• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

CNN president found Obama's long form BC

Yanuck

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
alice said:
Yanuck said:
okay....so according to Alice, my kids are eligible to POTUS, according to that above, my kids are not.....correct?

Don't know the circumstances of your children's birth. I learned in Civics that if your children are born on United States soil, they are natural born citizens. If your children are born to a citizen, or citizens of the United States, they are natural born citizens. As to natural born, SCOTUS has not made any decision otherwise.

Alice

they were all born in the US, but I didn't become a naturalized citizen until after they were all born. My Mom was also born to 2 American citizens, who lived in Canada, where she was born....is she eligible?


Alice?
 

alice

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
Yanuck said:
alice said:
Don't know the circumstances of your children's birth. I learned in Civics that if your children are born on United States soil, they are natural born citizens. If your children are born to a citizen, or citizens of the United States, they are natural born citizens. As to natural born, SCOTUS has not made any decision otherwise.

Alice

they were all born in the US, but I didn't become a naturalized citizen until after they were all born. My Mom was also born to 2 American citizens, who lived in Canada, where she was born....is she eligible?


Alice?

If her parents didn't renounce their citizenship, then as far as I and my old civics teacher are concerned, she is.

Ya' know, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer...I depend on Constitutional lawyers to have federal judges and SCOTUS answer these questions...and it appears by their continued rejection of these frivolous lawsuits being brought by a dentist/real estate lawyer and people like Berg and Keyes they have it clear in their minds who is and is not eligible to be POTUS...and Obama is eligible.

Alice
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
alice said:
Yanuck said:
Yanuck said:
they were all born in the US, but I didn't become a naturalized citizen until after they were all born. My Mom was also born to 2 American citizens, who lived in Canada, where she was born....is she eligible?


Alice?

If her parents didn't renounce their citizenship, then as far as I and my old civics teacher are concerned, she is.

Ya' know, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer...I depend on Constitutional lawyers to have federal judges and SCOTUS answer these questions...and it appears by their continued rejection of these frivolous lawsuits being brought by a dentist/real estate lawyer and people like Berg and Keyes they have it clear in their minds who is and is not eligible to be POTUS...and Obama is eligible.

Alice

I'll call and tell her to gear up for 2010!! :lol: :lol: thanks for answering my question
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Alice, not that it'll make a difference in what you say tomorrow, the courts have not been rejecting because the cases are frivolous - they've been rejecting on standing of the plaintiffs. Not a shred of evidence has been heard in any case.

If you get your facts straight, you might have a valid opinion.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States of American is a "natural born citizen."

Lawrence B. Solum
University of Illinois College of Law

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

Obama signed statements that he was indeed a Natural Born Citizen. He could not say that for certain. There is a legitimate doubt on whether a citizen of parents that are not citizens can be a Natural Born Citizen.

citizenshipchart.jpg
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Alice, not that it'll make a difference in what you say tomorrow, the courts have not been rejecting because the cases are frivolous - they've been rejecting on standing of the plaintiffs. Not a shred of evidence has been heard in any case.

If you get your facts straight, you might have a valid opinion.

Well, are these facts straight enough for you?

From: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/03/06/federal-judge-tosses-another-obama-birth-certificate-lawsuit/

Robertson [Judge, James] oredered plantiff's attourney John Hemenway of Colorado Srings, Co., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.
The AP write up includes the priceless line:

In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else, Obama's critics argue he is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires.

And from: http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/03/07/obama-birth-certificate-lawsuit-deemed-frivolous/

March 5th, 2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.
:::::::::
Civil Action No. 08-2254 (JR)
MEMORANDUM
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.
The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer
who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued
his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509
(E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal
Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory
estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a
judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them.
Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm,
essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s
native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some
“value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he
might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in-
Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of
this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a
suit in interpleader!
The filing and service of the complaint required
private counsel to appear for President Obama and for Vice
President Biden (whose citizenship is not challenged but who was
presumably considered a necessary party in a suit seeking to
unseat the President). Those counsel have moved to dismiss,
asserting both that this Court has no jurisdiction (Rule
12(b)(1)) and that the plaintiff has stated a claim for which
relief cannot be granted (Rule 12(b)(6)).
Plaintiff having invoked both diversity and the federal
interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1355, I do have jurisdiction.
Because plaintiff’s only claim invokes the interpleader statute,
however, the suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
I have already called the interpleader claim
“frivolous” in two interlocutory rulings [#10 and #14], and I do
so again here. As the defendants noted in their motion to
dismiss, “interpleader allows a party exposed to multiple claims
on a single obligation or property to settle the controversy and
satisfy his obligation in one proceeding.” Commercial Union Ins.
Co. v. U.S., 999 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is typically
used in insurance cases where the plaintiff holds property on
behalf of another but does not know to whom among several adverse
parties the property should be transferred [#9 at 8]. Resort to
interpleader is inappropriate when it “is sought for improper or
ulterior purposes.” Wright & Miller § 1707 (3d ed. 2001).
Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even
colorable support to the notion that his alleged “duties” can be
the “money or property” to which the interpleader statute
applies. The interpleader suits he cites are all about money or
tangible property: American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v.
Construcciones Werl, Inc., 407 F. Supp 164 (D. V.I. 1975) is
about contested HUD monies; Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Nichols,
363 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1966), is about insurance proceeds; Dunbar
v. United States, 502 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1974) is about money
seized from the mails. The only interpleader case plaintiff
cites that involves a “duty” is Bank of Neosho v. Colcord, 8
F.R.D. 621 (W.D. Mo. 1949) (Complaint, para. 12), an inapposite
decision declining to strike a cross-claim for specific
performance in an interpleader case that began, as interpleader
cases do, with the deposit of funds. This suit will accordingly
be dismissed.
Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives
in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They
have been filing electronically although they have not been
admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents
provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of
the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to
this case would only give them a forum to continue their
provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of
the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg
and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is
nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings
that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it
appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented
for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the
interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are
not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for
extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal
requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys
fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
And hey, Alice, while you're here.... I've been asking other anti-birthers why they think Obama sees it in his best interests to spend money on lawyers to keep his certificate hidden rather than the pennies to bring it and end the deal. None of them seem able to answer. How about you? Why do you think that is so?
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
And hey, Alice, while you're here.... I've been asking other anti-birthers why they think Obama sees it in his best interests to spend money on lawyers to keep his certificate hidden rather than the pennies to bring it and end the deal. None of them seem able to answer. How about you? Why do you think that is so?

Seems like I've plowed this ground once or twice or three times, at least.

"[Obama] is spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to keep this information from getting out," said Gary Kreep, the lawyer representing former presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who sued Obama in California to prevent the state from certifying its election results.

Keyes recently called the citizenship issue "the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen" and warned of "chaos, confusion and civil war."

Kreep has been battling Obama's California lawyer, Fredric Woocher, to release the president's records from Occidental College on the theory that they might provide information about his citizenship.

Woocher has threatened to seek sanctions against Kreep for pursuing the case.

"This suit, like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama's qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous," he said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. "There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us," he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19450_Page2.html#ixzz0MUVHiKTP
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Yeah, we have, haven't we? I think it's already been established that is one lawyer out of a whole battery of lawyers.

Unless you have statements from the rest of the lawyers claiming they're working pro bono as well, you're just burping in a thunderstorm.
 

alice

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
from Alice's last post

Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer

Yes, I remember that. The ridiculous lawsuits are cropping up in different states requiring different lawyers. These lawyers do keep in touch with each other...ya' know! :roll:

I imagine they all feel confident making the same statement that Mr. Woocher made. Now, can I P R O V E that. Nope, but their professionalism dictates that they stay on the same page.

Can you Hypocrite, or you, Sandhusker P R O V E that Obama is spending millions...and I don't mean those figures you posted sometime back, Hypocrite, showing what had been paid to campaign lawyers. Can you produce bills, receipts, anything showing that Obama has paid these attorneys to keep his records hidden?

Alice
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
No, not at this point in time.

Just that he paid one lawyer, after the election, (first 3 months of 2009)over $600,000. the same lawyer working on some of the eligibility cases.

Can you PROVE that more than one lawyer is working pro bono?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If you want to argue that lawyers working pro bono is standard practice, go ahead and try it, Alice. :lol: :lol: :lol:

See how rediculous you're getting trying to make "facts" support your "opinion"?
 

alice

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
No, not at this point in time.

Just that he paid one lawyer, after the election, (first 3 months of 2009)over $600,000. the same lawyer working on some of the eligibility cases.

Can you PROVE that more than one lawyer is working pro bono?

No more than you can prove he's not. But I do think when Mr. Woocher said, "There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us," he was not misstating.

Alice
 

alice

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Was he talking for all lawyers involved or his law firm?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

We've plowed this ground before, too, Hypocrite. You wanna go back thru and cherry pick what was posted to try bolster support among the birthers, be my guest.

Alice
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
alice said:
hypocritexposer said:
No, not at this point in time.

Just that he paid one lawyer, after the election, (first 3 months of 2009)over $600,000. the same lawyer working on some of the eligibility cases.

Can you PROVE that more than one lawyer is working pro bono?

No more than you can prove he's not. But I do think when Mr. Woocher said, "There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us," he was not misstating.

Alice

He might not be, but who is "us"? He mentioned that "us" isn't getting millions, but he didn't say that "us" aren't getting tens of thousands. Lawyers, especially the high-powered ones that a president would hire, are wordsmiths.

He also didn't say that nobody is getting paid, did he?

Come to think of it, isn't there some rule about elected officials getting freebies over a certain value? Something like disclosing gifts of more than $260? That's less than an hour of work by one of those guys. I wonder if Obama has disclosed that?
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
alice said:
hypocritexposer said:
No, not at this point in time.

Just that he paid one lawyer, after the election, (first 3 months of 2009)over $600,000. the same lawyer working on some of the eligibility cases.

Can you PROVE that more than one lawyer is working pro bono?

No more than you can prove he's not. But I do think when Mr. Woocher said, "There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us," he was not misstating.

Alice

He might not be, but who is "us"? He mentioned that "us" isn't getting millions, but he didn't say that "us" aren't getting tens of thousands. Lawyers, especially the high-powered ones that a president would hire, are wordsmiths.

He also didn't say that nobody is getting paid, did he?

Come to think of it, isn't there some rule about elected officials getting freebies over a certain value? Something like disclosing gifts of more than $260? That's less than an hour of work by one of those guys. I wonder if Obama has disclosed that?

Run out...find the bills...or the invoices...or the receipts, and get back to me. Til then, adios.

Alice
 

Latest posts

Top