Posted on 03/31/2013 9:33:30 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
You smell of liberal agitprop ...
Absolutely.
If the Alabama Supreme Court finds that the SoS has a duty to check for eligibility, then they have to decide if that duty applies only to future elections, or is there some sort of remedy for the previous election. The plaintiffs are asking that birth certificates be requested from all candidates. What’s the probability that Romney will submit his birth certificate? It won’t change the fact that he lost. And if Romney doesn’t submit one, why would Obama? The plaintiffs are asking the Alabama Supreme Court to decertify votes. Since the Alabama Supreme Court has absolutely no authority over the Electoral College, what can the ASC really accomplish? Obama received no electoral votes from Alabama.
Well, I have no doubt that anything significant will happen as the result of this challenge, however, weirder things have happened. Like predicting a SCOTUS ruling, I’ll wait for the fat lady to sing before I believe anything significant will occur.
However, now that the “birther” title has been applied to Sen. Ted Cruz, is it still a four-letter word as it has been used here on FR?
Yeah, whatever.
Did you see in the brief where a SOS removed a 27 year old candidate was to young to be on the ballot as well as Eldridge Cleaver being removed from the California presidential ballot in 1968 for being to young? The Alabama Secretary of State has a duty to investigate the candidates to see if they qualify.
I’m visiting relatives and using as 7” tablet, so I’m limited in the research I can do. Were those two candidates removed as the result of an investigation (for example, were there birth certificates requested?) by the SoS, or was the information presented by the candidates on their own? From the little I can quickly find, they stated they were underage and so the SoS excluded them. They were taken at their word. There was no investigation. That differs from this case in which Obama is not being taken at his word.
The lawsuit filed nine months before the election against the Alabama SOS presented evidence from an official law enforcement source that raised serious doubts about Obama’s eligibility. The SOS had a duty to act on it.
A meeting at the offices of the SOS hosted by the Deputy SOS noted that the SOS would not investigate the eligibility question even in the face of official law enforcement evidence pointing to fraud.
The SOS had a duty by law to investigate.
The SOS was derelict in this duty.
The Appeal asks that the SOS be ordered to perform duties as bound by law.
When so ordered, the SOS will be bound to perform required duties and investigate eligibility.
Based on incontrovertible legally admissible evidence that eligibility-essential documents are fraudulent, other states can and will follow with similar investigations. All such investigations will lead to the Hawii Department of Health (HDOH) and to its Director Mr. Onaka who has already been implicated in fraud.
A Federal prosecutor will be needed to investigate the HDOH but the Holder Justice Department will not participate. Hence, a Special Federal Prosecutor (SP) will need to be appointed by one or both chambers of Congress; it will fall to Boehner to appoint a SP.
Boehner as a prime member of the GOP Establishment will balk.
But the momentum of the states spurred on by Alabama will force him to appoint the SP.
Once the SP is appointed and commissioned, the first order of business will be to indict Onaka at HDOH and obtain his confession as part of a plea agreement. This establishes that fraud has occurred. To escape prison Onaka implicates Obama’s campaign people as behind the forgeries.
In any event, this becomes a 2014 midterm election issue and a national campaign issue in 2015.
What was that?
Good God man, don’t you ever do your own homework?
You stated there is no official source presented to the SOS and then when I tell you it’s ***in the lawsuit*** filed nine months before the election, you ask what was it?
You know there’s a link provided at the top of this page. Did you take the time to look at it?
Here I’ll make it easy for you as a one-time good deal only and after this if I see your shallow unresearched questioning again I will ignore you and point others I know on this website to this post to inform them of your troll status.
Look at the link above and look at the second page, second paragraph, second sentence. Then look deeper into the brief and find the exact source and the source matter.
I would say that the lawsuit is not an ‘official source’ for the purposes of determining eligibility. If you’re talking about what Arpiao is doing, he can’t even get an indictment based on what he has so how could the Alabama Secretary of State be expected to consider that?
Arpaio can’t get an indictment not because he doesn’t have good solid evidence, but because no one wants to touch it.
That was an administrative law judge. His purpose was to oversee the administrative laws of GA, basically a pencil pusher. His decisions are all reviewable by the SCOGA but they refused to hear an appeal.
Take it before a grand jury and let them decide. If his evidence is that solid then it should be a piece of cake for him.
Oh, you think there’s any doubt about the validity of his evidence, noob?
#'s 45-47 best read together.
I’m not in the proper mood to even post a reply when the obamaroids are scurrying about ... we live in an aborted Republic. What that means is slowly being exposed. Evil saunters across the land.
If it's all that valid and all that solid then indict him. What is Arpaio waiting for?
Indict Obama for creating the “document”? Has Arpaio said he knows who created it?
Obama’s attorney wouldn’t even let him hold the thing. He can say he had no idea it was a forgery.
Who you gonna indict?
“I would say that the lawsuit is not an ‘official source’ for the purposes of determining eligibility. If you’re talking about what Arpiao is doing, he can’t even get an indictment based on what he has so how could the Alabama Secretary of State be expected to consider that?”
Official source of credible evidence candidate is not eligible for placement on Alabama ballot is the affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio. The fact that there hasn’t been an indictment doesn’t dismiss Sheriff Arapio’s allegation of credible evidence of forgery exists.
Shouldn’t the Alabama Sec of State investigate based on Sheriff Arapaio’s affidavit?
Apaio has accused Obama of six dozen kinds of fraud - phony birth certificate, phony selective service records, phony social security number, etc., etc. You’re telling me that if he has solid evidence of any of that then Obama isn’t guilty of some kind of crime?
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.