Posted on 02/11/2012 1:37:38 PM PST by James Thomas
One thing I’ve learned while researching my new, nearly finished book is that both history and news, history’s so-called rough draft, are not written by the “victors” as much as they are censored, twisted and reconfigured by what I can best describe as “the mob.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The communist Kenyan lizard threatened the judge and fixed the outcome. Too bad. Maybe next time...
This doesn't add up. Something Stinks.
It’s a black thing
You wouldn’t ....
....ah skip it.
I didn’t post this originally, because I was certain it would have been interpreted as defending Obama in some way. However, to answer the question: It was an administrative hearing, and legally there is no option to hold anyone in contempt for ignoring a subpoena to said hearing.
The administrative judge said he would have ruled for the plaintiff by default, but the defense wanted to put the matter in public record. So they allowed the case to be decided on its merits.
According the judge, the case did not have enough.
She makes it sound like “it’s over” even as appeals on the Decision are being prepared.
You are exactly right, something DOES stink!! FReeper butterdezillion educated me about how judge Malihi (ethnic origins unknown) used sharia law to rule in zero's favor. Here's how she put it to me: Malihi just used a sharia standard of evidence (none needed) to give Obama a favorable ruling, which is also bad precedent.
If people realize that it is a ruling allowed by sharia rather than by US judicial standards, it will help people realize where all this is coming from and where it is headed.
Those who have no problem with this legal evidentiary standard are supporting the same kinds of things that sharia has allowed all over the world. This isn’t just some tee-hee stupid “birther” issue. This is about whether we LITERALLY allow judges to make up their own “facts”.
-snip-
I think Malihi should be made to lie in the bed he’s made, so it can be soundly scoffed and nullified.
I’m just expanding on it to say that the evidentiary standard Malihi used is the same one used to stone women to death and steal property from Coptic Christians in Egypt (etc ad nauseum) without any evidence other than “judge’s knowledge”. And if we allow it here - even if in a case that people want to mock, call racist, or whatever - it plants an acorn that WILL grow into that full-blown tree."
It makes more sense to me this way.
Because he’s now a king?
does this mean if anyone is subpoenaed and the judge instructs them to appear or have counsel present, and they said no ... there would be no penalties?
seems like precedent has been set
I don’t know. For an entirely different view try this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2844128/posts
‘According the judge, the case did not have enough.’
Oh and obozo has enough merits? for not showing up, for not providing doc, for not bothering to argue the case?
No one can be so dumb as to say obozo has the merit to win the case for not even showing up!
You wouldn’t ....
....ah skip it.
Ah, how timely! A friend from college who knows I follow the issue sent this a few days ago and asked the same question (Why are some people allowed to ignore subpoenas?
So, if it's a "black thing", as you say, is it also a "Sheriff Joe" thing?
Because Sheriff Joe blew off the subpoena as well. It is on record that he was subpoenaed, and it is on record that he did not attend. Put "orly taitz subpoena sheriff joe arpaio" (no quotes) in a search engine, and one of the links will take you to her page discussing her subpoenaing him. Not sure if it is allowed to link to her page due to viruses, so I won't.
Here's the letter indicating that Sheriff Joe wasn't going to go, from a county attorney to Orly Taitz.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79674934/Georgia-Farrar-v-Obama-Response-From-Joe-Arpaio-to-Orly-Re-Subpoena
Writing a letter to say you won't follow a subpoena isn't the way to get out of a properly issued subpoena, so there must be some other, less obvious part to all this.
Right general idea. It's because he refused jursidiction. The subpoena might have said "Obama," but it addressed the President of the United States, who embodies the Administrative Branch of the Federal Government.
That Federal Entity refused to acknowledge any legal obligation to reply to a State Court under those circumstances, and the State Court chose not to pursue the issue.
The law is are for the little people. King Hussein is above the law. He makes his own rules and no one, and I mean NO ONE, not even a judge, better come between him and a golf game or an ice cream cone. That ruling proved everything we ever thought about him.
That's just it though.
Because the administrative law of the federal government was created by the common/natural law of the States, the federal entity should have no choice but to respond to ANY question put to it by the authority that created it.
I’m not sure that I get your point. Are you suggesting that Malihi ruled in zero’s favor BECAUSE Orly Taitz was involved?? That seems to be a bit of a reach to me.
We are all speculating about an issue that, in our collective opinion, sucks swampwater. How or why Malihi ruled the way he did is known only to him. He didn’t justify his ruling, he just ruled that way, so we don’t have any clear answers on this.
Nonetheless, we know that he ruled in zero’s favor DESPITE that fact that neither zero or his representative appeared at the hearing, nor did he offer any evidence to show why he should be allowed on GA’s ballot. So, this suggests a couple of things to me; 1) Malihi was threatened by zero and/or his goons and he dropped a hot potato before he got burned (skeletons in his closet that he didn’t want revealed!); 2) the fix was in from the outset and he played an excellent game of charades, or 3) it was as FReeper butterdezillion suggested that Malihi used a tactic of sharia law in which the judge made his ruling on the basis of no evidentiary standard and, instead, used his own “knowledge” (whatever that may consist of), regardless of its basis in fact, to make his ruling.
Whatever the reason, zero, tyranny, treason and lying won, and America and freedom lost! This is what makes this case so groundbreaking - a standard of “law” has been introduced that destroys all previous standards of American law. Although we have not been a “nation of laws and not men” for quite awhile, now, today, we are a nation of outlaws in which truth and justice have no place. IOW, we have truly become a thugocracy!!
No, I’m suggesting that Orly’s legal skills may not be up to par and she did not make her case.
I don’t know. I’ve read arguments on both sides, and what seems patently clear to me may not be clear when presented ineptly in court.
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.