|
|
Topic started on 2-1-2009 @ 10:28 AM by Iamonlyhuman
|
   
The defendant in this hypothetical criminal prosecution can invoke the Sixth Amendment: namely, “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
enjoy the right * * * to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor * * * .” Presumably, a properly represented defendant would
subpoena Obama himself as the indispensable witness, requiring him to bring into court whatever records were in his possession or subject to his
control that in any way evidenced, related to, or referred to the time, place, and circumstances of his birth, or to his citizenship, application for
citizenship, renunciation of citizenship, or oath of allegiance in or to any country. This would include the original of his supposed Hawaiian birth
certificate; every subsequent Hawaiian “certification of live birth” or like document created by public authorities; every other “birth
certificate” or equivalent document whenever, wherever, and by whomever generated in the name of “Barack Obama” or any of his several other
names; every document submitted to an educational institution that contained information or representations concerning his place of birth or
citizenship; and so on. In the interest of expediting the process, the custodians of records in Hawaii would also be subpoenaed to testify and to
produce all relevant documents subject to their control. To be sure, Obama himself might invoke a privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment as the grounds for refusing to testify or to disgorge inculpatory papers. But custodians of public records in Hawaii or elsewhere throughout
the United States have no such privilege. And no Hawaiian or other law of the States or the General Government purporting to make those records
“confidential” can frustrate the Sixth Amendment. newswithviews.com
Is this what you'd like to see happen? It WILL happen this way if it's not taken care of BEFORE his inauguration. Lawyers are just waiting for there
to be a felony case that they can make a name of themselves with.
I really wish I hadn't started looking at this in the first place. I'm disgusted that it's gotten this far and every one of you should be too. When
the POTUS can't ACT as POTUS because of fear, that's when he becomes a lame duck. If inaugurated before this is cleared up, we will have elected a
lame duck!
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Breaking Political News topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:54 PM by Iamonlyhuman
|
Ok now I know you're out there... I've seen you...... where are you now???
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:04 PM by Benevolent Heretic
|
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Is this what you'd like to see happen?
Sorry. I have a headache today and can't seem to get through your source.
Is WHAT what we would like to happen?
(I am not opposed to questioning Obama's eligibility, but I am curious about what this is about.) Would you mind reducing it to a few sentences?
Thank you.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:25 PM by redhatty
|
Since only 170 Electoral Votes have been received for Obama so far and the Electoral
votes are transmitted to Congress tomorrow. It may be a mute issue
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:25 PM by Iamonlyhuman
|
Benevolent Heretic,
Sure. Basically, the fact that Obama won't be able to sign any legislation into law without the fear that the very first time someone breaks that
law, he and everyone else will be forced to PROVE his eligibility so that the courts can enforce the law.
Snipets for your aching head...
As a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through
criminal prosecutions legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign...
For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban”. A defendant will undeniably have
“standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which passed
the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a
Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter
nothing but an usurper.
Basically, the invalidity of the law is the basis for the defense of the person.
Presumably, a properly represented defendant would subpoena Obama himself as the indispensable witness, requiring him to bring into court whatever
records were in his possession or subject to his control that in any way evidenced, related to, or referred to the time, place, and circumstances of
his birth, or to his citizenship, application for citizenship, renunciation of citizenship, or oath of allegiance in or to any country. This would
include the original of his supposed Hawaiian birth certificate; every subsequent Hawaiian “certification of live birth” or like document created
by public authorities...
In the interest of expediting the process, the custodians of records in Hawaii would also be subpoenaed to testify and to produce all relevant
documents subject to their control.
And no Hawaiian or other law of the States or the General Government purporting to make those records “confidential” can frustrate the Sixth
Amendment.
I know that wasn't as short as you probably need but it's the best I could do...
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:26 PM by Iamonlyhuman
|
reply to post by redhatty
Actually, now I think it's up to 184 (if my calculator was working right).
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:33 PM by Benevolent Heretic
|
Thank you very much, Iamonlyhuman. Very thoughtful of you.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Basically, the fact that Obama won't be able to sign any legislation into law without the fear that the very first time someone breaks that law, he
and everyone else will be forced to PROVE his eligibility so that the courts can enforce the law.
In that case, I'll just say it's very silly. If someone breaks the law because they don't think Obama has the authority to make a law or questions
his authority to make such laws, they are going to be treated the same as anyone who breaks the law. It's just silly.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 07:25 PM by Iamonlyhuman
|

No...  What I'm saying is that we don't want criminals getting off because Obama is ineligible to sign laws (and again I'm not saying that he is
ineligible but it sure does look like it). Anyway, my point is that we'll know as soon as Congress enacts the first law and someone breaks it because
that's going to be their defense and he or the State of Hawaii will then HAVE to PROVE his eligibility in a court of law.
[edit on 2/1/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 12:23 AM by die_another_day
|
Obama is your president and your problem, deal with it.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 07:07 AM by Anonymous ATS
|
Illegal acts of the United State have never stopped it from proceeding along it merry way. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii - he still is not a
Natural Born Citizen. Hawaii is not a legal state of the United States! See the following website:
whatreallyhappened.com... In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii’s
statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations’ charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and
non-binding. On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions
committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their
sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never
legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact. United States Public Law 103-150,
despite its polite language, is an official admission that the government of the United States illegally occupies the territory of the Hawaiian
people. So even if Obama was born in Hawaii - he was not born in a legal U.S. State and is not a NBC.
So one illegal act spawns another illegal act and so on.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 07:33 AM by FlyersFan
|
If I'm understanding the OP ... that's a big IF ...
Obama will be ineffective as POTUS because people question if he has the authority and until he proves he has the authority by showing his REAL
AUTHENTIC BIRTH CERTIFICATE then he will be a lame duck president?
Something like that?
I hadn't thought of that. After some consideration on this I can understand why you think that but I don't see it happening. People who think that
and act upon it will be a small minority and will be pushed aside. They won't be taken seriously.
Pushed aside and not taken seriously until they become useful tools for some politician to use to further his/her own agenda somehow.
It would be best for Obama to put this to rest.
It would be so easy for him to do.
He should do it and then eveyrone can move on.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 08:50 AM by Benevolent Heretic
|
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
What I'm saying is that we don't want criminals getting off because Obama is ineligible to sign laws (and again I'm not saying that he is
ineligible but it sure does look like it).
Criminals won't get off any more than they get off now.
Obama is not ineligible to sign laws. It only looks like that to those who are ignoring the facts.
Anyway, my point is that we'll know as soon as Congress enacts the first law and someone breaks it because that's going to be their defense and he
or the State of Hawaii will then HAVE to PROVE his eligibility in a court of law.
When someone breaks the law and tries to use the defense that Obama is ineligible to be president, they will be laughed out of court. No one is going
to make Obama further prove his eligibility just because some nut job says he was born in Kenya or isn't a natural-born citizen. Obama has
already proven his eligibility.
The relatively small group of people who refuse to believe the facts before them are not going to be catered to. That's just a further delusion.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 09:04 AM by SideWynder
|
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with you to a point, about them being "pushed aside" or even laughed out of court.. but there is always the chance that just one
"aspiring" young lawyer or congressman might actually try this. and create some sort of "scandle"..
But I hope that you are correct in that this is truly a non issue.. As has been stated before Obama has been "elected"(I know, not all the
electoral votes are officialy in yet) And like it or not, He, as it stands now( for all practical intents and purposes) is our President..
God help the man.. I hope he is able to meet at least some of the expectations that have been heaped upon him...
[edit on 3-1-2009 by SideWynder]
[edit on 3-1-2009 by SideWynder]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 09:33 AM by Benevolent Heretic
|
reply to post by SideWynder
I have no doubt someone will try it. As demonstrate by the many frivolous lawsuits in the works, people are going to try all they can to get what they
want. Some people just cannot accept reality.
As far as the electoral votes not being in yet, most states that voted for McCain aren't listed on that website either. I'm guessing that the
website just hasn't been updated.
Some idiot has sued the Inauguration for the past 3 elections to get the prayers and "so help me, God" removed from the oath. He's doing it again
this year. Some people just want what they want, and will make a big deal about it, even if they're wrong. What can I say? It's a free country.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 09:40 AM by SideWynder
|
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I understand and agree with you.. and as far as your comment about a "free country" for some reason sitting here on a "conspiracy theory website"
the Irony of that statement made me laugh...
I am not articulate enough to explain the humor I saw in it.. but hopefully you understand what I am trying to say...
Anyway I hope that your headache has subsided...
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 09:47 AM by Benevolent Heretic
|
I did see the humor as I typed it. So yeah, I get it. But as long as we are free to sue the government because of some conspiracy backed by no facts,
then I'm gonna say we're still relatively free. I did get the humor though.
My headache is gone, thank you. Seems Pizza Hut has started putting MSG in their sauce and it gave me a migraine.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 10:01 AM by SideWynder
|
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Seems Pizza Hut has started putting MSG in their sauce and it gave me a migraine.
I know this is off topic, but that explains alot, I noticed something was up with pizza hut, whole family has been having "digestion" probs after
eating thier pizzas and stuff, just never put it together is all...thought maybe a "localized" prob...
OOH, maybe a topic for starting another thread......
[edit on 3-1-2009 by SideWynder]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |