Kenny Bunk wrote:
"How the Judge could seemingly agree with Apuzzo’s arguments, and then turn around and rule against his clients is a puzzlement."
Then null and void asked:
"Who is immune to threat?"
Posted on 04/06/2012 6:35:01 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
How the Judge could seemingly agree with Apuzzo’s arguments, and then turn around and rule against his clients is a puzzlement.
Who is immune to threat?
Kenny Bunk wrote:
"How the Judge could seemingly agree with Apuzzo’s arguments, and then turn around and rule against his clients is a puzzlement."
Then null and void asked:
"Who is immune to threat?"
Obama needs to be the PLAINTIFF for this to be heard. Not the DEFENDANT. We need one American officeholder to do his job. One of 50.
It may not be over yet in NJ. It appears one of the issues on appeal is whether Judge Masin correctly decided that as a matter of law O has no legal duty to produce BC evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot. That almost certainly is a tough proposition.
Masin's decision essentially emasculates any eligibility certification a la New Hampshire that NJ may require.
There could yet be a chance the BC his Georgia attorney sent to the GA SOS, the ALJ and opposing counsel in the GA hearing will come into play in some jurisdiction.
While true that Obama may not have any obligation to present his BC to New Jersey, it is equally true that the state AG has every state constitutional right, POWER, DUTY, AND OBLIGATION to remove him from the ballot and MAKE him present ANY BONA FIDES he deems fitting. This is far from unusual! Candidates at every level are often challenged as to their qualifications.
"May I see your license and registration please." One has every right to refuse this request. Whereupon one will be required to present said documentation in a court of law. And of course, be liable to detention in the meantime pending the posting of bond.
We are saying pretty much the same thing.
You quoted the essence of Masin’s decision, which I believe Apuzzo will demonstrate on appeal was incorrect; although the argument may be more applicable to the general election ballot than the primary. This because if a protest is not timely filed a candidate’s name can go on the ballot without any requirement for a showing.
IMHO, however, a clock starts to run the moment a candidate first swears eligibility under penalty, as was done here in the primary. The voters would hope the AG’s office could, if not of its own volition with a proper complaint in hand, take action to test the validity of that certification. Such action could require the candidate to provide bona fides in order to gain access to the general election ballot. That would likely give courage to other jurisdictions.
To your earlier comment, we are indeed looking for the (first)one out of 50 who will have the courage to take the proper course. A court decision that recognizes the importance of the statutory eligibility certification reguirement would be quite helpful.
Obama eligibility: ALJ makes new law
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/11/constitution/obama-eligibility-alj-makes-new-law/
The New Jersey Administrative Law Judge who dismissed the latest Obama eligibility case seems to have made a new, special law for Presidential primaries in New Jersey.
"Judge" Masin pulls one ab ano;
Zimmerman railroaded into a kangaroo court;
Fast and Furious Gunrunner Holder refuses to crack down on New Panther Party.
One can hardly wait to see what tomorrow brings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.