(04-16-2010 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

You made my day.

(04-16-2010 01:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

You made my day.

Not quite sure why it makes your day.
The reason I don't have a clue what you are talking about is because it makes no sense.

(04-16-2010 01:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

You made my day.

Not quite sure why it makes your day.
The reason I don't have a clue what you are talking about is because it makes no sense.

I will not elaborate.

(04-16-2010 01:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

I will not elaborate.

Ok, well I have no idea what you think you are saying here, but what you wrote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It reads like you heard some lawyers at a cocktail party using some high-sounding words, so you decided to weave those words together and write something, without a clue as to what it means. In order to communicate anything with a sensible meaning, you need to use different words, or use these words differently.

(04-16-2010 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  weave those words together and write something, without a clue as to what it means. In order to communicate anything with a sensible meaning, you need to use different words, or use these words differently.

And that differs from the way lawyers work, how?

We all recently seem to hate each other, but at least we all make each other laugh.....

People are just asking the un-answered questions. Questions that could quite easily be answered.

Another question would be did the people asking for an end to the questions have the same objections and did they call everyone loons including the Congress when they held hearings to determine McCain's eligibility.

I have no doubt that if McCain had won, there would have been suits filed and no doubt many opposed to the calls for Obama to come clean and answer the questions would be taking offense to being called loons.

It's another case of when one side has the questions, it's legitimate and patriotic to ask,... the other side with the same concerns are potential terrorists, racist loons.

I used to rely on Snopes but over time, I've noticed more and more bias in their postings. Example, they have always found any question about Obamas birth or eligibility to be false. No question for them Obama met all requirements to be Prez. including natural born citizen.

McCain: Natural Born Citizen - Undetermined.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

(04-16-2010 01:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

You made my day.

Not quite sure why it makes your day.
The reason I don't have a clue what you are talking about is because it makes no sense.

Could he be talking about a Rule 202 Deposition?

(04-16-2010 09:32 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

You made my day.

Not quite sure why it makes your day.
The reason I don't have a clue what you are talking about is because it makes no sense.

Could he be talking about a Rule 202 Deposition?

I'm guessing it would have to be something like that, but the terminology doesn't make sense to me. I don't know think he's in Texas, and maybe that's the terminology used in the jurisdiction where he is, but it seems a bit strange to refer to it that way. And I'm not sure what surviving summary judgement would have to do with a Rule 202, unless he means the hearing on the Rule 202 or equivalent petition, but I wouldn't call that summary judgement. Plus I'm having a hard time figuring out causation and damages that would lead to a conclusion that Texas citizens were harmed by the point I was making. The whole construct just seems weird to me.

Guess I slept through class the day they discussed this in law school.

This thread is a total waste of time..just as the one that SOAF started a long time ago....Just what in the hell do those that believe in this conspiracy BS think they are going to accomplish?

I suppose that they think that having Joe Biden as POTUS would be a damn improvement over this loser.

OH...I Forgot...they actually believe that the Constitution stands for something.:patriot:

The truth is....They believe in the Constitution...as long as it serves "their" ideals.

(04-16-2010 10:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This thread is a total waste of time..just as the one that SOAF started a long time ago....Just what in the hell do those that believe in this conspiracy BS think they are going to accomplish?

I suppose that they think that having Joe Biden as POTUS would be a damn improvement over this loser.

OH...I Forgot...they actually believe that the Constitution stands for something.:patriot:

The truth is....They believe in the Constitution...as long as it serves "their" ideals.

+1, particularly the point about Biden.

Just thinking I really shouldn't waste time getting drawn into this.

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 12:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Forget the legalese crap. I'm calling BS on that. Just look at your answer. "pretty well settled" yea, thats a certainty.
"I don't think" yea, that just the same.
"dicta" definition = observation, Cut the crap. If you are unable to be truthful, just don't answer.

No crap. I'm hedging only because the court sometimes does things that surprise.

A person born in a foreign country, with at least one parent who is a US citizen, is a US citizen at birth by operation of lex sanguinis, and that is sufficient to make that person a "natual born citizen." There simply is no legal or constitutional question there; that is well settled law.

The only part of this that is not a lead-pipe cinch is the impact of the statute on the books at the time of Obama's birth that established minimum age/residency requirements for a US citizen parent in order to transfer US citizenship under lex sanguinis. That statue has been repealed, it is inconsistent with prior court decisions, and it is inconsistent with dicta in prior cases. The dicta would go even further (and this is the sole extent to which I am relying on dicta) to hold that even if the statue were upheld, it didn't impact the constitutional definition of "natural-born citizen." The fact that it would have been impossible for anyone the age of Obama's mother to have met the statutory standard is probably sufficient in and of itself to render the provision void. Given the weight of those factors, I am quite certain that the supreme court would overturn the provision, if it came to that.

If that issue were resolved as I believe it would be, then the rest of this hypothetical is a slam dunk.

Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

God help us all if you are ever serve on a grand jury.

(04-17-2010 03:43 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 01:03 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 12:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Forget the legalese crap. I'm calling BS on that. Just look at your answer. "pretty well settled" yea, thats a certainty.
"I don't think" yea, that just the same.
"dicta" definition = observation, Cut the crap. If you are unable to be truthful, just don't answer.

No crap. I'm hedging only because the court sometimes does things that surprise.

A person born in a foreign country, with at least one parent who is a US citizen, is a US citizen at birth by operation of lex sanguinis, and that is sufficient to make that person a "natual born citizen." There simply is no legal or constitutional question there; that is well settled law.

The only part of this that is not a lead-pipe cinch is the impact of the statute on the books at the time of Obama's birth that established minimum age/residency requirements for a US citizen parent in order to transfer US citizenship under lex sanguinis. That statue has been repealed, it is inconsistent with prior court decisions, and it is inconsistent with dicta in prior cases. The dicta would go even further (and this is the sole extent to which I am relying on dicta) to hold that even if the statue were upheld, it didn't impact the constitutional definition of "natural-born citizen." The fact that it would have been impossible for anyone the age of Obama's mother to have met the statutory standard is probably sufficient in and of itself to render the provision void. Given the weight of those factors, I am quite certain that the supreme court would overturn the provision, if it came to that.

If that issue were resolved as I believe it would be, then the rest of this hypothetical is a slam dunk.

Here is my challenge to you. Produce a brief with the purpose of discovery, that can survive summary judgement, on the fact that Texas Citizens are harmed by the point you make. I'm serving on the Grand Jury soon. I'll present it.

God help us all if you are ever serve on a grand jury.

Not my first time there, Roberta.

(04-16-2010 10:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This thread is a total waste of time..

I don't think so, there's a legitimate question out there regarding O's birth certificate and as his employer, now that the question has been raised, would like to see it and end this once and for all. For reasons I do not know, O has declined, instead showing us some stupid, unsigned piece of paper that's still in pristine condition. His refusal to show us the real one only raises my curiosity.

(04-16-2010 10:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Just what in the hell do those that believe in this conspiracy BS think they are going to accomplish?

They'll accomplish nothing. If O is found to be not eligible to be president it would cause a huge problem for this country and our economy would go down the tubes faster than it already is. It is for this and many other reasons if he really was born in Kenya it will be the best kept secret this nation protects.

(04-15-2010 03:13 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  I'm guessing he was born in Hawaii but his birth certificate says he is caucasian.

Now that would be FUNNY!

(04-16-2010 09:11 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm surprised nobody mentioned how Michelle Obama said in a speech how "... [they went to Kenya], Barack's home country, ..."

Nobody listens to that crazy woman anyway. My gosh...she even has trouble reading from a teleprompter.