Skip to comments.Obama eligibility hearing to be broadcast live
Posted on 01/25/2012 10:32:42 PM PST by Nachum
A political action committee which believes Barack Obama is not legally qualified for U.S. president plans a live broadcast of tomorrows hotly anticipated court hearing in Atlanta regarding Obamas eligibility.
The Article II Super PAC says it will provide uncensored, gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the event beginning at 9 a.m. Eastern at this online address.
Based in Simi Valley, Calif., the PAC says it decided to act out of a sense of frustration, since most national news outlets have been ignoring the constitutional mandate that presidents be a natural-born citizen, which the PAC maintains is a person who is a child of two U.S. citizen parents.
The PAC saw the need to do this last month, because of the often incomplete and biased coverage of this issue by mainstream news media and recently received permission from the court, said director Helen Tansey, who will personally manage on-site efforts.
After the office of the president of the United States was usurped by a dual-citizen candidate in 2008, the nation was awakened to the realization that the U.S. Constitution, in particular Article II and presidential eligibility, no longer matters to our elected representatives and the mainstream media, the PAC says on its website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If Zero gets bumped from the ballot, Atlanta’s liable to be burnt to the ground!!
That’s a lot of broadcast media to pay for, especially when the most likely outcome will be the judge pushing his decision back to a later time.
“ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9 AM ET
The live video stream will be located at this page and on the home-page of this website.”
They are the ones who have to make the real effort, like the men in Georgia did.
They have permission to film in the courtroom?
Something weird here ..... why did O’s attorney, instead of filing an amended motion to quash (a decent one this time & the judge probably would have granted it), write a crybaby letter to the SOS? All the previous predictions I’ve seen were that an amended motion to quash would be filed as a matter of course.
I foresee an automobile “accident” or other mishap for the film crew.
What online address and 9 a.m. CA time?
Ok thanks. I should have scrolled down first.
Bookmark for 9am est
Zero’s playing a dangerous game. If he loses by default at an administrative level, he might be barred from any kind of appeal...
Do you think the judge is sleeping in his own bed tonight?
Yeah, I read the Sonoran news story on the upcoming event and synopsis of the happenings. Good article.
“Citing Haynes v. Wells, Hatfield said the entire burden of proof is placed upon defendant to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office, and stated, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell are not required, and should not be required, to disprove anything regarding [Defendant Obamas] eligibility to run for office “
Referring to Jablonskis argument in his motion to quash in Taitzs challenge, Hatfield said he seemed to somehow be contending that the fact defendant Obama currently occupies the presidency is, in itself, evidence of defendant Obamas constitutional eligibility to that office.
On the contrary, wrote Hatfield, citing Malone v. Minchew, “there is [no] presumption, at least not a conclusive presumption, that a person named or appointed to an office ... was eligible and qualified to hold the office. Such qualification or eligibility depends upon facts which, when challenged and drawn in question in a proper judicial proceeding, is a judicial question to be determined by the courts.”
As it should be.
If Obama does not qualify in just one state, I don’t think the media can ignore Obama’s lack of eligibility. I think Obama has a very little chance of winning the 15 electoral votes, if he does remain on the GA ballot.
Michael K. Jablonski
260 Brighton Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30309 Party: Democrat
Only if he/she is crazy or a fool. I wouldn’t be in the same area code of my house if I were him/her.
That’s what I was thinking. I wouldn’t be driving my own car to work in the morning, either.
Well, Jablonski is a highly partisan Democrat. Interesting.
In the last few days there have been several posts about this trial and the procedure of/for the three different complaints. I look at my copy of the Constitution and take note that in Article II that the Fed Congress only specifies there will be electors acting under the Fed stipulations. There is no mention of what constitutes/defines a ‘natural born citizen’. The same Article specifies actions/duties of the specified electors, but there is still no directions as to what constitutes/defines a ‘natural born citizen’. I believe that it is this ‘hole’ or lack of definition that in either place in Article II that Obama and his enablers have been using. However , Article II also specifies electors from the ‘respective’ states shall submit votes of the electors to congress. An important question for me is ‘If a state does not submit any elector ballots would that hold all other ballots from being certified because the full body of states has not been part of the congressional certification?. Would this allow Obama to just keep on ruling as POTUSA? I would hope that there would be simply Obama’s name left off the ballots for certification and all elector ballots from all states be submitted to Congress.
Note that the year isn’t given. Whether it is for the upcoming or past elections...??? I can’t tell.
Didn’t they already try to do that during the War of Northern Aggression?
An important question for me is If a state does not submit any elector ballots would that hold all other ballots from being certified because the full body of states has not been part of the congressional certification?.
Good question. If you choose to look into it let me know what you find.
Would this allow Obama to just keep on ruling as POTUSA?
Another good question. If you choose to look into it let me know what you find.
I guess that's why he wants to "consolidate government departments"
There may not be a Hearing since Obamas Lawyers sent a Letter to the Secretary of State in Georgia Yesterday saying they were not Coming and that the Suit should be toosed out
A letter to the SoS means nothing. This is a judicial proceeding and motions need to be submitted to the tribunal in the case. Besides, did you read the S0S reply to Jablonski’s letter?
To your first question, Congress counts the electoral ballots, and there is a winner, even if a state does not send electoral ballots. So, yes, assuming he gets a majority without GA' ballots, Obama retains the office.
The electors are bound to the party, and assuming for the sake of argument that the DEM party takes GA, then those electoral ballots will be cast for Obama or whoever the DEM party decides to substitute. Even if Obama's name is not on the precinct ballots, the party is free to put Obama's name on the electoral ballots.
The primary defect in the last election lies with Congress, which is about as corrupt and useless institution as can be found in all of history.
Where is that Reply? I did not see the reply
Where is the reply?
I don’t feel like finding the reply and linking to it, so I’ll summarize it for you:
Hey Mr. Attorney-for-Obama - I’d suggest you participate in the hearing. Have a nice day.
I found the letter on another posting.
I agree with your summary.
Only certain parts of it,
but indeed, that could cause HUNDREDS of dollars in damages if it happens.
I bet they'll try.
They need to lose and stigmatize the process, and politically attack those who are running it. They can't put the facts on the table. They need to poison the process.
You will see the Judge and the SOS dragged through the mud if he is DQ’d in Georgia. They wont appeal, because as a guilty party they can't risk going to court again.
The feed is live now.
SOS replied last night. Told them it would be a shame if they did not defend their position. Trial on.
Let’s hope he’s DQ’d but he and his thugs are slick as eel snot so I’ll believe it when I see it.
I believe he said “Do so at your own peril”.
Any Black Panthers out front of the court house?
Unless they read Freerepublic, how would they even know about the hearing?
Can you understand what he’s saying?
Couldn’t the judge just ask - Do you have the BC with you or not? Stop with all the semantics!