Appeal of Obama Eligibility Decision Filed Yesterday -- Free Republic Thread

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, "Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday", which was started 2/17/2012 by 'Oldpuppymax'

The thread references a 2/17/2012 article by Doug Book on 'Coach is Right'

The following are excerpts from COMMENT #13 in the thread by 'butterdezillion':

"Were you following when all that happened with Danny Bickel in the Supreme Court’s treatment of Donofrio v Wells? When Danny Bickel was able to get away with everything he did, Donofrio’s conclusion was that the Supreme Court justices themselves were compromised.

The VERY SAME DAY that SCOTUS refused to hear Donofrio’s case, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an unprecedented invitation to Obama for an ex parte meeting at the Supreme Court before the inauguration. People will tell you that this is a standard courtesy visit, but I have documentation that this is the first time that the COURT ever initiated that meeting, and this is the only time where such a meeting took place when cases about the election were pending.

The conference to decide whether SCOTUS would hear Donofrio’s case was on a Friday and the results were not released to the public until the following Monday. Roberts issued his invitation on Friday so that the public knew of that invitation at the very same time that SCOTUS was conferring about taking Donofrio’s case. The timing was blatant.

Then Roberts biffed the legal oath of office so that Obama never said the correct oath on Jan 20, 2009. They re-did the oath in private, but though it would have been just as easy to videotape as to audiotape, Roberts was never seen on video giving the correct oath to Obama.

On the last day of 2011 Roberts once again broke precedent by including in his year-end report comments about the ethics of the Supreme Court - saying he trusted the justices to know when to recuse themselves (See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...icy/52307886/1 ). This came after Kagan and Sotomayor had been asked to recuse themselves from a conference to decide whether to hear an eligibility case in which THEIR VERY POSITIONS AS JUSTICES WAS AT STAKE. Roberts was very conspicuously saying that he had no problem with individual justices deciding cases where their very job stood or fell with the defendant.

I believe Donofrio was right; the Supreme Court itself is compromised. There are plenty of indicators of that.

And retired military generals intervened in the case of Lt Col Terry Lakin, telling him to drop the eligibility issue because the judicial system is compromised and cannot be trusted to give Constitutional decisions.

.................................................. ......

Factor in the threats that were made to the media on the eligibility issue in October of 2008 and again after the election (right before Roberts made his unprecedented invitation to Obama the same day the SCOTUS conferred over Donofrio’s case), and it suggests to me that maybe Roberts was also threatened.

And now we see the same kinds of unlawful behavior in Georgia, with both Malihi and with the clerk of the superior court that would hear the appeal.

This is a pattern, people. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME."

View the Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2847897/posts

View the complete referenced article on 'Coach is Right' at:

http://www.coachisright.com/appeal-o...led-yesterday/

[bsteadman]

The following is COMMENT #108 by 'Seizethecarp' in the Free Republic thread:

The comment was in reply to COMMENT #90 by 'Doc Conspiracy'

"Barry couldn't get a drivers license or even get into Little League with the “preponderance of the evidence” you have listed.

Barry's legal team has spent untold $$ to insure that no certified BC for Barry has ever been “produced” in evidence and this incriminating pattern of behavior has continued in this GA ballot challenge. Only a photocopy image of an alleged certified copy of the HI LFBC with alleged raised seal was presented as hearsay “evidence” by Irion and Taitz, and also sent ex parte by Jablonski to SOS Kemp and copied to Malihi.

Failing to find SCOTUS support, or support in ANY federal case to support Barry's NBC eligibility, Malihi resorted to dicta in Ankeny, an Indiana state appeals court case. In Ankeny the judges failed elementary grammar, not to mention proper legal construction, in claiming that the Minor v. Happersett NBC language supported rather than refuted Barry's eligibility. No subsequent federal case affirms this claimed precedent ruling on the NBC definition...thus the resort to the state case, Ankeny.

The dishonest twisting of the Minor case NBC language by the Ankeny panel takes place in the interpretation of two sentences:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

The Ankeny panel replaces the word “citizens” in the first sentence with the meaning “natural born citizens.” This is clearly false.

Then the Ankeny panel takes the words “this class” in the second sentence and deems them to mean “this natural born citizen class” about which “there have been doubts” which is false. As the first sentence clearly says, it is the citizenship, not the NBC status, of “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents” about which “there have been doubts,” not their NBC status.

The WKA court only resolved the citizenship status of WKA, NOT his NBC status, which even the Ankeny panel admitted, as did Malihi.

So in GA we have Malihi affirming Barry is NBC relying on dicta in Ankeny twisting the dicta in ARK which cited a holding in Minor v Happersett...a holding defining NBC to "no doubt" EXCLUDE Barry if constructed strictly."

[bsteadman]

After reading the comment by 'Seizethecarp', I was stimulated to go back and re-read the following pertinent quote from the 1/9/2012 article titled, 'Minor v. Happersett Revisited' by Leo Donofrio, Esq., which can be viewed at:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress....t-revisited-2/

Excerpt:

"MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED"

"…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168."

There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States… as distinguished from those on the polar opposite side who have absolutely no claim to citizenship in the United States; “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Those who fall in between these two extremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born. But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.

For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor? The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.

By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.

Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen."

[bsteadman]

The following is COMMENT #252 by 'Seizethecarp' in the Free Republic thread:

The comment was in response to COMMENT #244 by 'rodguy922', which included the statement:

"Hard to imagine there is no CIA influence there somewhere.”

"I disagree. For the most part CIA are patriots. Under Democrat presidents they are crippled and under GOP they are empowered (certain yellowcake episodes excepted). Back in the early 1980’s the (mostly) patriot defenders in the CIA were under William Casey who acted on the directions of Ronald Reagan to recruit foreign nationals in foreign countries and to oppose KGB infiltration of the CIA.

Barry is exactly the type of likely KGB mole who would be excluded.

Remember the widely circulated report of the US businessman in Russia in the early 1990’s who reported that a top level Soviet woman got drunk and told his that the KGB had an attractive black man being prepared to be US president?

IMO, Ayers and Dohrn were KGB (she was in Cuba being trained to implement Days of Rage in Chicago in 1968, IIRC) and IMO, Barry got hooked up with them in 1981 when he arrived in NYC...the same year I first interviewed with the CIA. I find the report of a KGB Manchurian Candidate being prepped to be president to be credible and, most likely, Ayers and Dohrn were in charge of the project."

__________________________________________________ ________________

My comment: In his mention of the, "widely circulated report of the US business man in Russia", Seizethecarp is referring to the 2008 essay by Tom Fife titled, "The First Time I Heard of Barack" which can be viewed at the following link:

http://www.rense.com/general84/brck.htm