Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 01/26/2012 2:40:03 PM PST by devattel
ATLANTA -- A Georgia judge has heard arguments and is considering a complaint that seeks to keep President Barack Obama off the state's ballot.
Obama's local attorney Michael Jablonski boycotted Thursday's hearing in Atlanta. Plaintiff's attorneys urged Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi to hold him and the president in contempt. The judge didn't set a timeline for a ruling.
About 100 people listened to hours of arguments from the attorneys, who included state Rep. Mark Hatfield, a Waycross Republican.
The complaint contends Obama isn't a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore should not be on the state's ballot. Similar complaints have been filed in other states with no success.
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
Dang, it looked good right up until that point.
Oh well.
Don't believe this is true. This complain is not about removing Obozo for not being qualified. But about keeping him off the State Election Ballot because he is not a "natural born" U.S. Citizen as required by the Constitution. The GA SOS is charged with insuring that all candidates meet the requirements for holding the office the candidate is running for. That is within the power of the SOS.
Jablonsky boycotted the hearing... I know next to nothing about legal matters, but can’t believe boycotting a hearing would be well received by the Judge. Perhaps Benito Obamalini’s advisors felt that if the boycott’s results in a default judgment, they will simply appeal to a higher (possibly liberal) Judge?
Bring it on, Open the can of worms.
Expose the dark recesses of the Obastards past.
Judge ain’t weighing nothing...he is finding the purple lipped prince in default judgement.
First question, first debate from Newt: Your majesty, why did you not defend your ballot standing concerning the ballot issue in Ga?
Answer, ah, well, you know, ah, there were some rather extreme matters there, beyond the State control because you see, that Judge is now in jail for questioning my lineage. So, you keep asking, and you will be joining him.
According to the plaintiffs, the judge informed them prior to the hearing that he would be entering a default judgement against Obama because he and counsel failed to appear.
The plaintiffs requested an expedited hearing to present their evidence for the record, and it was granted. It went pretty well, until Taitz took the floor.
At short glance this one seems a bit better article.
As a general rule, you don't want to insult the judge and the court itself by failing to show without cause. Judges frequently have egos *and* have a need to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.
But this is Obama. Sometimes it's Good to be King.
Judge pulled lawyers in to chambers and state he would give a default judgement and recogmend BhO would not be placed on the ballot. He did allow each of the three lawyers to enter their evidence for the record and allow a certain some witnesses. There are severl synopsis of the hearing posted on FR.
“”According to the plaintiffs, the judge informed them prior to the hearing that he would be entering a default judgement against Obama because he and counsel failed to appear. The plaintiffs requested an expedited hearing to present their evidence for the record, and it was granted. It went pretty well, until Taitz took the floor.””
Where do we find that or more information on what happened today - the link was pretty sparse in details....
The real issue in this is a President is not elected to these 49 United States, but Constitutionally must be elected by all 50 states, unless they have seceded from the Union as the Confederates did. Unless an event as that has taken place, the Constitution is not about Electoral Colleges or being ratified by Congress, but it is about the Union electing a President of all 50 states. Understand that any President can loose the popular vote as President Bush had, and win the electoral votes, along with numerous states, but no President can be President of these United States if he is not on the ballot or certified in all 50 states.
Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the "silence of the Constitution". No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President.
That is the Constitution at it's core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.
There is no court nor Supreme Court which can undo this
Do you possibly have a link for this language?
I wouldnt want to be riding the MARTA the day that ruling comes down.
Long thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838105/posts
See post #812 for a report on what happened.
The judge has issued a default judgement after allowing the lawyers and witnesses to speak so that everything is officially on record. The Georgia SOS has already stated he would abide by the judge’s ruling. I know Tenn and Az have similar court complaints pending. Wouldn’t it be sweet if this would snowball into a great many states tossing his stupid, illegal azz off the ballot. Here is an interesting link.
http://thecaptiansquarters.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-georgia-ballot-hearing.html
...Understand, that once Barack Hussein Obama completes one legal term in office, there is legal standing for any crime which he has completed. Illegal then becomes legal in the eyes of Obama lawyers who will make the courts enforce a new mandate which supersedes the Constitution ..
See, the Constitution states in the Articles that the President must be elected by the States. This means all 50 states now, and not just a majority. A President can not be kept off the ballot for bias reasons, but a State can without documentation proving a candidate is a native, can refuse to run someone who is in violation of the Constitution. That filibuster is as complete as that of the Senate, because one Senator can indeed keep speaking and 99 other Senators can not overrule that Senator.
The Constitution has no clauses in it which states a majority of Congress or States could overrule a State filibustering an election, so that means that power is reserved to the individual states as in the 10th Amendment.
Sorry, much as I wish it were true, the Judge has NOT issued any ruling or default judgement. Not yet...
That is an interesting passage.... oBambi is in squatter mode right now
Squatter in Chief
Once the precedence term is set it would no longer be deemed illegal trespass of the office.
Can you take back a covenant precedence in the law as written?
Interesting....
... according to documentation in the lawsuit, the secretaries of state in California previously have exercised their election authority and have rejected candidates who did not qualify.
“As stated in our previous pleadings herein, former California Secretaries of State have taken legal action to remove individuals from the ballot for failure to comply with the eligibility requirements to serve as President of the United States, although, in those cases, the issue had to do with the ‘age’ requirement, not the ‘natural born citizen,’” the USJF said.
From an article reference in post #20:
"So far, things are going exactly according to statute. Frankly, it was very stupid for Obama not to have had at least an intern show up to present something for the record. Why? Because when — not if — this thing escalates, the only things that the State Appellate and/or Superior Courts can consider when reviewing the cases are what’s been entered into the record."
So to me, when the time comes for an appeal, and the Court checks the record, there will be nothing in the record from the defense for them to check.
Here’s what I don’t understand. I’ve been puzzling this all morning. If you boycott a hearing, and refuse to appear, and a default ruling is made against you...
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY APPEAL?????
From what I gather, they cannot appeal.
Sorry, I got a little excited there. Hmmmmm. I still have hope that the judge will follow through and issue a default judgement.
bookmark
So that’s what it’s called when you want to avoid going to court? “Boycotting?” I always thought was “contempt.”
This is ridiculous. There is no such requirement. You could have a situation where someone was on the ballot of only one state, won that, threw the election from the electoral college to the House, and won there. That would be perfectly legal. How many state ballots do you think Gerald Ford was on before he was President?
GA SOS Brian Kemp was on a local radio station this afternoon. He said that the next step is for the judge to issue an initial decision in the matter and forward that decision and all supportings docs to Kemp. Kemp will then review all the material and the Judge’s recommendation and make a final decision. He would not speculate any further however he did agree that not showing up to present your case in court is definitely a detriment. My feeling is that Barry will not be on the GA ballot in 2012.
What’s funny about this is that a number of idiot leftist state legislatures have decided their electors should go to the winner of the national popular vote. What happens when you subtract Georgia from Obama’s nationwide total?
“What happens when you subtract Georgia from Obama’s nationwide total?”
I don’t think it will really make much difference as Obama does not have a snowball’s chance in Hades of winning GA but as they say in the MSM the optics are bad. If Obama cannot get on the ballot in GA and maybe Al and Conn its going to make voters all over the country pause to think about why he isn’t on the ballot. Plus the Republican candidate can just flog him with it incessantly.
Do you have a link to the actually law for this???
You missed the point. Reread.
The answer is in the definition of "you."
Obama's position is that as the elected head of one of the three aspects of the federal government, the States have no standing to tell him to do anything. And in addition, that this is a federal issue, if it is any issue at all.
If he responded to this court, he would be acknowledging its jurisdiction over him. The only way for him to defend his position is by not responding, in his capacity as president. As such, he need fear no legal repercussions from the courts, State or federal.
And finally, his lawyers will take the position that as an elected president, his qualification for the position has already been approved by the fact of his elected and sworn-in status, and so he is immune from having to deal with the question any longer.
Jurisdiction. Ultimately, it's the only game in town.
We've all been told Obama is exactly who he says he is.
Remember the plumber? Obama a socialist? Naw, he's a moderate, remember? The MSM told us so.
Obama is a Christian, remember, the MSM told us so and harassed those who questioned who he said he is.
Obama is for jobs, remember, the MSM told us so.
Obama is for energy independence, remember, the MSM told us so.
Obama is for a strong America, remember, the MSM told us so.
ETC.
So who is Obama. I won't even insult you by qoting Obama. The only people still listening to what he says love the fact that "gays" can serve openly in the military. They like that he won't let American companies drill for oil to make us energy independent. They love the fact that Obama says the Canadian oil pipeline is bad for America.
HOW CAN THEY BE SO STUPID to listen to anything this clown says?
The fact that liberals are functional idiots shouldn't surprise anyone anymore. These clowns think it's fine for America to spend 42% every month MORE than the US Government takes in as revenue. And apparently conservatives aren't much smarter. They sit by and let the traitors and the useful idiot liberals do it.
So who is Obama. If I told you, you'd roll your eyes back and think "conspiracy theory silliness."
Obama is NOT who he says he is. Wall Street did not give him $Hundreds of Millions to destroy America. WHO DID?
If you haven't figured it out that all Americans, liberals or conservative, FREEPERS or DUers, it makes no difference; are just too far gone to understand Obama is doing it on purpose.
Go GOOGLE TROJAN HORSE. Read the story and start to think again. It really is far worse than you can imagine. Can you still THINK or do you have to wait for an idiot like Brian Williams to tell you the answer?
SO what is he really doing? Obama is probably not eligible to be POTUS, isn't that OBVIOUS? If he is not on the ballot in Georgia, he calls RACISM, sicks our Attorney General on Georgia, declares the election invalid if he looses, declares martial law, WHATEVER. Obama hates the CONSTITUTION......, he hates American law and he will win if we let him.
..in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Hint: one state standing out has no impact at all
Placemark.
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.