It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: Pandora on January 21, 2012, 01:24:13 PM
-
ATLANTA (AP) — A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president. (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing-2651763.php)
The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.
H/T Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/)
This is IN-teresting. Anybody have a guess on how his legal-beagles will thwart this?
-
They had to go to Seattle to report this story?
Hey Soup, there's more than one decent person
in Washington.
You know, Drudge has an image of Fort Sumpter in the
headlines today. Geez
-
This is IN-teresting. Anybody have a guess on how his legal-beagles will thwart this?
My guess is that they'll simply ignore the subpoena. If questioned, a White House lawyer will just state that Obama is not obligated to show up. The media will ridicule the suit and the subpoena, the GOP will make some statement about how birtherism is a distraction, Bill O'Reilly will chime in on how ridiculous it all is, and the subpoena and lawful order will go down the memory hole.
Question: If I were to be subpoenaed by a judge in Georgia and I simply refused to show up, how long would I be able to stand in the open daylight and avoid extradition?
The rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of oligarchs and tyrants.
-
They had to go to Seattle to report this story?
Hey Soup, there's more than one decent person
in Washington.
You know, Drudge has an image of Fort Sumpter in the
headlines today. Geez
Yea...my mom lives here too ;D
-
Question: If I were to be subpoenaed by a judge in Georgia and I simply refused to show up, how long would I be able to stand in the open daylight and avoid extradition?
They'd have U.S. Marshals banging on your door over a frigging traffic ticket .
-
ATLANTA (AP) — A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president. (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing-2651763.php)
The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.
H/T Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/)
This is IN-teresting. Anybody have a guess on how his legal-beagles will thwart this?
National security
-
At best all they can hope for is a written deposition, either way, it will get stuffed down the memory hole.
-
Here we go -
An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4203280/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4203280/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear.html#storylink=cpy)
So ignoring a judge is it, eh? Well, know a tyrant by his actions, so now we know, eh?
-
Won't be the first judge he's ignored.
I hope the judge has the local sheriff issue an arrest warrant. Wouldn't THAT be interesting.
-
Won't be the first judge he's ignored.
I hope the judge has the local sheriff issue an arrest warrant. Wouldn't THAT be interesting.
Good Lord, that would be good fun. Obama unable to set foot in the state of Georgia without a confrontation between Secret Service and the local Sheriff's Department demanding his arrest.
-
According to reports the judge said that he can't get on the ballad unless he appears??
-
Both Duh Wun and his attorney blew off the hearing. As expected.
Here is a link to a description of the proceedings, which took place nevertheless:
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138 (http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138)
-
It occurs to me that there are several states in which Obama could allow court ruling against his eligibility to go unchallenged - that he could effectively be taken off the ballot - and the distribution of electoral votes would not be altered whatsoever. Georgia is one such state. Arizona is another. Texas. Oklahoma. You get the picture.
He could be off the ballot in over half the states in the nation, demagogue the hell out of "birther kooks" who won't put him on the ballot, and still win the presidency, although his mandate would be in question. But on the other hand, the American people being against him has never slowed him down before. And the civil unrest that would ensue would cause his soft hands to run together greedily.
-
.... and the distribution of electoral votes would not be altered whatsoever.
How could it not, if he's not on the ballot?
-
.... and the distribution of electoral votes would not be altered whatsoever.
How could it not, if he's not on the ballot?
Because states award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state. Some states are altering that now, but most still adhere to that. You win the state by 1% of the vote, you get 100% of the state's electoral votes.
He could be off the ballot in Georgia and he wouldn't get any more electoral votes than he would if he was on it.
ETA: ...assuming Georgia remains a "red" state, which I think is a safe bet.
-
.... and the distribution of electoral votes would not be altered whatsoever.
How could it not, if he's not on the ballot?
Because states award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state. Some states are altering that now, but most still adhere to that. You win the state by 1% of the vote, you get 100% of the state's electoral votes.
He could be off the ballot in Georgia and he wouldn't get any more electoral votes than he would if he was on it.
ETA: ...assuming Georgia remains a "red" state, which I think is a safe bet.
Are you saying he probably wouldn't win Georgia anyway, so no loss? Not trying to be dense, just need to be clear.
-
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It would be extremely anomalous for Obama to win Georgia, or any number of traditionally Republican states that have gone to the GOP cycle after cycle. He could effectively let them go by the wayside, and write them off as the loss they are destined to be anyway - AND have the added benefit of demagoguing the hell out of "birthers" on the campaign trail.
The only way for the birth certificate thing to have any good outcome for conservatives and republicans (I no longer assume those are one and the same), it would have to be proven and accepted in the court of public opinion that he is, indeed, a fraudulent occupier of the presidency.
ETA: Think of it in reverse. Of what consequence would it have been to the outcome in 2000 or 2004 if George W. Bush had been ruled ineligible to be on the ballot in New York and California? A state like Georgia threatening to forbid Obama's name on the ballot is no threat whatsoever. And knowing how cynically he plays his cards, it could actually benefit him everywhere else.
-
Got it, thanks.
The only way for the birth certificate thing to have any good outcome for conservatives and republicans (I no longer assume those are one and the same), it would have to be proven and accepted in the court of public opinion that he is, indeed, a fraudulent occupier of the presidency.
This suit is not about the legitimacy of his birth certificate, per se; it's about Minor vs. Happersett and the difference between native-born and natural-born regarding his eligibility. Matter of fact, the last "birth certificate" was entered into evidence as proof his father was not an American citizen.
-
Got it, thanks.
The only way for the birth certificate thing to have any good outcome for conservatives and republicans (I no longer assume those are one and the same), it would have to be proven and accepted in the court of public opinion that he is, indeed, a fraudulent occupier of the presidency.
This suit is not about the legitimacy of his birth certificate, per se; it's about Minor vs. Happersett and the difference between native-born and natural-born regarding his eligibility. Matter of fact, the last "birth certificate" was entered into evidence as proof his father was not an American citizen.
Right, I get all that. I used "the birth certificate thing" as a catch-all for the whole controversy surrounding his eligibility because of disputes over his and/or his father's citizenship status. My point above is that without a definitive conclusion to this issue that goes against Obama, he and his followers will continue to use it against his opponents, and that even getting thrown off the Georgia ballot would not force the issue to come to a definitive head. He could weather it, and continue to obfuscate and avoid the truth just as he has been doing.
For the record, I'm firmly in the doubter camp. I think he's either ineligible as hell, or he is implementing a strategy to create doubt so that he can turn the issue to his political advantage. Either way, he's a piece of sh*t.
-
Count me in the doubter category as well.
This is relevant because, up until now, there wasn't any testimony regarding his eligibility under oath and "on the record". Now there is.
My bet is that todays reports from Georgia wiped the smug off his mug.
-
This came to my attention recently (nbpunit found it, iirc):
The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/)
It's all right there, in formal immigration law. I don't know if this fact was entered into the court record in Georgia today.
And, as Soup wrote, what's been, up to the present, only public knowledge -- and with a limited number of the public at that -- there is an official court record now.
-
It would be proper under our new administration to pronounce him
null and void all Federal actions, laws, commissions, etc. that were
enacted during his presidency. There will be much squealing and
gnashing of teeth but that would be a clean start.
Step two would be sequestering obstructive bureaucracies and unions
then the procession of mercantile activity such as drilling, mining,
manufacturing, opening the water gates to Ca.
Step three would be the issuing of warrants, subpoenas, and then arrests
for subordination of the Constitution, treason etc.
/I feel better now.
-
"...birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Seems clear to me.
-
According to this American Thinker piece (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html#ixzz1kjLIo0CO), the INS delineation is included in the evidence entered into the court record:
Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between "natural born" and "native-born" citizenship.
::danceban::
-
Heh, wonder how much pretzel-twisting might happen now?!
-
Obama wins. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html)
Go read it. I'm disgusted.
-
Why did this go before an Administrative Law Judge?
This belongs in a court of law.
-
In his sweeping denial of the Plaintiff's challenges, however, Judge Malihi did not mention the principle, and instead relied on the 2009 case of Ankeny v Governor, stating that "[t]he Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth."
Does this reinforce anchor babies or what?
-
So, putting the venue issue aside for now, it appears a judge can both use and discard statutory construction as they see fit, and apparently it is as easy to get away with as disregarding the constitution entrirely. Isn't that just lovely, eh?! Bastards just declared the Founding of the United States of America and it's laws null and void! And this was allowed to be declared in an administrative court for the very reason that their decisions are not subject to the same appellate procedure granted in criminal courts at the state or federal level. If people had any balls they'd declare an administrative ruling unconstitutional and a violation of due process. If people want to start rebelling against a tyrannical government, they better get on with it soon, because regardless if they know it or not, we are at war.
-
So, putting the venue issue aside for now, it appears a judge can both use and discard statutory construction as they see fit, and apparently it is as easy to get away with as disregarding the constitution entrirely. Isn't that just lovely, eh?! Bastards just declared the Founding of the United States of America and it's laws null and void! And this was allowed to be declared in an administrative court for the very reason that their decisions are not subject to the same appellate procedure granted in criminal courts at the state or federal level. If people had any balls they'd declare an administrative ruling unconstitutional and a violation of due process. If people want to start rebelling against a tyrannical government, they better get on with it soon, because regardless if they know it or not, we are at war.
Yes, we are at war. And I'd say a good half of the population has no idea that we are. A quarter of the other half are actively engaged in making war on the remaining quarter -- that's us -- and the half that has no clue.
I tend to exclude the military from the above calculations because the group-assaults are more direct, i.e. the stinking ROE, pension and medical benefit cuts and now the combat-pay exclusions, and because most of them have been trained in psy-ops, of a sort. How they'll shake out in the end, I cannot guess.
-
So, putting the venue issue aside for now, it appears a judge can both use and discard statutory construction as they see fit, and apparently it is as easy to get away with as disregarding the constitution entrirely. Isn't that just lovely, eh?! Bastards just declared the Founding of the United States of America and it's laws null and void! And this was allowed to be declared in an administrative court for the very reason that their decisions are not subject to the same appellate procedure granted in criminal courts at the state or federal level. If people had any balls they'd declare an administrative ruling unconstitutional and a violation of due process. If people want to start rebelling against a tyrannical government, they better get on with it soon, because regardless if they know it or not, we are at war.
Yes, we are at war. And I'd say a good half of the population has no idea that we are. A quarter of the other half are actively engaged in making war on the remaining quarter -- that's us -- and the half that has no clue.
I tend to exclude the military from the above calculations because the group-assaults are more direct, i.e. the stinking ROE, pension and medical benefit cuts and now the combat-pay exclusions, and because most of them have been trained in psy-ops, of a sort. How they'll shake out in the end, I cannot guess.
I agree. I tend to think military people will break more our way, I am more converned over the direction of domestic LEO's (especially at the Fed level), which between the two might just be a push in terms of numbers. And there we are.
-
So, putting the venue issue aside for now, it appears a judge can both use and discard statutory construction as they see fit, and apparently it is as easy to get away with as disregarding the constitution entrirely. Isn't that just lovely, eh?! Bastards just declared the Founding of the United States of America and it's laws null and void! And this was allowed to be declared in an administrative court for the very reason that their decisions are not subject to the same appellate procedure granted in criminal courts at the state or federal level. If people had any balls they'd declare an administrative ruling unconstitutional and a violation of due process. If people want to start rebelling against a tyrannical government, they better get on with it soon, because regardless if they know it or not, we are at war.
This has always been my argument in that if the constitution means nothing then all law in this country is meaningless so have at it do what you will, rape, murder, molestation of minors. The feds have no legal basis for anything including everything Congress passes including declarations amd non declarations of war. This entire proceding means that the rule of law has been replaced by rule by men.
We are so effed. ::outrage:: ::gaah::
-
Yup, we're off the map now, in a world where anything can and will happen, and much happening will be of the unpleasant sort! Damn them! Damn them all!