Supreme Court to hear case on Obama's alleged forged documents

All of this is immaterial. Barack Obama is president, and has been elected twice. If he was born in Denmark in an open mall with his name tattooed on his crib he will still be president. The Supreme Court will not do anything about it, and even Donald Trump is facepalming himself every time he looks in a mirror. Obama's birth certificate or whatever else he used to get into college or get a driver's license or whatever makes no difference anymore, if it ever did. Nice thread though.

reply to post by drmeola

Originally posted by drmeola
www.presidentsusa.net...

And by those qualifications, Obama qualifies. What's your point? How is he not qualified?

I have been doing this for many years; a student of law is not a lawyer or a person attending a specific law school. Doctrine, is the correct word for my honorary title, not doctorate or doctorate: A doctorate is an academic degree or professional degree that, in most countries, qualifies the holder to teach in the specific field of their certificate.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. As I have learned from reading your other posts.

doc·trine
/ˈdäktrin/
Noun

A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
A stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs: "the Monroe Doctrine".

Synonyms
tenet - ism - teaching - dogma

Look, I don't care if you change your site or keep it that way. I just wanted to tell you that you're using the wrong word. A "doctorate" implies academics. An "honorary doctorate" implies NO academics. That is the term I think you mean to use. It's (supposedly) an honorary doctorate in religion, anyway, and irrelevant to this discussion on the law.

Honorary Doctorate

A university awards an honorary doctorate to a person who has made a significant contribution to society or to the university itself. Honorary doctorates do not require the recipient to have any formal education or an education at the school itself, and those who receive an honorary doctorate can use the title of "Dr." if they wish. Adding "h.c." after the degree is a way to denote that it is honorary.

For those talking about foreign laws, such as Valentine’s law of nations, how about doing a little research, as the USA has never been a Country and never will be, you have been lied too and accepted blindly if one was to simple pick up any law dictionary they will clearly see that a Country is the State in which one is born.

Ah, I see... Have a nice day.

reply to post by Aleister

Originally posted by Aleister
All of this is immaterial. Barack Obama is president, and has been elected twice. If he was born in Denmark in an open mall with his name tattooed on his crib he will still be president. The Supreme Court will not do anything about it, and even Donald Trump is facepalming himself every time he looks in a mirror. Obama's birth certificate or whatever else he used to get into college or get a driver's license or whatever makes no difference anymore, if it ever did. Nice thread though.

I would have to disagree that it doesn't make any difference. If a person is not legally qualified to serve as president, they shouldn't be president. Period. And I would join the bandwagon. But Obama qualifies in every way and NO ONE has proven otherwise or CAN prove otherwise. He is a natural born citizen, of age and has resided in the US for the 14 years prior to his election.

This involves Orly bloody Taitz, who has been defeated so often in so many courthouses that she's a total joke. 'Nuff said.

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


Ok for those whom do not read or totally comprehend lets break it down, No person except a natural born citizen. That is the only part that applies today every thing that follows pertains ONLY to the first few Presidents and had to be added to show the lawful holding of that office by the first sitting presidents, this is why: A citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President: as you can plainly see it states at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, sorry not one person is still alive today that was so during 1776 so other then the age requirement the only thing that is to be a matter of discussion in law is Natural Born Citizen. Yes there is tons of disbeliefs, misunderstanding and patriot bs out there to keep the average person confused as to what that is. So to fully understand it one must go to reference the documents printed closes to the date of a given document in this case the document is the Constitution and the closes to the 1776 date of its enactment is the law dictionary I gave a link for. So lets look at page 199 in volume two:

4.-2. Persons born within the United States, since the Revolution, may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not.
5.---1st. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.
6. The act to establish and uniform rule of naturalization, approved April 14, 1802, provides that the children of person who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States. But, the right of citizenship shall not descend to a person whose fathers have never resided in the United States.

There is tons more on this but as you can see by the underlined and bold type it clearly states “whose fathers have never resided” now some will say but he did live in the USA his father, true but he was never a resident of. As you can see the rabbit hole goes deep and to understand it you need to start reading the difference in meanings or words. Tons more to learn if you just read and as always with every thing pertaining to my law discussion or my radio show never take my word do your own research.

Thank you.

p.s. every word in any contract has a specific meaning in law compared to the general meanings and usage of words we have been taught. Today everything we do falls under contract law, its why we are slaves ie citizens of, and so much more.

Originally posted by drmeola
www.presidentsusa.net...

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

I have been doing this for many years; a student of law is not a lawyer or a person attending a specific law school. Doctrine, is the correct word for my honorary title, not doctorate or doctorate: A doctorate is an academic degree or professional degree that, in most countries, qualifies the holder to teach in the specific field of their certificate.
The degree or status of a doctor as conferred by a university. As I did not obtain my Doctrine from a University or an academic degree, lawfully I can not use such title or status. Thanks for playing try again.

For those talking about foreign laws, such as Valentine’s law of nations, how about doing a little research, as the USA has never been a Country and never will be, you have been lied too and accepted blindly if one was to simple pick up any law dictionary they will clearly see that a Country is the State in which one is born. The USA has always been a corporation to represent the Union of United States at the national/world trade levels and nothing more. The Constitution never had any thing to do with we the people as you and me, the people throughout history has always meant the popular group/rulers, never the population at large. The Constitution is a contract, and only applied to the signers it never had anything to do with citizens until the 14th A, welcome to your slavery. As a 14th A citizen you have zero rights only privileges granted to you from your rulers, when your ready for the total and honest no patriot hype bs then look me up you just might learn something.

Here is the link to the most used law dictionary in any court, its easy to understand compared to any new publications, its not that the law has changed its definitions they simple made them more confusing to the general reader: books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

Page 324, Country: By country is meant the state of which one is a member. Every man’s country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions.

If you look at the title to this law dictionary you will see that the USA/Washington DC is foreign land and a foreign government to the Union, stop falling for the bs and start learning truth.

Thank you.

So, where in your link does it confirm what you said earlier?

"both biological parents MUST be a native citizen of the USA"

reply to post by flyswatter


In the post right above yours, on page 199 of the law dictionary, but that is just the start of the madness we face today I recommend reading over some of the material at my main thread link.

By law a child inherits the nationality of the father, since his father was not a US citizen even though born in the USA, he would have what is known as a dual citizenship with the USA being secondary there for he is NOT a natural born citizen.


The real crime in all of this is our nationality is what has been stolen right out from underneath us all, for those that say they are Irish, Italian ext….that is your heritage and not your Nationality, your true Nationality is example if born in Florida is a Floridian, Ohio would be an Ohioan ext… so his father was not born in any part of the USA and was never made a citizen in any sense of the form that by law makes his offspring the nationality of him and has nothing to do with were the child was born.

If they ever do take this up, it will be for one reason and one reason only. To put the issue to rest. Like they did with Obamacare. There wasn't a chance in hell they were going to strike Obamacare. It was just to get the strongest legal challenges out of the way and clear the path for it right off the bat.

Roberts has exposed his true nature and it's clearer to me than it ever has been that Obama was Bush's designated successor.

Originally posted by drmeola
Have covered this issue several times over the years, as a student of law, I can tell you very simply why he was never eligible to serve as the President of the United States, and it has nothing at all to do with him personally.

The law is clear and needs no interpretation on the requirements to hold such office, the section you should be focused on and is undisputable, “both biological parents MUST be a native citizen of the USA”. This is due to the simple fact that the USA does not want any conflict of interest with an outside Country; it is a FACT that his father was NOT a US Citizen and his allegiance lied with another Country.

You're either not a student of law, or you're a total liar trying to capitalize on the birther movement for your own self interests.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the requirements to hold office.
A president must:
be a natural-born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

A person who meets the above qualifications is still disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:
Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no person can be elected president more than twice. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person who serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once. Scholars disagree whether anyone no longer eligible to be elected president could be elected vice president, pursuant to the qualifications set out under the Twelfth Amendment.
Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding other federal offices, including the presidency.
Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, can become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, please Mr. Lawyer, link us direct proof (from the constitution) or article/section numbers, that support your whole load of bulls##t about the parents having to be natural born citizens. Frankly, it's a good thing that i'm not a moderator on this site, because I would have banned you straight out for spreading that misinformation under the claim that you're a lawyer.


Oh, and other lawyers disagree with you. Have you read this document yet?

www.fas.org...

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
The governemnt/PTB know exactly what they are doing, and have cleaned up any evidence of a shaded past. Obama will finish his term, and fade from the public eye.

My bet is that when TPTB want to start a civil war, they will play this issue against Obama and have him removed from office. That's a great idea to divide and conquer US citizens!

Originally posted by drmeola
The law is clear and needs no interpretation on the requirements to hold such office, the section you should be focused on and is undisputable, “both biological parents MUST be a native citizen of the USA”.

You are of course able to quote this "law"....

oh dear, it looks like no such law exists....

Originally posted by drmeola
For those talking about foreign laws, such as Valentine’s law of nations, how about doing a little research,

Who is talking about foreign law? WTF? Valentine's law of nations? Who is Valentine, and what is his exact law?

remember, US courts have declared Obama a natural born citizen....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Supreme Court is not going to hear the case. You're banking on a sensationalistic title from a KNOWN sensationalistic website that rarely tells the actual truth.

The case is being "REFERRED". As are thousands of frivolous cases each year. Only about 100 are selected to go on to the next stage of review.

Very true, birthers had another moment of excitement 4 years ago also when Phil Berg's, Cort Wrotnowski's, and Leo Donofrio's cases were "referred to conference". They all imagined that the justices were sitting around weighing the merits of their cases for an hour or two and would then vote for what exactly?

The conference is on 15th February. President Obama's 2nd inauguration is January 21. So Obama would already be the President, and only congress can remove a sitting President.

reply to post by drmeola


Here's page 199:





There's nothing on that page with the word "natural" on it

Here's the text so you can search it yourself.

CADI The name of a civil magistrate among the Turks CALENDER An almanac Julius Caesar ordained that the Roman year should consist of 365 days except every fourth year which should contain 366 the additional day to be reckoned by counting the twenty fourth day of February which was the 6th of the calends of March twice See Bissextile This period of time exceeds the solar year by eleven minutes or thereabouts which amounts to the error of a day in about 131 years In 1582 the error amounted to eleven days or more which was corrected by Pope Gregory Out of this correction grew the distinction between Old and New Style The Gregorian or New Style was introduced into England in 1752 the 2d day of September 0 S of that year being reckoned as the 14th day of September NS See Almanac Calender crim law A list of prisoners containing their names the time when they were committed and by whom and the cause of their commitments CALIFORNIA The name of one of the states of the United States It was admitted into the Union by an Act of Congress passed the 9th September 1850 entitled An act for the admission of the state of California into the Union 1 This section enacts and declares that the state of California shall be one of the United States and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever 2 Enacts that the state of California shall be entitled to two representatives until the representatives in Congress shall be apportioned according to the actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States 3 By this section a condition is expressly imposed on the said state that the people thereof shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits nor pass any law nor do any act whereby the title of the United States to and right to dispose of the same shall be impaired or questioned It also provides that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatever upon the public domain of the United States and that in no case shall non resident proprietors who are citizens of the United States be taxed higher than residents that all navigable waters within the said state shall be common highways forever free as well to the inhabitants of said state as to citizens of the United States without any tax impost or duty therefor with this proviso viz that nothing contained in the act shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that state 2 The principal features of the constitution of California are similar to those of most of the recently formed state constitutions It establishes an elective judiciary and confers on the executive a qualified veto It prohibits the creation of a state debt exceeding $300,000 It provides for the protection of the homestead from execution and secures the property of married females separate from that of their husbands It makes a liberal provision for the support of schools prohibits the legislature from granting divorces authorizing lotteries and creating corporations except by general laws and from establishing any banks of issue or circulation It provides also that every stockholder of a corporation or joint stock association shall be individually and personally liable for his proportion of all its debts or liabilities There is also a clause prohibiting slavery which it is said was inserted by the unanimous vote of the delegates CALLING THE PLAINTIFF prod ice When a plaintiff perceives that he has not given evidence to maintain his issue and intends to become nonsuited he withdraws himself when the cryer is ordered to call the plaintiff and on his failing to appear he becomes nonsuited 3 Bl Com 376 CALUMNIATORS civil law Persons who accuse others whom they know to be innocent of having committed crimes Code 9 46 9 CAMBIST A person skilled in exchange one who deals or trades in promissory notes or bills of exchange CAMERA STELL AT A Eng law The court of the Star Chamber now abolished CAMPARTUM A part or portion of a larger field or ground which would otherwise be in gross or common Vide Champerty CANAL A trench dug for leading water in a particular direction and confining it 2 Public canals are generally protected by the law which authorizes their being made Various points have arisen under numerouis

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by drmeola
For those talking about foreign laws, such as Valentine’s law of nations, how about doing a little research,

Who is talking about foreign law? WTF? Valentine's law of nations? Who is Valentine, and what is his exact law?

remember, US courts have declared Obama a natural born citizen....

A google search failed to find anything at all. I share your puzzlement.

Personally, I just don't foresee this going anywhere. As I've been saying for four+ years, we've BEEN SOLD OUT! Period.

When I started shedding light of this to friends and family, I was labeled a "nut case." Their normalcy bias blinded them and the usual response was, "We'll just vote them out next time." HA!

Some are just now seeing what I was referring to back then!

I did my own vetting of this Marxist POS USURPER before he ever was "elected" the first time. He scared the bejeezuz out of me.

Almost everything this usurper and his regime has said and done has been a blatant "in your face" ha ha ha on We the People. Yes, he and his puppet masters have skillfully transformed AmeriKa. As promised. Alinsky-style. What has CONgress or the courts done about it? Nada. Sooooo many questions, and too few answers.

The veil of darkness over this country just keeps getting thicker....and with each passing day, things get scarier.

Anyone here know what 3 numbers came out in the Illinois pick 3 lottery just prior to the 2008 election? Aaaaaaaaaah, perhaps another conspiracy for another day.

The "most transparent administration ever"...........yeah, r-i-g-h-t.

Peace.

Originally posted by drmeola
“both biological parents MUST be a native citizen of the USA”.

that rules out 2 other presidents

can you name them ?

and did they really use he term "biological" in the constitution ?

or is that an interpretation ?

reply to post by Toots


.....oooookay. I guess that thing they had in 2008 with the election booths and the ballots must have been some kind of optical illusion then.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by drmeola
“both biological parents MUST be a native citizen of the USA”.

that rules out 2 other presidents

can you name them ?

and did they really use he term "biological" in the constitution ?

or is that an interpretation ?

I suspect that it's an interpretation.

Originally posted by drmeola
Have covered this issue several times over the years, as a student of law, I can tell you very simply why he was never eligible to serve as the President of the United States, and it has nothing at all to do with him personally.

The law is clear and needs no interpretation on the requirements to hold such office, the section you should be focused on and is undisputable, “both biological parents MUST be a native citizen of the USA”. This is due to the simple fact that the USA does not want any conflict of interest with an outside Country; it is a FACT that his father was NOT a US Citizen and his allegiance lied with another Country.

It is the only sold lawful FACT that ever needs to be address to prove he is NOT eligible to ever be or even run for the office of President.

Wrongs will always take place as long as the people refuse to study law, for those interested in learning truth in law and further their education free of charge please start your journey at this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also do a weekly radio show on blog talk radio every Thursday night at 7pm Eastern time the main shows site is located here: www.freedomreigns.us...

You will find the first lessons and study material, links including free links to the law dictionaries, with easy to follow instructions along with fun interactive links. Learn the truth we have all been denied all these years, the path has been laid out before you all you have to do is take the first step.

Thank You

So your saying that Thomas Jefferson with his English born mother should not have been President.? I am pretty sure he and the other founding fathers did not agree. Nor did Presidents Jackson (both parents foreign born, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson and Hoover all who had at least 1 foreign born non citizen parents. I am guess in you know that the niether the law nor history support your claims.