Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Was Hannity's comment on TV or radio? As far as I'm concerned he only gave it a glancing lip service. Nothing substantial or meaningful. Where are the investigative journalists? Are we all crazy or is this a vast conspiracy to cover up the biggest scandal in U.S. history and we are all doomed?

In light of O'Reilly's adamant refusal to acknowledge the eligibility problem, I had assumed that Fox management just didn't want anyone to get involved in this story, maybe because of threats, maybe because of wanting to adopt a non-partisan stance. Who knows.

This is the first public acknowledgment by Fox of the eligibility question (that I am aware of), and it was a back door approach - nothing to get Obama upset at, or to incur the wrath of the FCC Czar. It was safe.

But it was there.

Conspiracy? I believe in conspiracies. They exist all around us. We are humans. We conspire.

Doomed? Never. As long as we are alive, we are not doomed.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Was Hannity's comment on TV or radio? As far as I'm concerned he only gave it a glancing lip service. Nothing substantial or meaningful. Where are the investigative journalists? Are we all crazy or is this a vast conspiracy to cover up the biggest scandal in U.S. history and we are all doomed?

In light of O'Reilly's adamant refusal to acknowledge the eligibility problem, I had assumed that Fox management just didn't want anyone to get involved in this story, maybe because of threats, maybe because of wanting to adopt a non-partisan stance. Who knows.

This is the first public acknowledgment by Fox of the eligibility question (that I am aware of), and it was a back door approach - nothing to get Obama upset at, or to incur the wrath of the FCC Czar. It was safe.

But it was there.

Conspiracy? I believe in conspiracies. They exist all around us. We are humans. We conspire.

Doomed? Never. As long as we are alive, we are not doomed.

Highlander, if we stand by and do nothing then we are doomed. If we are to ensure the future of this country then we must take heed and learn the lessons of our revolutionary forefathers. Freedom is not free. The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots. Sounds foreboding and ominous, yes, but we should take solace that their sacrifice was not in vain. We can only hope that there is an equal measure of courage left in this country.

Col. Hollister v Soetoro, Case 09-5080, Corrected Appellant's Reply Brief, filed 12-9-09 by John D. Hemenway, WDC.

Interesting read. I like this guy's style.

http://tinyurl.com/y8ov6ry

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

In this case, will they attempt to settle the case before it goes to trial? Perhaps an offer they can't refuse?

No way of knowing ... what would be the fate of the dealerships if there had NOT been TARP money thrown out at the auto manufacturers? One thing for sure, if you take on a client then you're duty bound to communicate all offers from the opposing party and abide by what the client wants done.

So that is the dilemma.

If the client does not have a claim for specific and personal damages, then he lacks standing.

If the client does have a legitimate claim for damages, he has standing.
But... accepting a settlement in lieu of suing for discovery best serves the client's interests, at least financially.

Catch-22 at its finest.

Where is the patriot client with standing who cannot be bought off with a sheik's ransom?

The Democratic Party is the House of Lawyers, especially of crooked lawyers.
Fighting this battle on their chosen turf - the courtroom - puts us at a disadvantage.

Lujan provides a classic definition of "standing".

[quote="[u]Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. at 561[/u], 112 S.Ct. 2130, 1191 L.Ed.2d 351,"][size=117]First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in factâ€

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

The Democratic Party is the House of Lawyers, especially of crooked lawyers.
Fighting this battle on their chosen turf - the courtroom - puts us at a disadvantage.

Your comment brings me back to the missing Thirteenth Amendment which I think has been discussed on this forum before. The background on the missing (original) Thirteenth Amendment is found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18029501/Davi ... -Amendment

and a copy of the Constitution with the missing Thirteenth Amendment is found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18170242/Cons ... tates-1825

The meaning of the missing amendment is that we are a nation without classes of citizens, and people with titles cannot serve in government. If this amendment could be taken seriously, and re-implemented, it would remove all lawyers from public office. That would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

So that is the dilemma.

If the client does not have a claim for specific and personal damages, then he lacks standing.

If the client does have a legitimate claim for damages, he has standing.
But... accepting a settlement in lieu of suing for discovery best serves the client's interests, at least financially.

Catch-22 at its finest.

Where is the patriot client with standing who cannot be bought off with a sheik's ransom?

Here's the deal (I think) ... if the matter gets filed as a Class Action lawsuit, then there's a potential problem of a "majority vote" (or a lack of a majority "objecting") possibly binding the whole class to any offer of settlement. (Even then, any potential member of the class can "opt out" to pursue a separate remedy.) BUT, if the matter gets filed as just a bunch of dealerships agreeing to go in as co-plaintiffs, then all it would take would be one or a handful "holding out" against settlement and the trial and all its related discovery demands would be on, even if most of the others settled. Some of the dealerships have probably gone on to a "new life" as used car lots or affiliating elsewhere with other manufacturers (foreign), so those owners can afford to stand on principle and not cave into a settlement offer.

It just amazes me how just a discovery is so hard to attain!!

Representing Lisa Liberi, Berg is going after Taitz.

http://tinyurl.com/ydn822h

I didn't know that.

Thanks for the missing Thirteenth Ammendment. I had forgotten about that one. If you look here: http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf it is the Congressional Act of 1871 that swept the "organic" Constitution into the waste basket and replaced it with a "corporate" Constitution. This could all be bunk, but it helps explain the missing Thirteenth Ammendment.

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Thanks for the missing Thirteenth Ammendment. I had forgotten about that one. If you look here: http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf it is the Congressional Act of 1871 that swept the "organic" Constitution into the waste basket and replaced it with a "corporate" Constitution. This could all be bunk, but it helps explain the missing Thirteenth Ammendment.

I've put a transcribed copy of the Constitution for the United States up on Scribd, and it includes a brief history of the three 13th Amendments.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23978769/Cons ... ted-States