It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

page: 18
122
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


What's the error?

Do you have a link to the original pdf?




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Except this case doesn't involve any state rights...It involves a single man being able to decide if someone should be on the ballot...
that's besides the point...states shouldn't be able to decide who can be on the ballot, and who can't be. It's a PRESIDENTIAL election, not an election for a state representative. This is a national issue, not a state issue.


The Secretaries of State of all 50 states in the Union have the power to decide who can not be on the ballot. That is their JOB.
That is what they do!

In this case, a suit was filed questioning Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot. The Secretary of State has the LEGAL OBLIGATION to the State of Georgia to follow up on this. It is his DUTY to do so.

The court issued a subpoena for Obama to appear, he blew them off and didn't appear. He should be happy that the judge hasn't issued a bench warrant for his arrest yet. They are giving Obama the chance to answer the accusations against him, he has chosen not to answer the accusations.

What do you expect them to do?

edit on 26/1/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Except this case doesn't involve any state rights...It involves a single man being able to decide if someone should be on the ballot...
that's besides the point...states shouldn't be able to decide who can be on the ballot, and who can't be. It's a PRESIDENTIAL election, not an election for a state representative. This is a national issue, not a state issue.


How does your reasoning make any sense ?

Obama's lawyer did not show up on PURPOSE ! So a default judgment will be made.. AS ALWAYS

OF course should state's be allowed to decide who is on the ballot.... who else ?


etc ...

our judgments are clearly tainted b emotions which lead to flaws of logic/



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Ghost375
 


That's the beauty of the Constitution

....That slimy Republicans in Georgia can use it as tool for their
long failed political witch hunt.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by candcantiques
 


Then he has NOT decided until he posts them. Is this not true? For now .. the court has still not made a decision until he addresses the court with his decision , that Obama is found in contempt , and the ruling is defaulted , or a criminal suit is filed. (Which it wont be , Obama does not have to show up) but he does HAVE to provide legal representation or else the judgement is defaulted.
edit on 26-1-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


www.therightsideoflife.com...
Georgia Obama Ballot Challenge Plaintiff: Default Judgement Against Obama Coming

Note the key word "coming" in title of article because they judge has yet to enter his decision.


What exactly is a default judgement?

en.wikipedia.org...


Default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of either party based on some failure to take action by the other party. Most often, it is a judgment in favor of a plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court of law.


also:

Default can be compared to a forfeit victory in sports.


and...


A party can have a default judgment vacated, or set aside, by filing a motion, after the judgment is entered, by showing of a proper excuse.


Do you think: "I was too busy campaigning (I did read in MSM that is what he was doing today) would be considered a proper excuse, after council had been warned by the SOS to be there or face the ramifications? I doubt they will try it as even his attorney did not bother to show. You never know..............



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoonra
I doubt that the Democrats will have a presidential primary on March 6th. I don't know of any Dem running against Obama. So far no Dem rival in any of the primaries already held.

I see a lot of silliness and contradictions among the birthers:

1. The claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is fake, notwithstanding the eyewitness examination by FactCheck and the public statements of the directors of the Hawaii Dept of Health and Dept of Vital Records, and of two Governors of Hawaii. And notwithstanding the absence of any solid evidence that he was born elsewhere.

2. The admission that, yes, he was born in Hawaii but with the amateur legal interpretation that somehow he's not a US citizen because of some foreign law that has not been effective in the US since the War of 1812.

Here's the US law: He was born here, therefore he is a natural born US citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of either or both of his parents. If you have any doubts, check out the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur.


Note that it is not necessary to be born in the USA to be a natural born US citizen, though that guarantees it Constitutionally. Congress has the power to regulate citizenship of births outside the territory of the US, which is why McCain was a natural born citizen. (The Senate resolution is nice but has no effect as law).

As long as Obama was born as a US citizen (he was) automatically, and did not take affirmative measures to become naturalized as one (as say Arnold Schwarzenegger did) he is a natural born US citizen.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra
 


This post is NOT about the birth certificate and I truly wish people would stop bringing it up. I started this thread and I am willing to concede that he was born in Hawaii, OK. Next you argument about Chester A Arthur. Your right. He wasnt eligible either but it wasnt discovered till later as he hid the truth.

My question to you and EVERYONE here is this. I do not believe that a person that has held citizenship in a country OTHER THAN the United States AT ANY time in their life should be eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and the nuclear weapons that the President has at his disposal. DO YOU?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Ghost375
 


That's the beauty of the Constitution

....That slimy Republicans in Georgia can use it as tool for their
long failed political witch hunt.


lol u still mad bro. u still mad.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Don't people understand that Obama refused show up because its laughable.


Wow. I never knew that was a valid legal defense for Failure to Appear. I'll keep it in mind, and next time I get subpoenaed I'll just send along a little note telling the court that I decline their invitation on grounds that their silly little court cases are "laughable".

I wonder how far that will get me?





edit on 2012/1/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Except this case doesn't involve any state rights...It involves a single man being able to decide if someone should be on the ballot...
that's besides the point...states shouldn't be able to decide who can be on the ballot, and who can't be. It's a PRESIDENTIAL election, not an election for a state representative. This is a national issue, not a state issue.


The Secretaries of State of all 50 states in the Union have the power to decide who can not be on the ballot. That is their JOB.
That is what they do!



Ya, they act like the all encompassing Fascists of the 1930's European variety.
edit on 26-1-2012 by jacklondonmiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

The court issued a subpoena for Obama to appear, he blew them off and didn't appear. He should be happy that the judge hasn't issued a bench warrant for his arrest yet. They are giving Obama the chance to answer the accusations against him, he has chosen not to answer the accusations.



Post the official court stamped legal subpoena and any other court docs

If this is a real case, real Pacer filing numbers and court docket numbers will have been assigned.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The court did not actually issue a subpoena for the President. Orly Taitz took a blank signed subpoena form and added Obama's name and a laundry list of documents that Obama didn't possess but was supposed to bring.
There is speculation that Taitz may be scolded for misusing the subpoena.

There is a longstanding (back to Jefferson) legal tradition that the President is seldom to be bothered by subpoena, and when it is necessary, things are scheduled for the President's convenience and might be relocated for his convenience, such as closed circuit TV or by videotape deposition. The chances that an administrative court - not even a judicial court - could or would try to force the Prez to drop everything and show up to bolster Taitz's ego is very slim.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Except this case doesn't involve any state rights...It involves a single man being able to decide if someone should be on the ballot...
that's besides the point...states shouldn't be able to decide who can be on the ballot, and who can't be. It's a PRESIDENTIAL election, not an election for a state representative. This is a national issue, not a state issue.


The Secretaries of State of all 50 states in the Union have the power to decide who can not be on the ballot. That is their JOB.
That is what they do!



Ya, they act like the all encompassing Fascists of the 1930's European variety.
edit on 26-1-2012 by jacklondonmiller because: (no reason given)


coughNDAAcough



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


This is a link to a Birther website. The site shows a picture that morphes from President Obama to Malcome X.
Ignorant, uniformed, scare tactic Tea Bagger undilluted crap, folks. The site also questions the President's Educational degrees, it says he has a fake SS#.... I can't believe that people are still buying into this BS.
Ther Republicans and the Tea Baggers are such bad losers. The finally got an intelligent, articulate and very competent opponent with President Obama, and they just can't stand it. They're throwing a hissy-fit 4 years later!
Give it a break...spend that energy by doing volunteer work to help your community





posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Ghost375
 


That's the beauty of the Constitution

....That slimy Republicans in Georgia can use it as tool for their
long failed political witch hunt.


lol u still mad bro. u still mad.


I'm laughing now I am getting into the spirit of 6th grade again, you're gonna be crying
when the commie islamic illegal alien wins his second term.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


What's the error?

Do you have a link to the original pdf?


What do you mean "what's the error"?

And you can Google the PDF format that the White House released. There are multiple links online to it. I don't know if it's been changed or edited by the WH since because I haven't studied it for...what...about 2 years now.

There are tons of articles and video about the original released one.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Really enjoying the frustration of Obama supporters. Power to the STATES!

Except this case doesn't involve any state rights...It involves a single man being able to decide if someone should be on the ballot...
that's besides the point...states shouldn't be able to decide who can be on the ballot, and who can't be. It's a PRESIDENTIAL election, not an election for a state representative. This is a national issue, not a state issue.


The Secretaries of State of all 50 states in the Union have the power to decide who can not be on the ballot. That is their JOB.
That is what they do!



Ya, they act like the all encompassing Fascists of the 1930's European variety.
edit on 26-1-2012 by jacklondonmiller because: (no reason given)


coughNDAAcough


good way to combat it


Make voting the sole determination of a few partisan state officials, what cha gonna do
when your own policies come for your ass, son?

ETA

This same dumbass attitude is exactly why we spent 10 years in Iraq, instant gratification
partisans like the lot of you...
edit on 26-1-2012 by jacklondonmiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


What's the error?

Do you have a link to the original pdf?


What do you mean "what's the error"?

And you can Google the PDF format that the White House released. There are multiple links online to it. I don't know if it's been changed or edited by the WH since because I haven't studied it for...what...about 2 years now.

There are tons of articles and video about the original released one.


What's the "obvious error" you said you found? I'm wondering. Not arguing, just asking.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Shoonra
I doubt that the Democrats will have a presidential primary on March 6th. I don't know of any Dem running against Obama. So far no Dem rival in any of the primaries already held.

I see a lot of silliness and contradictions among the birthers:

1. The claim that the Hawaiian birth certificate is fake, notwithstanding the eyewitness examination by FactCheck and the public statements of the directors of the Hawaii Dept of Health and Dept of Vital Records, and of two Governors of Hawaii. And notwithstanding the absence of any solid evidence that he was born elsewhere.

2. The admission that, yes, he was born in Hawaii but with the amateur legal interpretation that somehow he's not a US citizen because of some foreign law that has not been effective in the US since the War of 1812.

Here's the US law: He was born here, therefore he is a natural born US citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of either or both of his parents. If you have any doubts, check out the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur.


Note that it is not necessary to be born in the USA to be a natural born US citizen, though that guarantees it Constitutionally. Congress has the power to regulate citizenship of births outside the territory of the US, which is why McCain was a natural born citizen. (The Senate resolution is nice but has no effect as law).

As long as Obama was born as a US citizen (he was) automatically, and did not take affirmative measures to become naturalized as one (as say Arnold Schwarzenegger did) he is a natural born US citizen.


No, IT IS necessary to be born in the USA per Minor vs Harpersett definition. Jus Soli is not the constitutional factor of Natural Born citizen. Refer to this document submitted to the Georgia court in this case...www.scribd.com...

and then repost



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 


I guess we should disregard every Secretary of State, huh?

After all, doing their job is now fascism even if someone is found inelegible to be on a state ballot in a court of law.

Let's just take away every state's right to decide for themselves if they don't agree with you, ok? Sounds perfect. # the Constitution, that old thing's garbage anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join