Sam,
Let me offer up a suggestion to those who think their efforts will suffer the same result as those of us here in GA.
Though we suffered a devastating blow, delivered by Judge Michael Malihi, ours is only at the first of four steps.
The next steps involve the Appeals court, the State Supreme Court and finally the US Supreme Court.
I say this because many are rethinking their idea to pursue this in their own State since they think the precedence established by Judge Malihi will be cited in their case and they don’t want to waste their money on Attorneys when they already believe the outcome will be the same. For them I say either do it and be prepared for the same four step process, in which case we’ll all meet at the US Supreme Court or spend your time and money helping us here in GA follow through with this and get it overturned, The choice is yours to make.
I have committed to the process because I believe in what we are trying to accomplish. I believe there is no other choice but to fight with everything we have left, in the GA Courts. It’s a matter of focus.
The Appeal should be ready for submission by Monday and then we proceed so either get behind what we are doing or figure another tack until and unless we can overturn this monstrous decision. We have paved the way and the opposition has shown its hand. Judicial obstruction by whomever has left all of us reeling but not down. Rise like the Phoenix help in the battle that means the most right now.
GA needs your help.
This is the path and no one said it would be easy.
Check out what Mark McGrew got published in Pravda today. Seems we have to turn to the Russians for any truth in the Media…
Carl Swensson
# # # #
Carl's statement elicited the response below. Editor's note: This respondent speaks with more certainty than the Supreme Court. I got the impression that he is infatuated with his own ideas. I would encourage my readers to go to his blog and examine his fact and logic to determine if he is accurate or just arrogant.
# # # #
John Woodman has left a new comment on your post "Plaintiff in Georgia case - Carl Swensson makes a ...":
Mr. Swensson's case does not stand the slightest chance of success, for the simple reason that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled against the "two-citizen-parents-required" theory.
Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have misled literally millions of Americans regarding the meaning of natural born citizen. As I have gone into in some detail at my blog, their two main points -- that Minor v. Happersett supposedly created a "binding precedent" as to who was a "natural born citizen," and that US v. Wong Kim Ark supposedly did not, are both false.
I have also demonstrated at my blog why this is the case. I recommend you read "Why the Birthers Lost," including all comments, and the following post, "An Open Letter to Mario Apuzzo."
Mr. Obama, born inHawaii
# # # #
Carl offers this rebuttal:
# # # #
Carl's statement elicited the response below. Editor's note: This respondent speaks with more certainty than the Supreme Court. I got the impression that he is infatuated with his own ideas. I would encourage my readers to go to his blog and examine his fact and logic to determine if he is accurate or just arrogant.
# # # #
John Woodman has left a new comment on your post "Plaintiff in Georgia case - Carl Swensson makes a ...":
Mr. Swensson's case does not stand the slightest chance of success, for the simple reason that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled against the "two-citizen-parents-required" theory.
Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have misled literally millions of Americans regarding the meaning of natural born citizen. As I have gone into in some detail at my blog, their two main points -- that Minor v. Happersett supposedly created a "binding precedent" as to who was a "natural born citizen," and that US v. Wong Kim Ark supposedly did not, are both false.
I have also demonstrated at my blog why this is the case. I recommend you read "Why the Birthers Lost," including all comments, and the following post, "An Open Letter to Mario Apuzzo."
Mr. Obama, born in
# # # #
Carl offers this rebuttal:
So the “Other guy” brings exactly what to the table? His opinion? His arguments fail, miserably, when you address the all important issue of Allegiance. It is this issue and this issue alone that the Founders were addressing by having Vattel’s reference so close at hand. Wordsmith mavens like him are the reason this Nation has been reduced to uncertainty on this issue and it’s only THEIR motives I am concerned with.
We have multiple fronts that were opened up with our motions and pleadings and, win or lose, I’m excited to get the chance to have this argued in open court. Since Malihi ruled based on the States financial and civil peace concerns and not on the merits of OUR case we’ll fair well. Gee, if this case brought the State billions for a couple of Nuclear Plants, what will the payoff be for the next two rounds?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72674.html
I’m in it for a pound, not an ounce. Lol
How’s about you Sam?
Carl
# # # #
Oh, a kilo or two, says Sam.
# # # #
And Mario Apuzzo reply
And Carl once again:
# # # #
And Mario Apuzzo reply
- Responding to John Woodman's article: John Woodman provides no evidence that supports his position that a “natural born citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to alien parents. Here are the sources that he cites: (1) Lynch v. Clark. But this is a New York state case that was so badly decided that the New York State Legislature overruled it. Lynch provides no American sources that support its position. (2) Wong Kim Ark. But the holding of Wong Kim Ark only defines a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” (3) Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. I have already shown in the main article here how poorly this case was decided and how it misapplied Wong, saying that Wong’s holding defined a “natural born Citizen.” (4) Tisdale v. Obama. This decision consists of an Order of 2 and ½ pages, a good part of which addresses the standard to be applied on a motion to dismiss and for the pro se plaintiff to qualify as a pauper. Woodman fails to tell us that the court cited Wong Kim Ark to support its statement: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.” Again, Wong’s holding is not about a “natural born Citizen” so I have no idea how the court finds what is says to be “well settled.” Tisdale did not engage in any reasoned and thoughtful legal and historical analysis of the “natural born Citizen” issue. Furthermore, none of the other cases cited by the Tisdale court support its position that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents. Note that Woodman provides us with no historical sources from the Founding that support his position. Running out of authorities for his position, Woodman then tries to prove his point with poor logic. Here is John Woodman trying to convince us that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is the equivalent of an Article II “natural born citizen.” Woodman says in his cited article: “No court has ever held that the 14th Amendment, in calling people born in the United States ‘citizens,’ meant that it intended in any way to exclude any such persons from being ‘natural born’” (emphasis in the original). This is what Woodman is saying with this statement: Because no court ever said that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is excluded as being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” no such court ever intended to do so. Hence, a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is included as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” You know that people like Woodman are really desperate when they attempt to prove that a court included a person in its definition of a term only because it did not expressly exclude that person from that definition. Here is Woodman’s logic seen more plainly: I like pizza. I did not say I do not like ice cream. Therefore, I also like ice cream. To bad that Woodman does not provide us with some real evidence of his position other than trying to prove his point with cases that do not help him and with little word games that make no logical sense.
And Carl once again:
It should be apparent to all that the Obama Maniacs will do anything, including clouding the thoughts and minds of those poor unfortunates who cannot see through their arguments. Am I the only one who thinks our founders dealt, rather succinctly, with the divided loyalty issue concerning out Commander in Chief. Am I the only one who thinks the founders relied heavily on Emerich De Vattel for their understanding of how to preclude the possibility of anyone less than the child of two parents was lead us? That William and Mary actually existed and taught these great men what verbiage to use?
Nah, of course I’m not but in seeing the various attempts, through postings like this John Wooden, to cloud the thoughts of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people who will have to make this determination for themselves, one nagging problem keeps rearing its ugly head… Who is it we are fighting here and what agenda is it that drives them to want, so badly, a POTUS WITH allegiance issues. Does it not occur to you that these very same people would hasten the destruction of our once great Nation? Well, it does to me.
For Malihi to reach so far as to pick an ARTICLE by Jill Pryor when she was at Yale for justification of his money driven (for the State) and wimpish ruling and that it MAY cause some civil unrest just absolutely depresses me.
Yeah, that’s the ticket, he ruled that way to be a hero to his fellow politicians who see the pay-off for the State and prevent what would inevitably be a problem for law enforcement in the State when the riots begin. Oh, and the Constitution? As Bush Jr. once said, “it’s just a damned piece of paper”. Obviously a small price to pay for a Judge who may have allegiance issues himself (just my humble opinion).
Hell of a hill we’ve got to climb folks but can we do any less and sleep at night?
Carl Swensson
# # # #
And the Charles adds his opinion:
I believe the OBOT attorneys affiliated with the FogBow site and forum fed Judge Malihi through his law clerks or staff the works of people such as Jill Pryor and the Ankeny case. Heck, I believe some Obot lawyer wrote the decision for the judge. Oh by the way, did you all hear that Jill Pryor was just appointed by Obama to some federal appeal court position down in GA. That is what I heard. Can anyone confirm or deny? If true, another pay off and stacking of the federal courts with people who want to destroy Article II Section 1, Clause 5. We've seen as this Obot disinformation and misinformation before. But unfortunately the courts have not. If we get an honest judge it is going to be a major educational process to bring him/her up to speed on all the Obot spin tactics, disinformation, false quoting of case law, and lies.
Charles
# # # #
And Doug Vogt weighs in:
# # # #
And the Charles adds his opinion:
I believe the OBOT attorneys affiliated with the FogBow site and forum fed Judge Malihi through his law clerks or staff the works of people such as Jill Pryor and the Ankeny case. Heck, I believe some Obot lawyer wrote the decision for the judge. Oh by the way, did you all hear that Jill Pryor was just appointed by Obama to some federal appeal court position down in GA. That is what I heard. Can anyone confirm or deny? If true, another pay off and stacking of the federal courts with people who want to destroy Article II Section 1, Clause 5. We've seen as this Obot disinformation and misinformation before. But unfortunately the courts have not. If we get an honest judge it is going to be a major educational process to bring him/her up to speed on all the Obot spin tactics, disinformation, false quoting of case law, and lies.
Charles
# # # #
And Doug Vogt weighs in:
John Woodman is the same guy that wrote a book (self-published) trying to disprove Paul Irey's and my reports. His book proves nothing. It is loaded with suppositions and his views and then accepts his feelings as being proof. The only thing he found is that there was a distortion in the White House copy machine--that's all. See below: It would not surprise me to find out he has been paid by someone to try to defend Obama's fraud. He knows nothing about type, Photoshop, scanners, document imaging or graphics.
________________
Very truly yours,
Douglas Vogt
Vector Associates
Publishers since 1977
And Charles one more time:
I think he is a professional paid operative of the Obama disinformation machine whose is paid to pound away at us with disinformation, all the while claiming he is a registered republican or conservative, I think I recall him saying that on some radio show, to disarm the listeners before he started his OBOT disinformation B.S. What a crock imo. He is practicing that "taki...." whatever Islamic tradition of lying to further the cause and fool the infidels. Not saying he's an islamic radical but he's using the same tactics, as well as lots of things/tactics from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. JMHO.
Charles
Charles
And then George:
I saw a video that Woodman made, attempting to authenticate the "birth certificate." Pathetic- LOL!
# # # #
There is a lesson for you here John. Don't attempt to get inaccurate, sloppily vetted material posted on The Steady Drip. It will backfire on you just like Obama's Karma is creeping up on him.
Obama will be exposed –Don’t get caught on the wrong side of this issue
