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

To: Nero Germanicus

Nobody can claim ignorance here, though. It’s not a matter of Obama proving he is eligible. It’s a matter of the HI state registrar proving that nobody can lawfully claim he is eligible.

It is known that Germond and Villagairosa signed a certification that cannot legally be true. It is known that Bob Bauer suborned what he knew to be perjury and that he committed election fraud when he submitted a known-fraudulent OCON to the state SOS’s.

Knowledge brings responsibility. There is no question of Obama’s eligibility. It is known that he CANNOT be eligible, not having any legally-established birth facts.

Washington state requires that all filers be eligible to the office for which they are running. That’s independent of whatever perjury and fraud is committed to get on the ballot. Obama cannot be eligible to the office of President. He has no legally-established birth date, birth place, or birth parents based on a Hawaii birth certificate. If he’s provided documentation his whole life long, it’s been some OTHER birth certificate - a birth certificate which proves him INELIGIBLE. We know that now. To claim ignorance at this point is to take part in fraud, perjury, and treason.

Is that really what you want to do, Noob?


125 posted on 01/30/2013 6:30:42 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]


To: butterdezillion
There is no question of Obama’s eligibility. It is known that he CANNOT be eligible, not having any legally-established birth facts.

(a)Your factual assumption is based on some secret writing on Hawaii's certification, that no one but you and one or two other people in the country seem to be able to read. Every court and election official who has read Hawaii's certification reads it as saying that Obama was born in Hawaii.

(b)You also ignore the point, which has been made countless times by judges, that the Constitution does not require a President to submit a birth certificate. I will re-ask you the question I asked you several times previously, and which you have never answered: what "established birth facts" did President Lincoln have? Or Teddy Roosevelt? Or William Howard Taft?

133 posted on 01/31/2013 10:39:18 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion

The trial judge dismissed Jordan v Reed with prejudice and the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s request for court costs. We can discuss the points of law ad nauseum but this ballot challenge is over.
Ms. Jordan has established a “defense fund” to assist her in raising the money she needs to pay her sanction.
In the 2012 general election cycle there were fifty ballot challenges to Obama in 22 states; all failed.
I was unaware of the CRS Report being referenced at all or introduced as evidence in Jordan v Reed.
In his dismissal order the trial court judge in Jordan v Reed cited the California Court of Appeals ruling in Keyes v Bowen which was a nearly identical challenge from 2008 against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Keyes v Bowen went to the California Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. The original jurisdiction ruling still stands.
The California Appeals Court said: “In any event, the truly absurd result would be to require each state’s election official to investigate and determine whether the proffered candidate met eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution, giving each the power to override a party’s selection of a presidential candidate. The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certifications of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes.”
So, Congress is the final arbiter of Mickey’s and Osama’s eligibility and the 20th Amendment gives Congress the power to determine whether Mickey and Osama “qualify” if they made it through vetting by primary election opponents, the party nominating process, voters in the general election, the Electors, and lawsuits from losing candidates. And it only takes one Senator and one Representative to raise an objection.


136 posted on 01/31/2013 12:00:52 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

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