Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm here, not busy with other things at the moment, and therefore not "running away."
then why can;t you simply provide a direct answer to a simple question... or admit that you cannot/
I did directly answer you. I cannot find a single case in which the federal government did not restore an affected person's natural born citizen status under the circumstances I cited. Can you? If so, post it.
Quote:
Instead, you run away.
And, again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I thought you were more mature than that. Why the need to continue making meaningless, though ridiculously childish , playground taunts? Can't you competently debate the issues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
See? You're running away again. This time with a pointless irrelevancy.
Having you prove that there was any time the federal government did not restore an affected person's natural born citizen status under the circumstances I cited is pointless? Only to you ...because you can't do it.
Did you just see the moderator CaseyB's post above. No ridicule or discussion of Taitz. Delete your comment.
ORLY Taitz made herself a claimant, in the case since SHE took the STAND and TESTIFIED (the Judge asked her if she wanted to make a closing argument or if she was testifying. she said she was testifying and took the stand)
I'm commenting on her as a claimant, not as an attorney
Nonsense. You ignored the question three consecutive times. You are still ignoring it now. I simply do not choose to ask again, because I have accepted your desire to run away.
You claimed the Federal Government had a long record of acting on some imaginary distinction between native and natural born.
You were asked three times to give a single example. You could not.
DUH Taitz IS the attorney in the case, not Donofrio, not Foggy....but TAITZ...
The mod stated that talk of the 'attorneys' (plural) involved are getting way off topic. That means ridicule is OFF TOPIC. Please delete the comments about Taitz. Also Donofrio filed a amicus brief in the case. He's involved.
CaseyB's statement from the post:
Hey guys.
Discussions about the various attorneys involved are getting way off topic.
DUH Taitz IS the attorney in the case, not Donofrio, not Foggy....but TAITZ...
Both Taitz and Bill Bryan (Foggy) were interviewed on NBC after the court hearing. As such, Bill Bryan's California State Bar public recordis a matter of interest. The California State Bar makes such records publicly available so that the public is informed when dealing with such individuals.
That means ridicule is OFF TOPIC. Please delete the comments about Taitz.
Sorry, but Taitz testified in the hearing and therefore that makes her a claimant. We can speak about her antics as a person who took the stand and TESTIFIED.
its in the Court Transcript. She took the oath, took the stand, and provided testimony (that makes her a claimant)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, playground taunts? Can't you competently debate the issues? 
