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

Obama Gonna Lose wrote:

At least 2 experts claimed in open court that the document was fraudulent.

DARE YOU TO NAME even one witness who Oily showed to be an expert under the FRE or GA. equivalent. YOU ARE SO PATHETIC. You must be "John" or, at least, a john.

ENOCHS JUSTICE wrote:

<quoted text>
Somebody PLEASE GET ME A SHOVEL & SOME BOOTS.

Boots? Gonna need Hipwaders.

:~)

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01....

for, if he is born there of a foreigner(dad was Kenyan), it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

I find it very "Curious that Obama refers to George Soros as "The Man in the Yellow Hat"

STRAIGHT out of the Constitution:

U.S. Constitution, Article II Sect I Clause 5,
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;

))))))And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel!(((((((AL

Article I Section 8
, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations <<<<<<< <

http://www.foundingfathers.info/documents/con...

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01....

The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural(1758)<<< <<<<see the DATE

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/index.h...

BRONACH wrote:

I find it very "Curious that Obama refers to George Soros as "The Man in the Yellow Hat"

All I know is that President Soros was not born in the United States of America.

He and his puppet belong at GITMO.

John wrote:

In 1993. Just four year after becoming licensed. Why would anyone work so hard to become a lawyer and give up their ability to be one 4 years later? Many people stop practicing law but keep their status. The only logical conclusion is
Wait for it
Yes, it was either stop practicing or face charges. The license were not voluntarily place inactive. It was by court order.

Rule 770.
Voluntary Transfer to Inactive Status
“Any attorney may file with the clerk of the Supreme Court a motion that he be transferred to inactive status. Within 21 days thereafter, the Administrator shall:
1. file with the clerk of the Supreme Court his consent to the entry of an Order allowing such motion; or
2. file with the clerk of the Supreme Court his objection to the allowance of such motion.
No motion for transfer to inactive status may be granted EXCEPT by Order of the Supreme Court and, then, only when no disciplinary charges are pending or about to be brought against the attorney.

Obama Gonna Lose wrote:

At least 2 experts claimed in open court that the document was fraudulent.
The judge chose to ignore them, because to recognize them would have been inconsistent with the decision he was about to make as Obama's Attorney.

There was not two or even one "expert" who testified at the Georgia hearing. You cannot even name them.
==========
Rule 702
“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
==========
No such witness appeared before Michael Malini. How pathetic.

Obama Gonna Lose wrote:

inconsistent with the decision he was about to make as Obama's Attorney.

It was Oily who violated the most basic ethical principle that binds all lawyers:
Rule 3.3
Conduct Before a Tribunal
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall NOT:
...
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel (whether or not appearing)."
==========
The Code of Judicial Conduct provides the parallel ethical rule.

Obama Gonna Lose wrote:

Deals are made such as, you give up your license and we don't go forward, all of the time.
Don't you believe that we have a right to know the truth about it?
Was it because he LIED about never having used an alias, because we know that he has.

The entire admission and registration file of every lawyer is completely a matter of public record available for inspection. I have personally reviewed the files for each of the Obamas.
==========
Rule 770.
Voluntary Transfer to Inactive Status
“Any attorney may file with the clerk of the Supreme Court a motion that he be transferred to inactive status. Within 21 days thereafter, the Administrator shall:
1. file with the clerk of the Supreme Court his consent to the entry of an Order allowing such motion; or
2. file with the clerk of the Supreme Court his objection to the allowance of such motion.
No motion for transfer to inactive status may be granted EXCEPT by Order of the Supreme Court and, then, only when no disciplinary charges are pending or about to be brought against the attorney.
==========
You are too stupid to know what an alias is. It is a term of art. Please cite any Illinois Supreme Court case that sets forth a definition of alias that is consistent with your allegation.
IF YOU CANNOT, YOU ADMIT TO BEING THE MOST IGNORANT AND UNEDUCATED OF ALL "BIRTHER"-LOSERS REGARDING ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINE. Guess you didn't learn that in middle school before you dropped out.

Obama Gonna Lose wrote:

Deals are made such as, you give up your license and we don't go forward, all of the time.

Since these records are a matter of public record, name just one Illinois attorney where a "deal" was made.
If you cannot name a specific attorney, YOU ADMIT THAT YOU LIED THROUGH YOUR REMAINING TEETH. Ha, Ha, Ha.

Obama Gonna Lose wrote:

Like [AS] I said, This can only be an admission that you cannot name just ONE independent document expert that says Obama's long form birth certificate is authentic.
Yeah, I say that this is evidence that you can't do as requested, prima facie evidence in legal terms.

And with respect to what point does the "prima facie" evidence prove something?

Cancer on the pResidency wrote:
"Can you name anyone else who has ever had a Judge act as their Attorney when they refused to show up for court, or even have their Attorney show up?"

Terri Tanna wrote:

Why must you play the simpleton by being UNable to respond to Rule 3.3 that governs the matter.
IS IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM.(That's not a trick question. Everyone knows the answer.)

Rule 3.3
Conduct Before a Tribunal
(a) In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall NOT:
...
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel (whether or not appearing).

AmericanLady wrote:

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01....
for, if he is born there of a foreigner(dad was Kenyan), it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Unless you can demonstrate conclusively that this babbling was incorporated explicitly into the United States Constitution AND codified therein, your post is a total waste.

AmericanLady wrote:

STRAIGHT out of the Constitution:
U.S. Constitution, Article II Sect I Clause 5,
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;
))))))And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel!(((((((AL
Article I Section 8
, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations <<<<<<< <
http://www.foundingfathers.info/documents/con...
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01....
The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural(1758)<<< <<<<see the DATE
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/index.h...

Please cite BY NUMBER the exact Rule of Constitutional (Statutory) Construction that allows for your interpretive error. IF YOU CANNOT, YOU MUST ADMIT TO BEING REALLY IGNORANT AND UNEDUCATED.
==========
Why are you so ashamed to state where you went to college?

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Please cite BY NUMBER the exact Rule of Constitutional (Statutory) Construction that allows for your interpretive error. IF YOU CANNOT, YOU MUST ADMIT TO BEING REALLY IGNORANT AND UNEDUCATED.
==========
Why are you so ashamed to state where you went to college?

You can Kiss my ROSY RED CHEEKS, you -LYING-, self-indulgent, IGNORANT obot!

WAKE UP AMERICA.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

@ 56835tuna fish

IF you do NOT have ENUF common(horse)sense to do THAT for yourself, then iT iS waaaaaaaay beyond me, OR, ANYONE, getting you to UNDERSTAND a "damn" thing.

IF there is NOT an "eligibility clause" in the Constitution, then WHY are so many of the Congress, TRYING to CHANGE IT!

13 Eligibility Bills Table 312

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/13...

AmericanLady wrote:

<quoted text>
You can Kiss my ROSY RED CHEEKS, you -LYING-, self-indulgent, IGNORANT obot!

When you can come back with such a witty response I can certainly see why you don't allow yourself to be concerned with silly little things like "facts" or "the law"