Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
Any chance we could get him on a perjury-like charge similar to what was prosecuted with Clinton? Has he ever been under oath when he has provided information that would normally be used to verify eligibility and which is technically wrong?
How about technical issues related to fraud? For instance, I’m sure the President receives some kind of health, and/or life insurance. Can he be prosecuted for fraud if the information he has provided the government FOR that insurance is not accurate?
Could he be taken down like Capone for some sort of tax evasion scandal due to the Social Security number inconsistencies?
I’m beginning to wonder if the thing we will have to use to expose him might have NOTHING to do at all with his eligibility, but in a technicality where the repercussions for perjury and/or fraud are explicitly laid out - something that’s a condition of employment, or benefits, or something of the like that would constitute a felony and is ongoing, or can be specifically proven.
Honestly, I’m curious to see what, if anything, Sheriff Joe announces in the next week or so. I’m wondering if looking at this from a slightly different perspective than bringing a lawsuit will bear fruit - the criminal angle on Obama’s activities might be even more interesting and compelling than his most recent attempts at fraud (which I do believe he IS guilty of in several ways - even if it’s never proven).
*****************
One other question I have (a rather silly one I should know the answer to personally)... I remember talk about this years back when I was working for a 3rd party on a Presidential candidacy, and I saw it mentioned here in the last few days as well. Does a candidate need to be on the ballot in ALL 50 states to qualify - or in just enough states to mathematically have a chance at actually being able to win a majority? I do know that Presidential Electors are not bound to vote for the “winner”, but instead can vote for whomever is on their state’s ballot when they actually sit down and vote some days after the election. I can’t remember if it was a *required* things in regards to ballot access, or if it was a *crazy to bother if you’re not on all 50 states as a 3rd party* type of thing? (Thanks in advance for any answers on that question, or the stuff I wrote about above. It’s been hard for me to stay up-to-date lately.)
Loquaciousness doesn’t work for me either, FreepersUp. And longwindedness is a deterrent to being read by busy FReepers.
I will just add a couple thoughts to the discussion:
What will happen if and when the US Muslim population becomes really significant? Would it be wise to give the constitutional stamp of approval to a candidate who was born in the USA of non-citizen Arab or Pakistani parents? Wouldn’t that make you just a wee bit uneasy about that fellow’s deepest loyalties?
I maintain that the Obama situation is very close to that. And, if you believe a writer and investigator like Dinesh D’Souza (I do), Hussein’s loyalty is very much to the Third World in general and Kenya in particular, with the US and the UK seen by Obama as former colonial powers and adversaries.
I believe the Founders were contemplating something like that happening in their day when the US was a new and fragile republic, only with possible European loyalties being their concern. So, what to do? Put the NBC clause in the Constitution, based on the Vattel definition: of US born of citizen parents. Still no guarantee of allegiance to America but at least a giving the country an additional element of assurance.
To conclude, as a Tea Partier and a non-lawyer, I am interested in returning to originalism and trying to determine the Founders’ intent. Court precedents may control outcomes to litigation now but the object is to eventually replace the liberal judges who dominate the legal system today with their convenient and self-serving “living document” theory of the Constitution with strict constructionists who dedicate themselves to a Constitution which can only be changed by the amendment process. Creativity and originality should not count in constitutional interpretation.
It may take a lifetime to effect such changes, and the education of lawyers will also have to change but why not go for it? What has squishy liberalism done for us other than to send America to the edge of complete societal disaster?
Courts reverse themselves all the time. Putting conservative jurists on the bench might result in some key reversals and a return to a truly free constitutional republic.
Let’s not be troubled over the dicta claim..we’ve heard it before. Jefferson told us they will come hither and make a mess of everything we have built.
We have Vattel’s Law of Nations in our back pocket. The Supreme Court told us in 2006 “it’s been a part of our nations laws for 200 years”. The court referenced Vattel.
I have a letter showing the Founders intent. It was penned by Franklin. He describes why the Founders are “clearing the woods and who for.
The Founders intent may be deemed not politically correct by some in this forum and around the country.
I am not a lawyer but I have had numerous er, encounters, with the law over the years and from that perspective it seems that there is adequate information about O’Bummer to go after him. You have listed quite a few.
The issue to me is WILL. We need to find some people in authority who have both the skill and the will to take a shot at the Pretender.
I sure as hell don’t need a RINO like Hatfield to explain the “facts of life” to me.
Some of those hypothetical circumstances he cites require a judicial determination. Hair-splitting yak yak won’t accomplish jack about them. (of course, hypothetical situations are usually employed to muddy the waters. They rarely if ever occur IRL)
The fact that Hatfield uses the scurrilous term “birthers” gives him away as the RINO/lib crud that he is.
Why not just say “Tea Baggers?” Or talk about our mommas?
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-13 (2011)
§ 50-13-13. Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases
(7) Subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties. When a subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the superior court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience. Failure to comply with such order shall be cause for punishment as for contempt of court. The costs of securing the attendance of witnesses, including fees and mileage, shall be computed and assessed in the same manner as prescribed by law in civil cases in the superior court;ARTICLE 2. OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41 (2011)
§ 50-13-41. Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, in all cases every decision of an administrative law judge shall be treated as an initial decision as set forth in subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-17, including, but not limited to, the taking of additional testimony or remanding the case to the administrative law judge for such purpose. On review, the reviewing agency shall consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties. In reviewing initial decisions by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, the reviewing agency shall give due regard to the administrative law judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses. If the reviewing agency rejects or modifies a proposed finding of fact or a proposed decision, it shall give reasons for doing so in writing in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.(e)(1) A reviewing agency shall have a period of 30 days following the entry of the decision of the administrative law judge in which to reject or modify such decision. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within such 30 day period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law.
(2) A reviewing agency may prior to the expiration of the review period provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection extend such review period by order of the reviewing agency in any case wherein unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such period.
My goal,don't know if its yours or not,is to make a case that zero is either ineligible to run due to his fathers heritage or his place of birth.
Over the last four years we have failed to do that.
One of the prime reasons we have failed to do that,once again IMHO, is that talk radio won't touch this topic with a ten foot pole.
Why?
We have not succeeded in simplifying the arguments enough that they can be discussed on talk radio.Any time you create a discussion that is over first or second year college level your audience starts dropping off.You are once again talking to yourself or a few close friends,not a way to win vital national arguments.
This is why Rush,Mark, Sean or few of the big talkers will not touch this topic.
I'm not going to complain about the truly heroic efforts done here on these eligiblity threads by those Freepers much smarter than me. Only repeat that we have failed to simplify the argument enough that we can get it on talk radio where millions would hear about how the regime has screwed us over once again and this argument would once again get the national attention it deserves.
Instead the regime is so confident our efforts will go nowhere zero does not even show up for his own trial.A huge slap in the face of all of us.
Even worse if we don't succeed pretty soon in lowering the level of discussion where everyone can be brought in to the topic they will do it all over again. The left will pick our candidate as the are doing now then emasculate him giving zero yet another victory.
We need to be able to say that zero is not eligible to run because of X,Y and Z not maybe this and maybe that and 75 paragraphs later still reach no conclusion.
Just my thoughts on the topic and I realize I am not in league with you guys who are probably law students, lawyers or whatever.
I just don't want to see zero get reelected.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2838105/posts?page=1247#1247
Looks like a bust of MLK.
It be MLK
Thank you.
Thanks, will read!
and...I see from above post #1229 that you think certain people believe that O was born in country...but what's this about ("not in the state of HI")
...could you be suggesting "on the Island of HI BEFORE it became a State"...some of us have entertained the possibility that O was born prior to HI being admitted into the USA.....that would explain lack of pictures, verifiable dates, and a good reason for G'maw to start working on his false papers when he was very young...
In reverse order.
No, I do not think he was born in Hawaii before Statehood. Matter of fact, as I recall, that was the Goldwater issue (with respect to Arizona) and I think there was a general consensus that if you have those facts where the territory ultimately becomes a state, the candidate is eligible.
As to the actual place of birth, I am not anxious to put information out there in a public post for two reasons. We have had the experience of putting information out there and then finding that the underlying source has been erased because the Opposing Forces read these posts just like everyone else.
Further, the possibility also exists that whatever evidence one found would be a fake like the Hawaii evidence, done by someone on the other side who anticipated we would get that far and left us more misinformation to find.
If we had real substantive hard evidence, we would use it and will do so if we get it.
As to resources: Someone on the board was looking for the next piece of evidence we need but has not yet come up with anything. The requirements for the person doing the looking are a little narrow and I will let you know what they are.
Sure, you might like to have the money to hire a Private Investigator who unquestionably would come up with the next piece but then you are spending money and if all you have is enough to hire a PI to do a narrow piece of the work, you don't have the resources to use the result.
The real resource issue is the need for an experienced senior lawyer to run the project. Remember, on the other side, you are contesting with a number of experienced quality lawyers with all the support they need. The kind of person you need isn't going to be in a position to do this as a volunteer because he too has financial commitments and kids to educate etc. Neither are the support people who will be involved.
We now don't really know much about how much they have spent to date or how it has been funded or who is now in charge. Looking at the individual lawyers in the act, many of whom I know personally or have seen their work product in other settings, I have guessed that the total legal effort so far is in the $10mm range and they are not done. The Georgia case is the first time they have cheaped out on the legal and the loss there may be the crack that defeats them.
There is a general level of misunderstanding about how lawyers operate on this kind of effort and how a multi jurisdictional action like this is managed. But the result of four years of pursuing this objective with individual lawyers fighting narrow battles has not been very successful.
Sheriff Joe may be effective and may give the project another shove in the correct direction--we can be hopeful.
As to ballot access--my comments on this thread have been based on a limited review of the papers in two of the five cases. I don't see the global remedy of getting him off the ballot in both the primary and the election but it may be there in papers I have not seen.
The reason you might proceed on only the primary is because you think you have a better shot at avoiding creating a federal question. Maybe you can proceed on the general as well without creating a federal question although the Supreme Court didn't have a problem getting in to the case in Bush v. Gore.
It isn't clear how many states you need to remove him from the ballot on to affect his ability as a candidate. It might be enough to just get him off the primary ballot in half the states to cause the Dem's to decide he is a problem.
In fact, I think something like that is at least being discussed in DC at present and it may well bear fruit if we see more progress.
As a judgment proposition, I don't think he can afford to lose very many of these arguments and remain an effective candidate.
When you are as divisive a political factor as Obama has been, you tend to attract adversaries who increase the level of problems you have being effective.
I would feel better about our chances if we had more effective and better coordinated legal help. But the Georgia case at present at least is moving in the right direction.
If you have "invested" $10M why cheap out on a ballot access case. The ramifications of even one state declaring you ineligible is huge. The Full Faith and Credit act comes to mind. Any other state now has access to the evidence presented in GA. Did they just under estimate the magnitude of an unfavorable outcome? Did they plan on a default judgement whereas evidence could not be presented?
I know these questions can't be answered but with opinion but a $10M bet? Makes no sense.
David, this is the third time I have asked you this question below in this thread and you have refused to respond. It should be a very simple question for you to answer since you are a lawyer. I present it to you again for the third time. I would appreciate a answer. Here it is:
If you were the attorney handling these ballot challenge hearings for plaintiffs, what cases would you cite to declare Barack Obama ineligible for Article 2 Section 1?
Here's the problem David.
My goal,don't know if its yours or not,is to make a case that zero is either ineligible to run due to his fathers heritage or his place of birth.
Over the last four years we have failed to do that.
Why?
We are operating in a legal environment. And the other side has a cadre including some of the best lawyers in America; with the kind and character of support those kinds of lawyers have. I know many of them and all of them are very good at what they do.
Although I have no real first hand knowledge, just looking at the legal effort we have seen expended and knowing what we would charge, I would guess that they have spent as much as $10mm or maybe more from various pockets to date.
You don't win those kinds of multi jurisdictional contests with uncoordinated part time volunteers. Just doesn't happen.
And large, complex litigation that this kind of dispute involves takes significant attention from capable legal help. That is how it works.
The Georgia case is simple. You get either counterparts of the original affidavits or write new copies with respect to the many people to whom Zero has stated or who have heard Zero state that he was born in Mombasa in Kenya; I saw Race Bannon post here the other day--his story about meeting Zero in a bar in Honolulu in 1982 was very persuasive; you put in copies of all three fake Birth Certificates together with your expert evidence that they are all three fakes; you put in the record on the Sunahara birth number.
Your legal argument is that there is no scintilla of evidence that he was born in Hawaii; that the only and Best Evidence of his place of Birth is his statements against interest evidenced by the affidavits.
You get the judge to find that on the record, the evidence is that he was born in Kenya to a non-citizen father and a mother who not having been resident in the US for five years after age 14 could not pass citizenship to zero. You get him to conclude that as a matter of law, he is not a Natural Born Citizen on two grounds: 1) he was born outside the US; and 2) his father was not a US Citizen and his mother's US Citizenship is flawed. (You do the stuff about the citizenship, not because you think it is by itself a winning position but because you want them to be forced to respond to the argument.)
That you ought to be able to do and win with it. And in this case, because Zero failed to appear, that is a productive result.
The concern is if zero ever gets on the record, the risk is that he can prove he was born in the US. And it isn't very likely that he will let you blow him out of the water very many times with this case.
If he can get to the US Supreme Court with findings of fact demonstrating that he was born in the US, the Court is going to hold him eligible. My objectives; your objectives; everyone here with objectives; to the contrary notwithstanding, he wins that argument. If he is eligible, he can run if the Dem's will nominate him.
And to be fair, he does have some political problems also. As divisive as he is, he has picked up adversaries in both parties and there is a level of concern among the Dems. That is both good and bad--they may decide to replace him with a winning ticket.
The rest of your post combines two issues--why don't people talk about this; and where do we wind up.
I speculate that the reason you don't get any sympathy from the real opinion makers at FOX and in the political and judicial environment is because many of them have seen evidence that he was born in the United States.
Personally, I don't think zero is going to be able to hold it together to the election. Although I do think he was likely born in the United States, he is in fact a complete fraud. Nothing you know or think you know about him is real. Under those circumstances, I think the Dems will conclude he is not an effective candidate.
There is a sympathetic spin to be put on his real facts and he might be able to pull that off but I doubt it.
However the political fundamentals you outline are still correct--Romney is a form of Obama-lite; Newt is probably more conservative but a flawed candidate. Likely as an alternative you get Mrs. Clinton as a front for her husband.
None of that is very attractive.
I know these questions can't be answered but with opinion but a $10M bet? Makes no sense.
You are of course correct.
Full Faith and Credit doesn't really have anything to do with it. Each state makes its own decision. But a decision here is precedential secondary authority in the next state so it may alter what the Opp Fors would need to do to get a different result. More important, it very adversely affects their political defense position.
But they clearly have made a mistake and it may turn out to beat them--we will see.
Bob Bauer is out as White House Counsel. His current role is not apparent. The release said he was participating in the reelection campaign but I doubt it--if he is, it isn't in the role of an attorney decision maker on these kinds of cases.
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.