Skip to comments.Lawsuit filed to remove Obama from Mississippi ballot
Posted on 09/24/2012 5:33:57 PM PDT by Elderberry
click here to read article
I believe so, and the response was that HI doesn’t have to honor subpoenas from other states.
I know I did some looking to try to find out if they have to, and they don’t. That’s why Arpaio really wants a federal investigation; federal subpoenas have to be honored. That’s also why Eric Holder is the critical piece in this whole coup.
I vaguely recall that HI claimed that the subpoena from GA was not valid - because of some technicality (like service), not because they claimed immunity from *all* civil subpoenas from other states.
If that .pdf file that Obama claims is his BC is accepted by the courts, then I should be able to use xerox copies of $100 bills to buy stuff at WalMart.
Just as Bill Clinton is on center stage, Lewinsky is writing her tell all book about the accused rapist.
I don't care what people call me, I proudly tell everyone I know that the BC is fraudulent. I have 30 years in electrical engineering and computer science, and stake my reputation on it in every conversation I have.
Liberals may not care that he is not qualified, but they can't bury the fact that they have no morals or scruples.
The MSM don’t cover any of these filings.
Posts like yours make me want a “like” button on FR, a la Facebook.
(Instead, I have to type this long reply.)
“If we have this level of lawlessness within our own government, on open, proud display for all the world to see... then turn out the lights, the partys over.”
We all want to be optimistic, but all evidence shows we have reached exactly that level. The reluctance of judges, congressmen, et al., to pay the high price of throwing out an ineligible but sitting president is understandable (even if craven). We can take for granted that the media and the courts are partisan, and that Hawaii’s government is a corrupt cesspit with much to hide. But what dismays me is that since 2009, in the face of a manifest deficiency in the electoral system, wherein candidates never have to prove their constitutional qualifications to ANYONE, the US Congress has not held a single hearing to investigate how this could be, or how it must be corrected. Not a a single state government has acted to pass effective laws to require all candidates for office to submit documentary proof of eligibility to their Secretary of State prior to approval for ballot access. The burden of positive proof must be placed on the candidate, not on the public to prove a negative. I guess the best we can hope for is correction AFTER Obama is defeated and no longer a factor.
Second Tuesday next week.
This hearing was not about a name on a ballot. This was a federal court hearing on Dr. Taitz’s motion to return the case to state court. That motion was denied. And the case will stay in the federal court. She has 3 weeks to serve the additional defendants, who then have IIRC 30 days to respond. The upshot is that the next hearing will not be until December at the earliest. Don’t expect a ruling until early January.
The federal-official defendants (Obama, Pelosi, et al.) have 60 days. The other defendants have 21 days. If the defendants respond by making a motion to dismiss, Orly has 21 days to respond to that motion and the defendants have 7 days to reply to that response.
The one defendant Orly did serve (the Mississippi Democratic Party) has already moved to dismiss. The judge gave Orly 21 days from yesterday to respond to that motion; the Party has 7 days from then to Reply, and the judge said that he would schedule a hearing on that motion after all the papers are in.
The upshot is that the next hearing will not be until December at the earliest.
The judge stayed all discovery until all defendants have been served and the motions to dismiss have been decided.
Sorry, I fell asleep, but how did it get turned into a Federal case?
Orly Taitz-- who could have had a definitive ruling from the Mississippi courts by now had she left her case as a simple ballot-eligibility hearing-- decided to get cute and amended her complaint to add a federal racketeering claim (RICO) against Obama, Pelosi, and a batch more defendants. Because RICO is a federal law, the defendants exercised their right to remove the case to federal court. Orly then spent the last few months trying to get the case sent back to state court. The federal judge denied that motion yesterday, so the case is now going to continue in federal court.
By first amending her suit to add RICO, then failing to serve the suit on the new defendants, and then making a (baseless) motion to send the case back to state court, Orly has succeeded in delaying her own case so long that it cannot possibly be heard until after the election.