate headline, a headline that promotes his jaundiced views of people he can't stand. There is no substance to that story, obviously invented and concocted by extreme right-wingers who conveniently bypass corporate welfare, a kind of welfare that dwarfs the one handed to low or no-wage earners. That Rogue would reproduce such an item without first verifying its authenticity is typical of a hate story he just can't turn down.
Okay, if it is a fraud, you should have no problem proving it. Does Snopes rebut it?
And yes, I HATE fraud. No, I do not hate people who are on welfare. Just the ones that commit fraud to get it/ After all, they are steeling money from ME as I, unlike the 47% pay income TAXES!!!
And since I hate fraud, you must endorse it!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131562 Dec 4, 2012
You Libtards really didn't think we would ever go away, did you?

Subpoena Granted for Obama’s Occidental College Records 4 December 2012

There has been much controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s citizenship; and speculation that his Occidental College transcripts will provide proof of foreign citizenship, based on the application and receipt of a ‘non-US citizen’ scholarship to study in the U.S.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire has secured a subpoena, from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to obtain the following from the Records Custodian at Occidental College:

1) All records related to Barack Hussein Obama, II, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.

2) All records related to Barry Soetoro including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.

If proof of foreign citizenship is obtained somehow through these documents, then Barack Obama doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Whether or not this is subpoena is upheld remains to be seen, but the stated deadline for the delivery of the documents to Dr. Ortiz’s office is December 14, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

View the Subpoena: www.obamaballotchallenge.com or www.orlytaitzesq.com

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/subpoena-gra...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#131564 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, we left England a long time ago. Try and keep up. You have no argument. And English Common Law was not followed as it was in England. Why make enemies citizens of your own Nation? DA
Under strict construction, beloved of Conservatives, unless the Constitution specifically states something, it has no opinion on the matter. And the US Constitution does not bar the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president. It uses the term "Natural Born," which historical research shows was used at the time the Constitution was written to refer to the PLACE OF BIRTH, not to the parents.

That is enough.

However, there is more. For the writers of the US Constitution to be referring to parents in the Natural Born Citizen clause would have meant that they believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens. Yet they had written in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

To be sure, the writers of the US Constitution did not believe that Indians and slaves were equal to other Americans, but they showed that in many ways. There is no reason to believe that they thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens UNLESS THEY TOLD US, and they didn't.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#131566 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, we left England a long time ago. Try and keep up. You have no argument. And English Common Law was not followed as it was in England. Why make enemies citizens of your own Nation? DA
Virtually all of English common law was adopted in America. In fact, one of your heroes, John Jay, wrote the common law into the first Constitution of the State of New York. That Constitution, written in 1777, said that the common law will be the law of the State of New York unless and until specifically changed by New York State legislation.

Here are sources to turn to for further research on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natura...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#131567 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, we left England a long time ago. Try and keep up. You have no argument. And English Common Law was not followed as it was in England. Why make enemies citizens of your own Nation? DA
Did you know that the very first pages in every law case book describe how the US adopted the English common law tradition?

Probably not, because you're an uneducated mron who rambles on topix 16+ hours a day.

Sorry, you''re comically wrong.
rider

Marquette, MI

#131569 Dec 4, 2012
True history of the Crips and Bloods Street Gangswww.gangsorus.com/crips_bloods_history.h... - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Nov 13, 2012 – Tookie Williams was not a founder of the Crips. The introduction of crack cocaine to the Crips and Bloods drug dealers during the 1980's meant ...
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131570 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just me wrote:
<quoted text>
Rogue, why is the original article not to be found on-line anywhere?
<quoted text>
Okay, if it is a fraud, you should have no problem proving it. Does Snopes rebut it?
And yes, I HATE fraud. No, I do not hate people who are on welfare. Just the ones that commit fraud to get it/ After all, they are steeling money from ME as I, unlike the 47% pay income TAXES!!!
And since I hate fraud, you must endorse it!
You mean I can start any rumour I want and if Snopes does not disprove it, it's true? Wow.
Vindex

Delavan, WI

#131571 Dec 4, 2012
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>No one has produced an original birth certificate. If President Barack Hussein Obama has one,he should let the rest of the world see it.
Actually in 2008 Lucas Smith smuggled out a notarized copy of BHO's original BC from Kenya. Obama was indeed born 100% Brit in kenya before his Indonesian adoption. The Hawaiian Birth Certificate is forged and he is using a stolen SSN. The Freemasons made this monster and they will have to destroy it or at least make an attempt.
There were some extremely prominent men there that day, including a Scandinavian King, two former presidents of the United States, an internationally prominent evangelist, two other internationally prominent clergymen, and a very high official of the federal government, the one who actually presented me with the certificate of the 33rd Degree. Some made only brief appearances; others stayed much longer. However, they didn't do much mixing or socializing with us, except for those whom they already knew. Even though these celebrities weren't extremely "brotherly," it was still quite an experience for me just to be associated with them. It was easily the largest gathering of such prominent and influential men of which I have ever been a part.
The third day there was a banquet to celebrate our becoming "Grand Inspectors General. 33rd Degree." The banquet was a little anticlimactic, at least for me, and I was anxious to get it over with so I could return home. It was good to be a 33rd at last.
www.forcingchange.org
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131573 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
You Libtards really didn't think we would ever go away, did you?
Subpoena Granted for Obama’s Occidental College Records 4 December 2012
There has been much controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s citizenship; and speculation that his Occidental College transcripts will provide proof of foreign citizenship, based on the application and receipt of a ‘non-US citizen’ scholarship to study in the U.S.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire has secured a subpoena, from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to obtain the following from the Records Custodian at Occidental College:
1) All records related to Barack Hussein Obama, II, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.
2) All records related to Barry Soetoro including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.
If proof of foreign citizenship is obtained somehow through these documents, then Barack Obama doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Whether or not this is subpoena is upheld remains to be seen, but the stated deadline for the delivery of the documents to Dr. Ortiz’s office is December 14, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
View the Subpoena: www.obamaballotchallenge.com or www.orlytaitzesq.com
Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/subpoena-gra...
Almost every forthnight that I've been on this thread, you or one of the birthers trimphantly herald one of Orly Taitz's coming triumphs in her quest to down Obama. And each time, well, 175 times and counting, it's ended in utter failure, with Taitz having to eat crow, particularly after having lost to an empty chair. Every announcement of a sure victory has turned to vinegar. Will this one suffer the same fate? You betcha. Still, Rogue, your Novemeber 6 predictions, I have to confess, topped them all, don't you agree?
Occidental college transcripts? Since when is the public, or anyone, allowed to see college transcripts? I'd love to see someone try to see mine.
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#131575 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
How early do you start "not" thinking? pigeon
I guess the thought of that wasn't amusing enough to make you LYAO.
LibtardsRStupid

Clearlake, CA

#131577 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
If one is committing fraud are they not lying? LOL silly
You are a twit!
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#131578 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Leaky Lizard, as usual, you're 100% wrong on your understanding of citizenship. Answer the question - why would a Nation allow everyone born within its borders to be a citizen of that Nation? England even changed this moronic law. You're inviting destruction of your own country! How dumb are you people? Very!
Uneducated Moron, I noticed you were unable to dispute the fact that in the beginning of every American case book it describes how the US adopted English common law.

Sorry, but you're a moron and a failure. Spam topix all you want -- the rest of the world does not care a whit.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#131582 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
You Libtards really didn't think we would ever go away, did you?
Subpoena Granted for Obama’s Occidental College Records 4 December 2012
There has been much controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s citizenship; and speculation that his Occidental College transcripts will provide proof of foreign citizenship, based on the application and receipt of a ‘non-US citizen’ scholarship to study in the U.S.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire has secured a subpoena, from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to obtain the following from the Records Custodian at Occidental College:
1) All records related to Barack Hussein Obama, II, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.
2) All records related to Barry Soetoro including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.
If proof of foreign citizenship is obtained somehow through these documents, then Barack Obama doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Whether or not this is subpoena is upheld remains to be seen, but the stated deadline for the delivery of the documents to Dr. Ortiz’s office is December 14, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
View the Subpoena: www.obamaballotchallenge.com or www.orlytaitzesq.com
Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/subpoena-gra...
Would you like to buy a bridge? I have a lovely bridge for sale, cheap. And it is a historic bridge, the one and only Brooklyn Bridge, and I own it and can offer it to you, and you alone, for a tiny fraction of its true value.

Regarding the alleged "Subpoena." Dr Conspiracy reports this:

"ObamaReleaseYourRecords reports that Montgomery Blair Sibley has subpoenaed “all records” for Barack Hussein Obama, II and Barry Soetoro held by Occidental College, in the lawsuit Sibley v. Alexander, and has referenced a copy of the subpoena from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Alexander is a presidential elector from the District, and I wrote about this case last month.

Rule 45 of the District of Columbia Superior Court Civil Procedure covers subpoenas. It should be noted that the court issues these subpoenas blank except for the signature, so there is no “endorsement” by the Court for the validity or enforceability of the subpoena implied by the clerk’s signature. Under the rules, special dispensation of the Court is required to serve a subpoena outside the District or more than 25 miles from the District. There is no indication that such leave was granted in this case."

And, on the chance that you did not know, Occidental College is considerably more than 25 miles from the District of Columbia.

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.

US Supreme Court Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 13 min dirtclod 5,242
Religious freedom bill coming to Indiana 16 min Gremlin 6
i want the wyer family evicted 23 hr jesse john wyer 1
i want kristen starr and nicole evicted 23 hr jesse john wyer 1
i want my abusive mom evicted 23 hr jesse john wyer 1
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Thu Bently 201,187
Church-based institutions ponder same-sex benefits Wed Mitt s Baptism of... 10
More from around the web