Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,538 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,377,038
Pageviews Today: 3,371,810Threads Today: 813Posts Today: 15,898
11:30 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

**BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 553433
United States
12/16/2008 06:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Barack Hussein OBAMA contends that he was born in Hawaii, a claim that despite countless erroneous media reports and reckless, poorly researched postings on numerous Internet Blogs to the contrary, has yet to be proven by Barack Hussein OBAMA or anyone else named as co-defendants.

Now, consider that each and every one of the lawsuits filed against him could be immediately dismissed by the mere production of a single piece of paper that is available to him for the paltry sum of $12.50 at a recorder’s office in Hawaii.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 573293


More of the SAME STUPID BULLSHIT!

Obama HAS produced the document THIS fucking fool says has not BEEN PRODUCED.



.
Skeptic
User ID: 573439
United States
12/16/2008 07:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Obama HAS produced the document THIS fucking fool says has not BEEN PRODUCED.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 553433

He has only produced the same kind of fictitious "certificate of birth" that states routinely issue for adopted children.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 169074
Netherlands
12/16/2008 07:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
BULLshity, dumbass.

A NATURAL BORN citizen is one who is a citizen by birth, either born IN the U.S., or born of ONE Parent who is a citizen (with a MINOR qualifier of residency)!



The constitution does not mention "ONE" but "BOTH"...see:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president, whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization "process or procedure" is not a "natural born citizen" and is therefore ineligible for those two positions
 Quoting: tommy777



A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.

Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over:

[link to www.naturalborncitizen.org]
Ikaika

User ID: 204551
United States
12/16/2008 08:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Homeland Security

Getting a Handle on the OBAMA Birth Certificate “Conspiracy”

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

7 December 2008: Based on extensive research and review of nearly 1,100 pages of court documents filed within the last 60 days, the Northeast Intelligence Network has identified 19 lawsuits filed in various venues across the U.S. by a variety of Americans against Barack Hussein OBAMA, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Secretaries of State of several states, and other related parties.

The common issue of each lawsuit confronts the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA to become America’s 44th President on January 20, 2009. Of the 19 lawsuits researched, thirteen-(13) remain active or somewhat active, meaning that the courts in the various venues in which they have been filed are considering the merits of the individual cases. At least six others have been dismissed or can otherwise be described as “dead-on-arrival” due to a number of different and wide ranging issues. Of the 13 remaining cases, however, three-(3) stand out from the rest based on the nature of their claims, each providing somewhat different perspectives relating to one core issue:

the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA to take office as President of the United States based on his citizenship status.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that this article is being published on December 7th, 2008, the 67th anniversary of the attack on America by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on this day in 1941. Barack Hussein OBAMA contends that he was born in Hawaii, a claim that despite countless erroneous media reports and reckless, poorly researched postings on numerous Internet Blogs to the contrary, has yet to be proven by Barack Hussein OBAMA or anyone else named as co-defendants.

Of the three aforementioned lawsuits, two raise questions about his actual location of birth (Berg, Keyes), while the third (Donofrio) focuses on his citizenship status. (While this might admittedly be an oversimplification, I believe it is a sufficient characterization for the purpose of this article).

Instead, Barack Hussein OBAMA, in conjunction with the co-defendants, has reportedly spent between $800,000 to close to $1,000,000 (one million dollars), using at least three different law firms to fight these civil actions. Now, consider that each and every one of the lawsuits filed against him could be immediately dismissed by the mere production of a single piece of paper that is available to him for the paltry sum of $12.50 at a recorder’s office in Hawaii. Keep in mind that at this point, OBAMA would likely not even have to make the document public, but provide it to the applicable judge or official for verification purposes to make this controversial maelstrom disappear.

As an investigator and a rational American citizen, I have to ask myself why Barack Hussein OBAMA has chosen not to dispose of this very simple matter in the most logical and expeditious manner possible. Not only would that satisfy these pesky plaintiffs who happen to respect the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution of the United States, but it would also go a long way to brand them and their supporters as deluded conspiracy theorists who have way too much time on their hands.

Following that same line of logic, I then have to ask myself why this matter of such constitutional importance has not received the coverage by the corporate media that it deserves. More ink has been used, and more airtime has been provided to the civil and criminal legal issues of the likes of O.J. Simpson than the possible constitutional ramifications of the eligibility questions of the new leader of the free world. I would argue that questions surrounding the eligibility of a professional football, basketball or baseball player, NASCAR race driver, or Olympic athlete would garner more media attention and outrage of otherwise rational Americans than this matter, which has far more important ramifications for this country as well as the entire planet.

Equally troubling is the failure of those who have been labeled or otherwise accepted as the public ambassadors of American conservatives holding much coveted and very valuable platforms, opportunities and audiences to address this issue with the intellectual honesty it deserves. In this instance, I am specifically referring to the vocal gatekeepers of American conservatism such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly whose combined audience and consequential influence is staggering to the imagination.

The same applies to conservative political pundits such as Michelle Malkin, Michael Medved and David Horowitz, the latter who, in an article published today, described Alan Keyes, one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuits, “an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe” for his role in wanting to insure that we are adhering to the rule of law outlined in the U.S. Constitution. This, by the way, is a key tactic employed by those who cannot fight the argument with facts; they attack the messenger.

By simply ignoring the legitimate questions raised by these lawsuits, however, it efficiently and effectively serves to brand anyone wanting answers as a card-carrying member of the lunatic, malcontented fringe of society.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is what I have found while researching this issue, something that requires much more time and space than can be allotted here. There appears to be an unprecedented level of collusion between numerous political power brokers on both sides of the political divide, elected and appointed officials on both the federal and state levels, as well as members of the corporate media. It is interesting if not alarming to take a few steps back in an effort to gain a wider perspective, and finding unusual alliances and political “bed partners” among various members this group.

To provide a bit of insight into what I am referencing, consider and conduct research yourself into some events that have taken place within the past several years – events that have effectively changed or otherwise had a direct impact on the social and geopolitical landscape of America and its power structure. A few examples include such things as NAFTA, the SPP treaty, border and immigration issues, the Patriot Act, the Global Poverty Act of 2007, the management of the oil “crisis,” the most recent economic crisis and the remedies enacted, and the recent G-20 economic summit, where President Bush essentially provided economic oversight of U.S. economic institutions to the European Union.

There is indeed something very wrong taking place, having sinister implications and global overtones. Sound too conspiratorial? Well, as long I will undoubtedly be branded a “conspiracy loon” for raising the issue of constitutional eligibility of the messianic Barack Hussein Obama, I might as well go all of the way.

Meanwhile, the constitutional “elephant in the room” is still there. And if I had to make a guess on how long the elephant would be staying, well, let’s just say this: I’d be planning on moving the furniture out and the food, water and the tons of newspapers that will be needed in.

[link to www.homelandsecurityus.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 573293

This is not from Homeland Security.
It is from the Northeast Intelligence Network.

More disinformation meant to deceive.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 545445
Australia
12/16/2008 09:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Ooops....

In a nutshell, I think it boils down to....
to be POTUS you must be AT MINIMUM 2nd generation American on BOTH your parents side.



Then it would have been impossible for MANY presidents to have been POTUS - moron.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 573387


Learn to read. It's been posted nearly a hundred times what constitutes a natural born citizen.
I never wrote the rules.So bugger off.
Ikaika

User ID: 204551
United States
12/16/2008 09:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Ooops....

In a nutshell, I think it boils down to....
to be POTUS you must be AT MINIMUM 2nd generation American on BOTH your parents side.



Then it would have been impossible for MANY presidents to have been POTUS - moron.


Learn to read. It's been posted nearly a hundred times what constitutes a natural born citizen.
I never wrote the rules.So bugger off.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 545445

I am slow, please help me out here.
What, exactly, constitutes a Natural Born Citizen?
tommy777 (OP)

User ID: 515900
Netherlands
12/16/2008 09:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
I am slow, please help me out here.
What, exactly, constitutes a Natural Born Citizen?
 Quoting: Ikaika


My Fellow Americans, What have we done!

December 13, 2008

Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over:

A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.

The Framers of the Constitution made this a special requirement of the President, and only the President. It is not a requirement of any other position, including Senators, Representatives, or Supreme Court Justices. It makes complete sense that the Founding Fathers would make this strict requirement to ensure that no President had split or divided loyalty to any other nation. The President of the United States should have allegiance to America, and America only.

Despite widespread, popular belief, Mr. Obama’s father was not an American Citizen. Mr. Obama, Sr was a Kenyan (British) citizen in the United States on a student visa. Thus, Barack Obama was born with both Kenyan (British) and American citizenship. This is precisely what the Framers guarded against when they wrote the Constitution and put the strict Natural Born Citizen requirement in place. It makes no difference that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, the Constitution is only concerned with citizenship at the time of birth.

Mr. Obama freely admits that he was both an American and Kenyan citizen at birth (see his official website called fightthesmears.com). This is no secret. Despite repeated requests for the media to cover this most important issue during the election, it was repeatedly ignored. Why it was not covered is a mystery, but it does not matter. The fact remains that on January 20, 2009, our Constitution will be violated if Mr. Obama is sworn in.

Secretaries of State, our Chief Election Officials, have been sued across the country to challenge Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The lawsuits have been denied repeatedly because Secretaries of State, despite widespread popular belief, are not required to check the eligibility of presidential candidates. Please call your Secretary of State to verify this fact. Whose job is it to determine eligibility? It is the responsibility of the Electoral College voters. Mr. Obama’s electors have been notified, and so far this issue has fallen on deaf ears. Electors respond by saying that since Natural Born Citizen is not spelled out in the Constitution, it means whatever they want it to mean. This is an outrage!

I am one person. I am not a member of any group. I do not want money. I want you to contact your elected officials and demand that this be challenged. Show them this letter. Demand that they do their jobs! The only way to stop the swearing in of an ineligible President is through Congress on January 6, 2009 when the electoral ballots are opened and counted. At that time, one Senator and one Representative can challenge the eligibility. We need one brave Senator and one brave Representative to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for us.

Below are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I invite you to investigate on your own. These references are a good starting point, but they are not all inclusive. Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalty to be President.

-1758 Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution

-1787-1788-The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington

-Article II, Section I, United States Constitution

-The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of “Natural Born” from the 1790 Act in 1795

-The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen

-Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” discussion

[link to www.naturalborncitizen.org]
Ikaika

User ID: 204551
United States
12/16/2008 09:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Thank you.

I will address this later.
I am on my way out the door, to go across the border into Quebec,and I will ask the Customs Officer on the U.S. side on my way back if I am a Natural Born Citizen.
and I will post his answer, and my reason for asking when I get back.
tommy777 (OP)

User ID: 515900
Netherlands
12/16/2008 09:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Thank you.

I will address this later.
I am on my way out the door, to go across the border into Quebec,and I will ask the Customs Officer on the U.S. side on my way back if I am a Natural Born Citizen.
and I will post his answer, and my reason for asking when I get back.
 Quoting: Ikaika


ok...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508527
United States
12/16/2008 10:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
so STILL not one reporter has balls enough to ask the muslim weasel to his face "WHY ARE YOU NOT RESPONDING TO THE NUMEROUS LAWSUITS BROUGHT AGAINST YOU CHALLENGING YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 573502
United Kingdom
12/16/2008 10:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
so STILL not one reporter has balls enough to ask the muslim weasel to his face "WHY ARE YOU NOT RESPONDING TO THE NUMEROUS LAWSUITS BROUGHT AGAINST YOU CHALLENGING YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508527



Team Obama made it abundantly clear during the election that any journalist asking awkward uestions will lose thier jobs.
tommy777 (OP)

User ID: 515900
Netherlands
12/16/2008 10:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
(Note from me: The case is scheduled for oral hearing on Jan 8, coincidentally, the same day Congress counts the Electoral College votes. The state Supreme Court has set an “en banc” conference.
This means all of the justices participate in deciding whether to take the case, not just a department (half the court) or, as more usual, just the court commissioner. The challengers, James Broi and 12 others, are represented by Bellevue attorney Stephen Pidgeon
)

Broe v. Reed: Motion for Expedited Discovery, Subpoenas
December 16th, 2008

[link to www.therightsideoflife.com]

Yesterday, DecaLogosIntl.org reported that James Broe, one of 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has filed a motion for expedited discovery and authority to issue subpoenas in Washington State Supreme Court:

Names and Designation of Persons Filing Motion

COMES NOW, James E. Broe, Kenneth R. Seal, Robert Baker, Mark Sussman, Stan Walter, Bill Wise, Andy Stevens, Ed Crawford, Jason Lagen, Louise Workman, Jocelyn Murcelli, Mike Murcelli and Kevin McDowell, by and through counsel of record Stephen Pidgeon, pursuant to RAP 17.3(a), the Rules of Discovery, CR 26-37, and CR 45 governing the issuance of subpoenas, and Move this Honorable Court for an order allowing the issuance of two subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining admissible evidence in this case, and expediting discovery pursuant to the proposed schedule.

Relief Requested

Plaintiffs seek an Order allowing plaintiffs expedited discovery by means of two subpoenas, one to be served on the Secretary of State of the State of Washington, to discover the following items: I) the Declaration of Candidacy of Barack Obama as filed in the State of Washington; 2) all records concerning the candidacy and disallowance of Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Frank Colero within the Secretary of State’s office; and one to be served upon the Director of the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii, to discover the following items: 3) the Birth Certificate of Barack Obama in Hawaii, and 4) all supporting documentation regarding the registration of the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek an order which establishes the following schedule.
Plaintiffs are to serve the Secretary of State of the State of Washington with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Friday, December 19, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ counsel Stephen Pidgeon no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
Plaintiffs are to serve the State of Hawaii Department of Health with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Monday, December 22, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ ‘counsel. no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 564059
United States
12/16/2008 11:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
(Note from me: The case is scheduled for oral hearing on Jan 8, coincidentally, the same day Congress counts the Electoral College votes. The state Supreme Court has set an “en banc” conference.
This means all of the justices participate in deciding whether to take the case, not just a department (half the court) or, as more usual, just the court commissioner. The challengers, James Broi and 12 others, are represented by Bellevue attorney Stephen Pidgeon
)

Broe v. Reed: Motion for Expedited Discovery, Subpoenas
December 16th, 2008

[link to www.therightsideoflife.com]

Yesterday, DecaLogosIntl.org reported that James Broe, one of 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has filed a motion for expedited discovery and authority to issue subpoenas in Washington State Supreme Court:

Names and Designation of Persons Filing Motion

COMES NOW, James E. Broe, Kenneth R. Seal, Robert Baker, Mark Sussman, Stan Walter, Bill Wise, Andy Stevens, Ed Crawford, Jason Lagen, Louise Workman, Jocelyn Murcelli, Mike Murcelli and Kevin McDowell, by and through counsel of record Stephen Pidgeon, pursuant to RAP 17.3(a), the Rules of Discovery, CR 26-37, and CR 45 governing the issuance of subpoenas, and Move this Honorable Court for an order allowing the issuance of two subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining admissible evidence in this case, and expediting discovery pursuant to the proposed schedule.

Relief Requested

Plaintiffs seek an Order allowing plaintiffs expedited discovery by means of two subpoenas, one to be served on the Secretary of State of the State of Washington, to discover the following items: I) the Declaration of Candidacy of Barack Obama as filed in the State of Washington; 2) all records concerning the candidacy and disallowance of Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Frank Colero within the Secretary of State’s office; and one to be served upon the Director of the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii, to discover the following items: 3) the Birth Certificate of Barack Obama in Hawaii, and 4) all supporting documentation regarding the registration of the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek an order which establishes the following schedule.
Plaintiffs are to serve the Secretary of State of the State of Washington with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Friday, December 19, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ counsel Stephen Pidgeon no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
Plaintiffs are to serve the State of Hawaii Department of Health with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Monday, December 22, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ ‘counsel. no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
 Quoting: tommy777




I guess the jig is up on this one tomato tomato
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 454845
United States
12/16/2008 01:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
(Note from me: The case is scheduled for oral hearing on Jan 8, coincidentally, the same day Congress counts the Electoral College votes. The state Supreme Court has set an “en banc” conference.
This means all of the justices participate in deciding whether to take the case, not just a department (half the court) or, as more usual, just the court commissioner. The challengers, James Broi and 12 others, are represented by Bellevue attorney Stephen Pidgeon
)
 Quoting: tommy777


link?
tommy777 (OP)

User ID: 515900
Netherlands
12/16/2008 02:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
(Note from me: The case is scheduled for oral hearing on Jan 8, coincidentally, the same day Congress counts the Electoral College votes. The state Supreme Court has set an “en banc” conference.
This means all of the justices participate in deciding whether to take the case, not just a department (half the court) or, as more usual, just the court commissioner. The challengers, James Broi and 12 others, are represented by Bellevue attorney Stephen Pidgeon
)

link?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 454845


Date Set For Broe v. Reed

[link to decalogosintl.org]

December 10, 2008

Contact: Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
Tel: (425) 605-4774 Fax: (425) 818-5371
Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington.

Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — The Washington Supreme Court has set a date for the case Broe v. Reed, to be heard en banc on January 8, 2009.

On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, because at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.

“The issue of standing seems to be behind us,” said Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for the plaintiffs. “What remains is to establish the duty of the Secretary of State, under Article III, Sections 4 and 17 of the Washington constitution, under RCW 29A.04.230 which names the Secretary as the state’s chief of elections, and under relevant administrative codes which also require the Secretary to act.”

Pidgeon goes on to say that “each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to determine if the candidate is telling the truth.”




[link to www.elections2008online.com]

State of Washington wants Obama to prove he's a US Citizen
by bettym47 on Mon 15 Dec 2008 10:22 AM EST |

Dont' know if they will amount to anything, but they are interesting.

Comments from Citizenwells blog:



Wait a sec. Has this fact slipped by everyone? Are you all aware that the state of Washington Supreme Court GRANTED A HEARING where Obama has to prove his citizenship on January 8th?

Broe v. Reed, SoS WA Granted a Hearing - Oral Arguments, Jan. 8, 2009
Washington State Supreme Court, Case No. 8-2-473-8. Obama must show he is:
1. born on American soil, 2. the son of two American citizens.

Read more here.
[link to www.elections2008online.com]



scroll down at:
[link to www.democraticunderground.com]
The same author is also claiming that, in the case of the Washington State case Broe v. Reed, Since the SoS WA was granted a hearing with oral arguments on 8 Jan 09, Obama must show he is:

1. born on American soil,
2. the son of two American citizens.

Actually, the arguments will be to dismiss or continue with the case, and Obama won't have to prove a blessed thing unless it goes to trial. It's a Berg-style case with some Donofrio mixed in, and the fundie lawyer running it has ties to Gary Kreep's organization. Expect dismissal.

scroll down at:
[link to www.democraticunderground.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 454845
United States
12/16/2008 02:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
1. do you have a link to the actual listing on the WA state supreme court docket?

2. some of those blogs you copied and pasted got it wrong when they suggest that obama must show proof of citizenship at this hearing, or at any time during this hearing. he is not on trial here, this is between the voters and the secretary of state.

3. all cases are heard en banc at the WA state supreme court, just fyi.
tommy777 (OP)

User ID: 515900
Netherlands
12/16/2008 02:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
1. do you have a link to the actual listing on the WA state supreme court docket?

2. some of those blogs you copied and pasted got it wrong when they suggest that obama must show proof of citizenship at this hearing, or at any time during this hearing. he is not on trial here, this is between the voters and the secretary of state.

3. all cases are heard en banc at the WA state supreme court, just fyi.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 454845


Is this what you mean?:

The link to the MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY:

[link to decalogosintl.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17061
United States
12/16/2008 02:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
BULLshity, dumbass.

A NATURAL BORN citizen is one who is a citizen by birth, either born IN the U.S., or born of ONE Parent who is a citizen (with a MINOR qualifier of residency)!



The constitution does not mention "ONE" but "BOTH"...see:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president, whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization "process or procedure" is not a "natural born citizen" and is therefore ineligible for those two positions



A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.

Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over:

[link to www.naturalborncitizen.org]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 169074


The naturalization act of 1790 says otherwise.

Not that this can help Obama, but I figured I would throw it out there.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 454845
United States
12/16/2008 02:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
1. do you have a link to the actual listing on the WA state supreme court docket?

2. some of those blogs you copied and pasted got it wrong when they suggest that obama must show proof of citizenship at this hearing, or at any time during this hearing. he is not on trial here, this is between the voters and the secretary of state.

3. all cases are heard en banc at the WA state supreme court, just fyi.


Is this what you mean?:

The link to the MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY:

[link to decalogosintl.org]
 Quoting: tommy777


no, that's just the motion that they filed. the WA state supreme court website displays their case docket, i've yet to find any listing of this case, or anythign else happening on jan. 8th.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 573687
12/16/2008 02:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
FAIL YOU ALL FAIL
MYPOWER OVER YOU ALL IS SEALED

HEHEHE
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 573687
12/16/2008 02:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
FAIL YOU ALL FAIL
MYPOWER OVER YOU ALL IS SEALED

HEHEHE
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 573687


Hmmm, well we will have to wait and see about that Mr Obama.
tommy777 (OP)

User ID: 515900
Netherlands
12/16/2008 03:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
BULLshity, dumbass.

A NATURAL BORN citizen is one who is a citizen by birth, either born IN the U.S., or born of ONE Parent who is a citizen (with a MINOR qualifier of residency)!



The constitution does not mention "ONE" but "BOTH"...see:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a “natural born citizen” eligible to someday become president or vice-president, whereas anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization "process or procedure" is not a "natural born citizen" and is therefore ineligible for those two positions



A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.

Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over:

[link to www.naturalborncitizen.org]


The naturalization act of 1790 says otherwise.

Not that this can help Obama, but I figured I would throw it out there.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17061


No it does not say otherwise: it is "only"The Naturalizationact, that you quote..:

read here:

What was the original public meaning of the enigmatic phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? 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." Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of "naturalization" is not a "natural born citizen."



[link to www.uslaw.com]
georgebushworstprezev​er
User ID: 565924
United States
12/16/2008 03:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
1. do you have a link to the actual listing on the WA state supreme court docket?

2. some of those blogs you copied and pasted got it wrong when they suggest that obama must show proof of citizenship at this hearing, or at any time during this hearing. he is not on trial here, this is between the voters and the secretary of state.

3. all cases are heard en banc at the WA state supreme court, just fyi.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 454845


In case you didn't realize it yet, Tommy is some European dude posting here who doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time. He just believes what he reads on various blog websites, etc. and then posts the same misinformation here.

For example, I'm not sure it's dawned on him even that this case in Washington state's Supreme Court is between the dozen or so plaintiffs listed and the Washington Secretary of State, the party responsible, as it is in most states, for certifying the statewide election results.

Your comments above are correct I believe. I too have not found anything on the docket yet regarding this cause of action (#8-2-473-8).

Reading over the writ of mandamus, I believe this to be a very weak case, particularly because it relies heavily upon the same arguments used in Berg's Western District of PA case. Also, there are many procedural problems with this case as well. For example, the plaintiffs argue that RCW (Revised Code of Washington, i.e., Washington state's book of statutes) 29A.68.020 gives the plaintiffs standing (at least that's the plaintiff's interpretation) but fail to mention in their writ that this section requires adherence to RCW 29A.68.011, the requirements of which they have not met.
georgebushworstprezev​er
User ID: 565924
United States
12/16/2008 03:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
[link to www.homelandsecurityus.com]

This is not from Homeland Security.
It is from the Northeast Intelligence Network.

More disinformation meant to deceive.
 Quoting: Ikaika


I know....how lame. I gathered that right away from the ".com" suffix on the link.
georgebushworstprezev​er
User ID: 565924
United States
12/16/2008 03:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
I am slow, please help me out here.
What, exactly, constitutes a Natural Born Citizen?


My Fellow Americans, What have we done!

December 13, 2008

Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is? If you answer “a child born on American soil,” you are only partially correct. The Framers of the Constitution and American citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution understood the term so well, that there was no need to define it. Through the years, however, the term has fallen from public conversation. Its meaning, however, is still the same today as it was over 200 years ago. There are many, many references to the term in our written history, and one common definition is repeated over and over:

A Natural Born Citizen is born to two American Citizens on American Soil.

The Framers of the Constitution made this a special requirement of the President, and only the President. It is not a requirement of any other position, including Senators, Representatives, or Supreme Court Justices. It makes complete sense that the Founding Fathers would make this strict requirement to ensure that no President had split or divided loyalty to any other nation. The President of the United States should have allegiance to America, and America only.

Despite widespread, popular belief, Mr. Obama’s father was not an American Citizen. Mr. Obama, Sr was a Kenyan (British) citizen in the United States on a student visa. Thus, Barack Obama was born with both Kenyan (British) and American citizenship. This is precisely what the Framers guarded against when they wrote the Constitution and put the strict Natural Born Citizen requirement in place. It makes no difference that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, the Constitution is only concerned with citizenship at the time of birth.

Mr. Obama freely admits that he was both an American and Kenyan citizen at birth (see his official website called fightthesmears.com). This is no secret. Despite repeated requests for the media to cover this most important issue during the election, it was repeatedly ignored. Why it was not covered is a mystery, but it does not matter. The fact remains that on January 20, 2009, our Constitution will be violated if Mr. Obama is sworn in.

Secretaries of State, our Chief Election Officials, have been sued across the country to challenge Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The lawsuits have been denied repeatedly because Secretaries of State, despite widespread popular belief, are not required to check the eligibility of presidential candidates. Please call your Secretary of State to verify this fact. Whose job is it to determine eligibility? It is the responsibility of the Electoral College voters. Mr. Obama’s electors have been notified, and so far this issue has fallen on deaf ears. Electors respond by saying that since Natural Born Citizen is not spelled out in the Constitution, it means whatever they want it to mean. This is an outrage!

I am one person. I am not a member of any group. I do not want money. I want you to contact your elected officials and demand that this be challenged. Show them this letter. Demand that they do their jobs! The only way to stop the swearing in of an ineligible President is through Congress on January 6, 2009 when the electoral ballots are opened and counted. At that time, one Senator and one Representative can challenge the eligibility. We need one brave Senator and one brave Representative to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for us.

Below are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I invite you to investigate on your own. These references are a good starting point, but they are not all inclusive. Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalty to be President.

-1758 Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution

-1787-1788-The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington

-Article II, Section I, United States Constitution

-The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of “Natural Born” from the 1790 Act in 1795

-The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen

-Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” discussion

[link to www.naturalborncitizen.org]
 Quoting: tommy777


While all of these are very good reads, particularly "The Federalist Papers", none of them change the constitutional eligibility requirement for POTUS, which Obama does meet under the long-standing principle of jus soli, having been born in Hawaii in 1961. Those claiming otherwise are sadly mistaken.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 565924
United States
12/16/2008 04:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
This time I disagree with most of the assertions you’ve made in your follow-up post:

...

6. “I do think the SCOTUS wants to address this issue, and I also think they will…” Again, I disagree with your conclusion here.

I think after this potential debacle? they would be fools not to at least want to.
 Quoting: SHR


These are all unconvincing arguments I'm afraid since they rely so heavily upon unsubstantiated allegations. But, nonetheless, thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm sure at this point, we are not going to change one another's opinions on this matter.

I did just want to reply on the last point made. We shall see what the SCOTUS decides to do soon enough. Have a good day.
Hogleg Inc.
User ID: 543719
United States
12/16/2008 05:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
We need to impeach everyone in the Senate, Congress, all the judges, just get rid of every fucking one that has anything to do with government. We need to take this nation back one way or another.

Have we all forgotten the Declaration of Independence? Take the time to read it, our founding fathers created this country to escape from many of the same things that we are putting up with today all in the name of freedom and protection from terrorists.

We the People deserve more control of our cities, counties, our states, our country, our freedom, and our destiny. Isn’t that what our soldiers have died for and are continuing to die for? Or is all of that death and destruction just for show? Or to justify the so called war on terror and maintain an illusion of freedom.

The vision: “A Government of the People, by the People, for the People”

The reality: “A Government of Banks, Corporations and Lobbyists, funded by the People, for the benefit of Rich and Powerful.”

Fuck'em all
Lotus Feet
User ID: 433953
United Kingdom
12/16/2008 05:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
[link to www.drorly.blogspot.com]
Ikaika

User ID: 204551
United States
12/16/2008 05:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Thank you.

I will address this later.
I am on my way out the door, to go across the border into Quebec,and I will ask the Customs Officer on the U.S. side on my way back if I am a Natural Born Citizen.
and I will post his answer, and my reason for asking when I get back.


ok...
 Quoting: tommy777

So, I produced my birth certificate and my driver's license.
at the border like I am supposed to, and it happened to be someone I have known all my life.
I asked him if I was considered to be a natural born citizen
and he looked at my birth certificate, and said yes.

I was born in Vermont, as was my brother and sister, and we all live in Vermont, as natural born citizens.

However, both of my parents were Canadian
and I was raised on the Quebec side of the border.

Back in the old days, in the area where I grew up, most of the kids were born on the U.S. side of the border, because it was the closest hospital, and back then, the border didn't mean much.
I had a paper route with customers on both sides of the border.
The fact is:
If I am considered to be a natural born citizen,
by Homeland Security, then Obama, who was born in Honolulu, is also.
georgebushworstprezev​er
User ID: 565924
United States
12/16/2008 06:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **BREAKING**Cort Wrotnowski's stay request (on Obama`s Citizenship) denied by SCOTUS
Thank you.

I will address this later.
I am on my way out the door, to go across the border into Quebec,and I will ask the Customs Officer on the U.S. side on my way back if I am a Natural Born Citizen.
and I will post his answer, and my reason for asking when I get back.


ok...

So, I produced my birth certificate and my driver's license.
at the border like I am supposed to, and it happened to be someone I have known all my life.
I asked him if I was considered to be a natural born citizen
and he looked at my birth certificate, and said yes.

I was born in Vermont, as was my brother and sister, and we all live in Vermont, as natural born citizens.

However, both of my parents were Canadian
and I was raised on the Quebec side of the border.

Back in the old days, in the area where I grew up, most of the kids were born on the U.S. side of the border, because it was the closest hospital, and back then, the border didn't mean much.
I had a paper route with customers on both sides of the border.
The fact is:
If I am considered to be a natural born citizen,
by Homeland Security, then Obama, who was born in Honolulu, is also.
 Quoting: Ikaika


Thanks for sharing your personal story. This is exactly the point. The long-standing principle of jus soli applies here.

As an aside, this is what complicates the problem facing the U.S. with regard to the estimated 12 million undocumented residents living in the country, i.e., their children born here who are given automatic U.S. citizenship.

News