Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shouldn't that be "...will succeed in doing nothing but annoying the court, and amusing any members of the public viewing this with the common sense that is commonly found in boiled potatoes"?

It'll be amusing for about 5 minutes, then the thought, "Is there a point to all this, or is he really that ignorant?" will enter their minds. After a half hour the thoughts will change to "Just get on with it already, I had to take the day off work to testify for the NEXT case and if this keeps up I'm gonna have to call the boss about tomorrow as well..." will strike, and finally the people in the court will be thinking, "Look, we'll all rush him and beat him to death with his own lower intestine if he doesn't stop this farce soon - gotta get home and make dinner for the family."
 
one of the birthers posted his picture at one of the birther sites



It makes you want to smack him upside the head with a dead halibut, don't it?
EDIT
well. So much for hot linking.

He yanked it.

LOL
 
Last edited:
And in other news, the Illinois Ballot challenge by Michael Jackson, has been denied.

Waiting for a link (to a non birther website) that has a summary of the hearing today.
 
One more court decision nail in the coffin

“The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural Born Citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ . . . and thus eligible for the presidency,” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit. “
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.vaed.275608/gov.uscourts.vaed.275608.2.0.pdf
 
Georgia Hearing : Obama is a Natural Born Citizen

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/...al-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

Plaintiffs allege that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and, therefore, is not eligible to run in Georgia's presidential primary election.

snip

For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama's father was never a United States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ("Indiana Court") addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. Id. at 681. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that "there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive.


the best part of course is Orly's witnesses tear down:

The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence)

For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birthcertificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general.

None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive.


that's 5 hearings on Ballot challenges that Birthers have lost.
 
“[N]either Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.”
:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

That smackdown going to leave a mark in the morning.
 
So the birthers lost... to a man who didn't even bother to show up. Or phone it in even.

Wow. That's gonna leave a mark....
 
So the birthers lost... to a man who didn't even bother to show up. Or phone it in even.

Wow. That's gonna leave a mark....

Yes, they lost to this:

6814205759_986c9cd0ac_o.jpg



A lawyer who loses to a party that doesn't even show up... That is a big statement of fail ever written.


(credit for images goes to verbalobe of thefogbow)
 
Any reaction from Orly on this?

Not that I care, but the stupid is usually funny.
 
Any reaction from Orly on this?

Not that I care, but the stupid is usually funny.

It's a plot involving Iran.

I don’t know, what happened to Malhi [sic]. I know, that he is not American by birth., He is Persian, Iranian. The last name and the first names of his parents are all Persian. He is an appointee of the Democrat governor Zell Miller.

The only thing, that I don’t know, is whether it was a set up from the start or whether someone got to him recently. I wonder, if any deal was made, when Obama was pressured with my subpoena and could sell the whole country in order to get out of sure prison term. What was promised to Malihi? Here is some food for thought: recently U.S. was supposed to participate in joint exercises with Israel. Suddenly Obama announced, that U.S. will pull out of the exercises in order not to upset Iran.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/orly-plays-the-race-card/

:eye-poppi
 
Do I understand that correctly in that they would have won by default but then asked to present their case and lost because of that?
 
Do I understand that correctly in that they would have won by default but then asked to present their case and lost because of that?

From what the judge said that's my understanding.
 
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The one thing woos can't do is sit down and shut up.

Do I understand that correctly in that they would have won by default but then asked to present their case and lost because of that?

From what the judge said that's my understanding.

Damn, that gives "Own Goal" a whole new meaning! It's like an "Own Penalty Shot", or something....

:boggled:

If they had shut up, and won the case by default, would that have had any real world consequences?
 
:boggled:

If they had shut up, and won the case by default, would that have had any real world consequences?
The general agreement amongst those based in the real world was, that it meant that all parties (possibly including Obama/Jablonski) would submit their exhibits and their proposed Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Laws, and the Judge would then make a ruling based on those.

Since Obama/Jablonski was a no-show, that would have saved everyone the time and bother of presenting their case to the court, given that there would be no need for cross-examination and few, if any, objections raised by the opposing counsel.

There are varying opinions on what the ruling would have been in the end though, as the COLB was entered into evidence by one of the plaintiffs anyway, and even then Obama/Jablonski might also have had the opportunity to submit a physical certified copy along with records proving 14 years of residence. Which, barring the Wong Kim Ark/Minor discussion that the Judge himself shot down, would be all that was needed to rule Obama eligible to be on the ballot.
 
Last edited:
The general agreement amongst those based in the real world was, that it meant that all parties (possibly including Obama/Jablonski) would submit their exhibits and their proposed Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Laws, and the Judge would then make a ruling based on those.

Since Obama/Jablonski was a no-show, that would have saved everyone the time and bother of presenting their case to the court, given that there would be no need for cross-examination and few, if any, objections raised by the opposing counsel.

There are varying opinions on what the ruling would have been in the end though, as the COLB was entered into evidence by one of the plaintiffs anyway, and even then Obama/Jablonski might also have had the opportunity to submit a physical certified copy along with records proving 14 years of residence. Which, barring the Wong Kim Ark/Minor discussion that the Judge himself shot down, would be all that was needed to rule Obama eligible to be on the ballot.
Thanks.

Poor birthers ... :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom