Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaii Elections Clerk Tim Adams Says There is No Obama Birth Certificate from Hawaii
BBCW ^ | 3 March 2012 | Bungalow Bill

Posted on 03/03/2012 7:02:42 AM PST by Erik Latranyi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 551-563 next last
To: Harlan1196
See, I find this rather troublesome... Despite its application in the court below, this Court does not believe that O.C.G.A. §21-2-5 applies in this case because the challenge at issue involves the Presidential Preference Primary, which by its terms, is an opportunity for electors "to express their preference for one person to be a candidate for nomination. "O.C.G.A.§21-2-191.

@O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (2010)

21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

@O.C.G.A. 21-2-191 (2010)

21-2-191. Parties entitled to hold primaries; dates; decision to elect delegates to presidential nominating convention in primary; qualifying periods for candidates for delegate

Doesn't it seem to you that 21-2-5 does apply since it is a federal office being sought? And wasn't a notice of candidacy filed?

401 posted on 03/08/2012 11:06:15 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

The judge does say in her decision that there is prior precedent to support her decision.

It looks to me that the plaintiffs have to do two things:

1. Resubmit their complaints after the primary when Obama is an actual candidate.

2. Find a way to properly serve Obama in accordance with Georgia law.


402 posted on 03/08/2012 11:13:13 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Ray76
Once an Obot is exposed don’t waste time with them.
I have mostly stopped paying attention to him.

So neither of you has the courage of your convictions to stand up to a lie?
403 posted on 03/08/2012 11:17:25 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Her decision says that the primary apportions delegates but does not elect an actual candidate.

After the primary is over and Obama is an official candidate for the general election, then the law applies.

Don’t forget though that even if the law applied, the appeal would have been dismissed because the plaintiffs did not properly serve Obama in accordance with Georgia law.

So the plaintiffs have to do two things:

1. Refile after the primary.
2. Find a way to properly serve Obama.


404 posted on 03/08/2012 11:19:13 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
I'm asking you to answer two simple questions, nothing more.

Doesn't it seem to you that 21-2-5 does apply since it is a federal office being sought?
And wasn't a notice of candidacy filed?

405 posted on 03/08/2012 11:24:16 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Why are you asking me? The judge said what the judge said.

If she was wrong then there will be grounds for appeal.

Laws are interpreted through precedence - if the question was raised before and it was determined in court that this particular law does not apply to primaries then that is how every judge in Georgia will interpret that law.

The judge cites specific prior precedence in saying that the SoS has no jurisdiction to interfere with political parties’ decisions on who they place on their primary ballots.

I think it is reasonable that it would apply but it seems Georgia case law disagrees with me.


406 posted on 03/08/2012 11:38:13 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Why are you asking me?
Because you've indicated that to you this was a proper ruling and I want to know your reasoning on what seems a fundamental issue, that being the actual laws in question.
407 posted on 03/08/2012 11:51:52 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
I think it is reasonable that it would apply...
See! Now that wasn't all that hard was it.

...but it seems Georgia case law disagrees with me.
Well have you looked at the case law cited to see if it actually does agree or disagree?
And something else you should consider is that there just might be case law that hasn't been cited by the Court which would overturn its decision. It's become painfully obvious that some cases are used while others are disregarded.

And no, I'm not that familiar with Georgia case law and I can't give any suggestions on where to look so don't ask.

408 posted on 03/08/2012 11:59:45 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Here is the Eleventh Circuit decision on one such instance of the case law cited in the decision...
@DUKE v CLELANDIn this case, we affirm the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Georgia state officials and Republican Party officials who refused to place David Duke's name on the presidential preference primary ballot for the 1992 election.
Isn't that interesting!
CONCLUSION

Because we find that neither Duke nor his supporters' First or Fourteenth Amendment rights were heavily burdened and that O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193 is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.

It was an effort to keep David Duke off of the Republican ballot!

Do you recall which law the plaintiffs were using?

409 posted on 03/08/2012 12:21:18 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Then the obvious thing to do is to sit back and see how it plays out in court.


410 posted on 03/08/2012 12:23:19 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Ah well, missed the / in </A>


411 posted on 03/08/2012 12:24:24 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Then the obvious thing to do is to sit back and see how it plays out in court.
But you aren't going to do that, are you?
You'll continue to play your little games on any CCP or eligibility thread that is posted.

No, I take no comfort whatsoever in your placating words.

412 posted on 03/08/2012 12:30:31 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Duke v Cleveland says the the Republican Party has the sole power to decide who they will place on their presidential primary ballot.

The appellate judge in Duke v Cleveland says that political parties have a first amendment right to choose their own candidates for primary ballots without state interference.

This is the same reasoning used to dismiss the latest cases when the judge said the SoS did not have jurisdiction.


413 posted on 03/08/2012 12:38:18 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

On this particular issue I will unless you bring up any issues you want to discuss. All the arguments are on the table - just a matter of the courts grinding through the appeals and deciding.


414 posted on 03/08/2012 12:40:47 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Once again...Do you recall which law the plaintiffs were using?


415 posted on 03/08/2012 12:42:42 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Not at work at the moment so don’t worry.

Well, quite obviously you haven't done much work in over a month.

So which is it? Are you a liar, a cheat or both?
416 posted on 03/08/2012 12:43:22 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
...this Court does not believe that O.C.G.A. §21-2-5 applies in this case...

Not O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193 or O.C.G.A. §21-2-191.

Sounds like skullduggery to me.

417 posted on 03/08/2012 12:47:23 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

So you are actually tracking my hours? Interesting.


418 posted on 03/08/2012 12:47:27 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e)


419 posted on 03/08/2012 12:48:58 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

It’s not a question of courage.

The Obot has been exposed.

Time is precious. Why pay for the same ground twice?

(now if he comes out with a real whopper I might have to comment)


420 posted on 03/08/2012 12:49:29 PM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

So, which is it scumbag?


421 posted on 03/08/2012 12:50:40 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Political parties have a process to pick names for primary ballots (detailed in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193 and §21-2-191).

The question was whether the SoS has jurisdiction over that process (through O.C.G.A. §21-2-5).

The answer is no for both cases.


422 posted on 03/08/2012 12:55:35 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
I noticed that before. 43 posts today alone. I wish I could have a job where I get paid to post all day on FR.

He has already been outed repeatedly. I went with the "Journolista" angle. Those are the "true believers."
423 posted on 03/08/2012 1:01:08 PM PST by PA Engineer (Time to beat the swords of government tyranny into the plowshares of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

ZOT


424 posted on 03/08/2012 1:06:30 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Does one law take precedent over the other?
In other words, does one law have to be applied or be applicable before the other can take place?

Like with a theft. Theft is the just the base charge. It is then considered if it is one of many forms of theft, like aggravated theft if a weapon was involved.
Maybe not the best analogy, but it'll suffice.

The first law has to apply for the other to be considered.

425 posted on 03/08/2012 1:10:46 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...


I noticed that before. 43 posts today alone. I wish I could have a job where I get paid to post all day on FR.

Your tax dollars at work! Not only does Harlan1196 collect a retirement check from the military, he is also billing the government as a government contractor for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in Newport, RI for the time he spends trolling on Free Republic.
426 posted on 03/08/2012 1:12:22 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
Why pay for the same ground twice?
You're holding the ground you've fought for, you're not paying for it twice!
427 posted on 03/08/2012 1:15:10 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; Brown Deer; LucyT

Not tracking your hours but watching you like a Hawk, as are others... troll.


428 posted on 03/08/2012 1:17:08 PM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Political parties have a process to pick names for primary ballots (detailed in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193 and §21-2-191).
I agree.

The question was whether the SoS has jurisdiction over that process (through O.C.G.A. §21-2-5).

Really! Well maybe you better show me that specific text.
Here is the link again to help you along...Farrar-Welden-Powell-Swensson v Obama, Order Granting Respondent Barack Obama's Motion(s) to Dismiss, Fulton County Superior Court, 3-2-2012

429 posted on 03/08/2012 1:19:59 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

We do know that he doesn’t sleep between 6am and 9pm EST. So, unless he sleeps at work...


430 posted on 03/08/2012 1:20:26 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

The judge is saying the laws are not related

One set of laws governs how political parties pick who is on the primary ballots.

The second law does not applied to primary ballots but only to candidates on the general ballot.

In other words, the plaintiffs did not have legal recourse to the law they filed their complaint under.


431 posted on 03/08/2012 1:21:14 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Or I don’t work days. Or I don’t work a Monday thru Friday work week. Or due to extensive overseas travel I get a lot of comp time when at home. All apply or have applied to me.

The entire world, but especially the military, doesn’t work a traditional 9-5 job.


432 posted on 03/08/2012 1:25:24 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
Not tracking your hours but watching you like a Hawk, as are others... troll.

Though I've stated before that I personally wanted him to stick around over concerns that he would come back as a retread I would submit to an authoritarian ruling.

I wouldn't really have much choice in the matter though, would I.
I don't run this place, I just visit.

It would be nice to be IBTZ for a change. LOL

433 posted on 03/08/2012 1:28:20 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
and you don't sleep?


434 posted on 03/08/2012 1:29:40 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
The judge is saying the laws are not related
Oh, I agree with that. But how does she conclude that one is applicable and the other isn't?

In other words, the plaintiffs did not have legal recourse to the law they filed their complaint under.
Why is that?

435 posted on 03/08/2012 1:30:07 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

This is the copy I am using. Look on page 4.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GA_Obama_Dismissal.pdf


436 posted on 03/08/2012 1:30:23 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Or I don’t work a Monday thru Friday work week.

You are on here seven days a week.
437 posted on 03/08/2012 1:32:13 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Because Duke v Cleland says that the SoS has no jurisdiction over presidential primary ballots.

She conclude that one was not applicable because legal precedent says it was not applicable.


438 posted on 03/08/2012 1:33:01 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
The second law does not applied to primary ballots but only to candidates on the general ballot.
Which law is that again...by number?
439 posted on 03/08/2012 1:33:08 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

There were two other options - they are there for a reason.


440 posted on 03/08/2012 1:34:28 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
I'm getting ready to fire off my CV to them. I'm still working on my cover letter requesting a position to be a full time poster on FreeRepublic. You can apply for Harlan's position at SAIC Career.

I can't wait. You can also CC the the CEO John P. Jumper with your cover letter.
441 posted on 03/08/2012 1:34:49 PM PST by PA Engineer (Time to beat the swords of government tyranny into the plowshares of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

O.C.G.A. §21-2-5


442 posted on 03/08/2012 1:35:31 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Or I don’t work days.

Was that in reply to this?

So, unless he sleeps at work...

LMAO, so you sleep all night at work? Either way, you're screwing the taxpayers. You must be proud, loser!
443 posted on 03/08/2012 1:36:11 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
This is the copy I am using. Look on page 4.

You can do better than that. It's all the same.
What specific text supports your claim that...
The question was whether the SoS has jurisdiction over that process (through O.C.G.A. §21-2-5).

Use my link so you can copy and paste. The one you gave doesn't allow you to do that.

444 posted on 03/08/2012 1:36:46 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer

think it would be okay to fudge a little on our resume? I bet its been done before!


445 posted on 03/08/2012 1:38:38 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Touché


446 posted on 03/08/2012 1:39:04 PM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Because Duke v Cleland says that the SoS has no jurisdiction over presidential primary ballots.
So she followed one law and disregarded another as it suited her needs. Got it.
447 posted on 03/08/2012 1:40:56 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

he ruling specifically says the SoS has no jurisdiction - there is no other way to interpret it.

I am not going to play silly games with you. It is in black and white on the 4th page.

Refute it if you can.


448 posted on 03/08/2012 1:41:29 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; Harlan1196; Fred Nerks; Fantasywriter; little jeremiah; MHGinTN; Candor7; manc; ...

Harlann1196 has one and only one interest. He came to FR for one reason, to try to deflect the BC issue and fish for information. Past posts don’t lie.

Here are all ages of his past post pages:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:harlan1196/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:harlan1196/index?more=80367773

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:harlan1196/index?more=80243307

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:harlan1196/index?more=80121160


449 posted on 03/08/2012 1:43:34 PM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/452506c.pdf
http://lcpshome.org/pb/pb21905.pdf

get your lazy butt in gear and do some research!


450 posted on 03/08/2012 1:44:34 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 551-563 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson