Posted on 01/15/2012 5:01:45 PM PST by butterdezillion
I would look to Georgia DOT for BC requirements that this judge cold use as a guide.
When Roberts publicly stated that he trusts the justices to know when to recuse themselves - not long after Sotomayor and Kagan refused to recuse themselves from the Hollister conference where their own positions were at stake - I knew that Roberts’ integrity is severely compromised.
The only situation I can think of that would be a greater conflict of interest than that is if a judge was accused of murder and refused to recuse herself from the decision of whether the case should go to trial. If a chief justice publicly affirmed his trust for a judge who did that, everybody would know something was very badly wrong.
And that statement coming out within the context of the Obamacare case suggested to me that Roberts isn’t just compromised on Obama’s eligibility either, but on whatever Obama’s handlers want SCOTUS to rule on.
I think Orly’s intentions are good but she’s spread herself out too thin and has botched things up as a result. She’s been fighting so hard for so long. That wears a person down. After a while I think maybe a person succombs to the seductive belief that the end justifies the means so that compromises the integrity.
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1477/georgia-court-ruled-against-obama/
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/certification-class-action/georgia-ballot-challenge/
I’ve read your comments on the False Statement Act and I just don’t really see that would ever come into play.
On the Viriginia Sunahara BC, all I can say is ‘dead men tell no tales.’ That’s much more of a closed-ended situation than for Obama, where in the latter case, they have to keep their distance and as much plausible deniability as possible, just in case Obama accidentally blows the whistle on himself.
I’ve read your comments on the False Statement Act and I just don’t really see that would ever come into play.
On the Viriginia Sunahara BC, all I can say is ‘dead men tell no tales.’ That’s much more of a closed-ended situation than for Obama, where in the latter case, they have to keep their distance and as much plausible deniability as possible, just in case Obama accidentally blows the whistle on himself.
So Geraldo is now saying Romney is a dual citizen.
They should subpoena Obama for whatver birth certificate he used to get his drivers license AND for his Congressional passport in 2005. Let’s see if those documents match what he released in 2008 and 2011.
It seems to me from what you say is that a duel citizenship person would have to have birth blood relationship if allowed by the two different nations. For example would my brother and I have dual citizenship by virtue of being born in the USA but our parents were immigrants not being citizens at the time of our birth if the nation of their citizenship did recognize duel citizenship?
I think plausible deniability is why they’ve waffled around about Obama’s records, their procedures, etc. They give the APPEARANCE of affirming what Obama has posted but there’s always waffle room. They always leave waffle room.
Even looking at what Nagamine argued against Taitz on Friday, they claim that even if a subpoena applied to them, HRS 338-18 won’t allow them to obey a subpoena because it only allows release to individuals who (among other things) are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to have a legal right to access the record. Sounds to me like they would claim that a judge ordering the disclosure of the record would not be enough; the judge would first have to declare himself as having a legal right to access the record.
That kind of parsing words is what they do. Waffle room. It allows plausible deniability. I’ve been wrestling for over 2 1/2 years with that kind of waffling from them.
Dead men tell no tales, but the HDOH is gonna have a hard time justifying their refusal to give Duncan Sunahara a photocopy of Virginia’s long-form when that disclosure is REQUIRED by UIPA. Not a hard time justifying it to the judge. The Hawaii judge will wink at the corruption; I’m convinced there is no rule of law whatsoever in Hawaii government. But they will have a hard time justifying it to the public, which is the only real trial any of the Hawaii bureaucrats face - which is why they want to shut us down through the “vexatious requestor” law and their obfuscations.
All in all, though, neither Obama nor the HDOH have anything to worry about in regards to presenting a halfway decent forgery to Malihi unless he requires other documentation too.
What I really wonder, though, is who can force the HDOH to produce their transaction logs and original microfilms, give depositions, etc. And in what type of setting (i.e. criminal or civil trial, etc). I’m doing too much talking and not enough listening. I really want to understand how that works.
Actually, I think it's also required under the normal disclosure statutes where they have to release any part of any certificate to an eligible requester.
And yes, you're absolutely right about all their parsing. It would be comical if it wasn't so incriminating. The only way I see Hawaii really breaking down and releasing the things you mention is if someone internal blows the whistle on 'em.
Corsi says he already has an informant from inside the HDOH, though - who reported when the forgery was placed in the files. Somehow there has to be a procedure whereby such a thing makes a legal difference.
Would it have to be a criminal trial? If a state prosecutor charged HDOH officials with crimes using that witness as their evidence, would they have to be granted discovery such as the transaction logs, depositions, and microfilms? Could HI officials refuse to provide evidence to law enforcement because they were from another state? Would law enforcement have to get a search warrant rather than use a subpoena? And if so, could the HI judge just refuse to issue a search warrant?
I don’t understand how all that works.
You would be correct in that assertion.
“I’m so glad to communicate with you.”
Same here, FRiend. :)
There’s gotta be a Freepathon pitch in there somewhere. “Go Monthly!” (I did, btw, and haven’t looked back)
http://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/ObjectionDetail.aspx?ObjectionID=1231&ElectionID=32
Add Romney to the list..
If memory serves me correctly, Dr. Alan Keyes has an Obamanator election validity case still open from 2008. Keyes may need a nudge from us to move the case from pending to “on the docket.”
Search on FR for “Alan Keyes” and read the threads that pop up, and hotlink them here.
The MSM loves to sweep the unpleasant past under the liberal magic carpet that their agenda rides on. But we wield “THE BROOM” in this election!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GA Freeper ping here. Hoping we get answers soon.
I’m not so sure the HI DOH is really willing to do this, otherwise Obama’s jpg and PDF would already have the official seal on them. Even if they did, it’s going to have to match the jpg or the PDF that Obama has already made public. If it doesn’t match, Obama is toast.
” it seems to me that the GA SOS is required to make sure that the candidate is eligible for the position being sought. So that would involve having legal proof of meeting all the eligibility requirements - age, residency, and natural born status which would involve both birth place and parentage.”
I figure the doj And holder are going to come in with guns blazing and tell GA that he MUST be eligible since he already holds that office.—No proof required.
So far confirmed witnesses for January 26 trial against Obama in Atlanta GA. Per Orly:
1. Felicito Papa
2. Douglas Vogt
3. Susan Daniels
4. Dr. Ron Polland
5. Linda Jordan
6. Chris Strunk
7. I will attest on my search in the Selective Service records
8. Plaintiffs David Farrar and Cody Robert Judy
9. I asked another attorney with over 20 years of experience to be there in case I need any additional help. I will pay for his expenses and time.
10. One or two TV reporters told me, they will apply for permits to record the proceedings
Yup, methinks the issue is that by all evidence provided by the would-be candidate he has proven he is ineligible due to British-subject parentage, and so the task is to persuade a judge to rule against ballot inclusion.
People have been so blinded by the drive to find some obscure proof of underhanded deception that they fail to notice the official disqualification presented front-and-center.
For personal reasons I find such a conclusion distasteful, but nonetheless find this reasoning compelling and correct.
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.