You must be joking. Stu is a complete imbecile. He couldn't win an argument with a paper bag. At some point you have to stop replying to the idiot mumbling in the corner.Quote from RCG Trader:
stu was beating jem's ass so badly that I wanted to stop the fight, but then, I said well let's just see how punishment jem can take
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Birthers Hail Judgeâs Decision That Could âDeposeâ Obama
- Thread starter Mvector
- Start date
Quote from Ricter:
Wow, long thread! Executive summary, please. In conclusion, "at the end of the day" (blech), Obama finishes his first term, and appears on all 50 state ballots by Election Day?
Yeah thats how it will turn out.Birther jem will then put his hopes on every birther case that oily tatzs files during Obama's second term
Quote from stu:
Why do you come to such absurd notions that anyone is suggesting a statement by a DA is law?
Really Jem, how do you get to make up such irrational nonsense.
Are you doing it on purpose or do you constantly read stuff in your head that actually isn't being said to you?
From the kind of posts you make I really think you should be asking yourself the questions
"Do you even know how law is formed.
Do you understand what law is?
How stupid are you?"
this is your troll bullshit at work.
Stu quotes a District Attorney in previous post and then writes the above.
stu the ignorant troll.
here is is his quote...
---
"...Where was the law currently applied? Well, where the f#k do you think the law was currently applied.
What is the law as it now stands? What the f#k do you think the law is as it now stands.
William Rawle. United States district attorney from 1791.
"every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.""
---
Notice you still do not show us where the law was applied.
Why? because you are fricken troll... you know damn well the law has not been applied to Obama or anyone else running for president.
you lie... and the facts show it.
according to the plaintiffs lawyer.
Obama's motion to quash was denied by the Georgia Court.
Obama is to appear and produce the subpoenaed evidence.
--
Obama lawyer is now making some vapid statements about Obama not having to produce anything because presidential elections are a federal matter.
Which is going to be laughed at by a state court judge... because the states run elections.
-
the upcoming hearings are going to be very interesting.
It may come down to this..
Does Obama have the duty to produce proof of eligibility or does the the plaintiff have to produce evidence of ineligibility.
The judges answer will determine who wins this round.
There will be an appeal.
I believe the answer is the following.
1. The candidate must produce some proof.
2. The georgia elector could argue against it.
3. The state or court will have to determine what evidence is need to prove NBC.
The state really does not want to define NBC.
So this could be an easy case for Obama.
All he would have to do is produce and authenticate an birth certificate.
I hope he does. I really do not want to see Hillary on the ticket. She might help the dems in the senate.
Obama's motion to quash was denied by the Georgia Court.
Obama is to appear and produce the subpoenaed evidence.
--
Obama lawyer is now making some vapid statements about Obama not having to produce anything because presidential elections are a federal matter.
Which is going to be laughed at by a state court judge... because the states run elections.
-
the upcoming hearings are going to be very interesting.
It may come down to this..
Does Obama have the duty to produce proof of eligibility or does the the plaintiff have to produce evidence of ineligibility.
The judges answer will determine who wins this round.
There will be an appeal.
I believe the answer is the following.
1. The candidate must produce some proof.
2. The georgia elector could argue against it.
3. The state or court will have to determine what evidence is need to prove NBC.
The state really does not want to define NBC.
So this could be an easy case for Obama.
All he would have to do is produce and authenticate an birth certificate.
I hope he does. I really do not want to see Hillary on the ticket. She might help the dems in the senate.
update...
apparently there is a case which was severed out where there may be a hearing on whether obama is eligible as an NBC. wow... you obama loons could not be more fricken wrong.
We could see the whole enchilda being heard in court. Request for proof to be on ballot ... and definition of NBC.
here is what taitz is saying on her website.
note... I know nothing about the quality of those last few arguments by taitz. I suspect she would be a lot smarter to just leave the burden of production with Obama and then examine what he produces.
"Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irionâs case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations. Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfieldâs complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third. My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his motherâs passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name."
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30563
apparently there is a case which was severed out where there may be a hearing on whether obama is eligible as an NBC. wow... you obama loons could not be more fricken wrong.
We could see the whole enchilda being heard in court. Request for proof to be on ballot ... and definition of NBC.
here is what taitz is saying on her website.
note... I know nothing about the quality of those last few arguments by taitz. I suspect she would be a lot smarter to just leave the burden of production with Obama and then examine what he produces.
"Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irionâs case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations. Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfieldâs complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third. My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his motherâs passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name."
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30563
Quote from jem:
update...
apparently there is a case which was severed out where there may be a hearing on whether obama is eligible as an NBC. wow... you obama loons could not be more fricken wrong.
We could see the whole enchilda being heard in court. Request for proof to be on ballot ... and definition of NBC.
here is what taitz is saying on her website.
note... I know nothing about the quality of those last few arguments by taitz. I suspect she would be a lot smarter to just leave the burden of production with Obama and then examine what he produces.
"Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irionâs case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations. Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfieldâs complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third. My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his motherâs passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name."
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30563
Jem . . . . I have just one question for you. How do you know if Taitz isn't a planted Russian spy ?
Quote from AK Forty Seven:
Anybody who goes to law school online shouldn't be allowed to practice law imo
On that point we agree.
I think you get a feeling of what might work by being in law school, not on line.
It does seem to me her cases would benefit if she focused on germaine issues and the issues she might win. I am sure thats why those other lawyers wanting their cases severed. Its is interesting the judge agreed to sever. To me, that is a strong indication he will hand down split rulings. This is going to drive you obama loons mad.