• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion Part II

JayUtah

Penultimate Amazing
JayUtah
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
30,164
Location
The great American West
Mojo said:
...but the Supreme Court has, and Obama fits their definition.
Click to expand...

Correct. It's the same old Birther nonsense. They try to argue that "many opinions" have been voiced about what the phrase should mean, but they sidestep the very real fact that Congress has established by law more than 100 years ago what the phrase means, and the Supreme Court has upheld that law as the prevailing interpretation of the phrase for the past 100 years. People can still voice their opinions, but those opinions have no power to change statutory eligibility. Birthers want to pretend that the question hasn't been settled. But according to the law, it has been.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why oh why

OK, I will regret this,

I have just in a caffeine riddled bout of insomnia, whilst waiting for a series of downloads on my slow connection read this ... thread.. and I thought the chemtrails thing was the most pointless CT ever.

I am in the UK and neither myself or My Mother has EVER had an "Original" Birth certificate.

What we, and "Everyone" got were certified copies of the entries in the Birth Register (A rather large Civil Service Tome with a line of entry for each birth in the district)

I have requested many copies I think this is my 10th, All of which apart from the last 3 have been in pen and ink on a standardised form for my Borough, and "Signed, In Pen" Manually by the Current Registrar, My Mum still has my 1972 forms (1 lFull and 1 Short) both of which have the same info on, just one laid out differently, and both just as valid. The Last 3 have been Laser printed similar standardised stationry but still manually signed by the Registrar or Superintedent Registrar

The entries in the register might not even be the same, it might not be the same book if any damage had occurred to it as it is also practice for the archivist and registrars to maintain the quality of the entries so they are in a legible form so might have been re inked at some point prior to Electronic storage and long term physical storage.

The same thing with my Marriage Entry, If I need to prove I was married then I can request a Marriage certificate from the registrar in Borough I got married in, this again will be a Hand Written or Laser Printed Certificate signed by the local registrar, It will not have mine or my wifes signatures on, as our signatures are just a line in a book in the registary office, we got givena certificate of marriage there and then, which was written out after we had signed the register stating that it was a true and certified copy of an entry in that register.

The certificates are Legal declarations from a Govenrment appointed employee that the information presented on that form are a true copy in a register in their custody (also has a cross out option for copy of entry see damage and legibility maintenance)

The main difference is that on the first copies the name of the registrant (Doreen Miller) was the same as the Registrar signing the declaration on the first two,

So I can get my first copies or my 9th and 10th copies, they have all the same legal standing, they are all copies every single one of them, and even if I happened to be an archivist or registrar in my original Borough of birth I know I would NOT be able to view them, the same way that when I had access to tax records if you looked up yourself or any friends and family you would get legally buttraped.

Even the registrar has to log which records they are looking at, and why and on whose authority, they can't just go for a mooch, and there has to be a legal reason for them to look.
 
Arus808 said:
Woot! Linda Jordan in her failed birther appeal for a case she lost, is ordered to pay nearly $13,000 in sanctions
Click to expand...

Are those sanctions or merely fees? I'm not sure I'm reading the declaration right, but it seems as if it's an ordinary awarding of fees. Was the award made on the basis of a sanction?
 
It's fees. Jordan was warned that they'd be seeking fees for the full amount if she appealed the clearly frivolous case. She did anyway.
 
The Judge in the original action, told Linda Jordan that if she pursued an appeal, that she would be "punished' (my use), in the form of sanctions. She ignored the judge, and appealed her case. The judge saw that she was warned, and in dismissing her case, awarded sanctions, in the amount that was determined by the defense. the order is just an itemized list of what the amount is paying for.
 
Arus808 said:
Woot! Linda Jordan in her failed birther appeal for a case she lost, is ordered to pay nearly $13,000 in sanctions

Nicely itemized cost as asked for by the State:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/119376084...Y-T-EVEN-DETAILING-REQUEST-FOR-ATTORNEYS-FEES
Click to expand...

Man, I never realized she was a localish fruitcake. Also, I'm so glad I read that. I now know what happens if I decide to sue a local state official.

In other news: is it just these two cases as major birther litigation right now?
 
jhunter1163 said:
Well, there is this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/orly-taitz-connecticut_n_2541233.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Click to expand...
Yeah, she's been busy fishing for 3 CT-registered voters, so she can go and have a Judge sign a warrant. IIRC she managed one, since Sharon Rondue lives in CT, but since that still leaves her 2 short, she's been asking her followers to move to CT and register as voters there :boggled:

Of course, she's completely ignoring which circumstances allows for 3 voters to get a warrant, and funny enough, Presidenting while black isn't one of them.

And this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/orly-taitz-sanctions_n_2550594.html
Click to expand...
This, however, is a bit more tricky. The case itself is (or should be) a poster example for the judicial reform crowd, seeing as it's Birther vs. Birther part 117, where Orly has previously landed herself in hot water for tattling on her opponent Philip Berg, because Berg is facing disbarment (which Orly thought meant he had already been), and where the other opposing counsel is Gary Kreep. Y'know, the birther judge in San Diego, who, despite having 7 months to remove himself from the case, is still practicing law while on the bench (a MAJOR no-no).

The tricky bit lies in the wording of the OSC. The sanctions referred to are no doubt the $4,000 awarded to Occidental for being dragged into Taitz v. Obama, but whether that counts as a discovery sanction (which Orly had admitted to) or not (which the Judge claims) is apparently up in the air.
 
JayUtah said:
Correct. It's the same old Birther nonsense. They try to argue that "many opinions" have been voiced about what the phrase should mean, but they sidestep the very real fact that Congress has established by law more than 100 years ago what the phrase means, and the Supreme Court has upheld that law as the prevailing interpretation of the phrase for the past 100 years. People can still voice their opinions, but those opinions have no power to change statutory eligibility. Birthers want to pretend that the question hasn't been settled. But according to the law, it has been.
Click to expand...

Not quite correct. By common law, persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are natural born citizens. No statute law was necessary for this. Congress did, by statute law, make Indians affiliated with a tribe citizens in the 1920s. (Previously, tribal Indians weren't considered to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction; their tribes were.) Also, the 14th Amendment over-rode the Dred Scott decision, which basically said that African-Americans weren't citizens.

Congress has, by statute law, extended citizenship at birth to persons born overseas of citizen parents. This is how John McCain became a citizen. There has never been a Supreme Court decision as to whether this makes one a "natural born citizen" for purposes of presidential eligibility, and I daresay there never will be one. Instead, this has been decided by practice.
 
Redwood said:
Congress has, by statute law, extended citizenship at birth to persons born overseas of citizen parents.
Click to expand...

And there was additional legislation in the same vein in the 1860s or 1870s, but I'd have to repeat that reading to be confident it says what I recall. I assume you refer to the 1790 naturalization act.

There has never been a Supreme Court decision as to whether this makes one a "natural born citizen" for purposes of presidential eligibility, and I daresay there never will be one.
Click to expand...

I thought that was touched upon in Perkins v. Elg, but you may be right.
 
JayUtah said:
And there was additional legislation in the same vein in the 1860s or 1870s, but I'd have to repeat that reading to be confident it says what I recall. I assume you refer to the 1790 naturalization act.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Naturalization Act of 1790 granted citizenship to those born overseas of American parents. The statutes granting citizenship have since been modified many, many times. Usually, widening the grant of citizenship. Winston Churchill was not a U.S. citizen at birth, even though his mother was American. Under today's laws, he would have been. In fact, his mother lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to a foreigner, since women were considered as the chattel of their husbands, their citizenship following that of the husband. No longer true.
 
Redwood said:
Yes, the Naturalization Act of 1790 granted citizenship to those born overseas of American parents.
Click to expand...

Heh, I remember one Birther saying that any statue which says you're a citizen by birth merely naturalizes you at the moment you're born, meaning that you only count as a natural born citizen if your citizenship is covered by common law (or something like that).
 
Arus808 said:
Looks like the force is not with this one: Jedi Pauly (Paul Guthrie) is appealing his dismissed suit and adding the Judge who dismissed his suit, as a defendantl because you know, she's a woman:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123020688/Guthrie-v-US-Changes-in-First-Amended-Complaint-29-January-2013
Click to expand...

I like this little rant...
Subsection 8 (Count 8)
Ms. Magnus-Stinson's ruling and orders amount to a Hate Crime, Misprision of Felony, Misprision of Treason, and Conspiracy to Commit Treason, and is a total denial of the recognition of Plaintiff Guthrie's native status as a natural born Citizen who has been enslaved under Magnus-Stinson's foreign government.
Click to expand...
This should end well :D
 
Arus808 said:
Looks like the force is not with this one: Jedi Pauly (Paul Guthrie) is appealing his dismissed suit and adding the Judge who dismissed his suit, as a defendantl because you know, she's a woman:...
Click to expand...
That guy flat-out belongs in an insane asylum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom