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: 23
122
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I don't understand why some people keep flaming Orly Taitz.
She might not be the best lawyer you have seen but she as done some pretty good research imo.
And she was the one who dig up the supposedly fraudulent social security number , that alone can get the president in a lot of trouble...
edit on 26-1-2012 by _SilentAssassin_ because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
 


She may have done some great work in the legal field, but her work on the birther issue has been very discrediting to her reputation.

Of course, that just my personal opinion.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   


TextCould you imagine the Chaos if just 20% of Americans refused to file taxes?
reply to post by SkyMuerte
 


That would be golden!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


He is not being sued as President and this case is not a criminal one. He's being sued as candidate wanting to get on the ballot because there are questions about his eligibility to be on the ballot. It's a civil law suit.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
I don't understand why some people keep flaming Orly Taitz.
She might not be the best lawyer you have seen but she as done some pretty good research imo.



Sometimes when you are so obsessed - - it makes you blind.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Minor VS Happersett =


“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners


This court case sets a precident for what is and what is not a natural born citizen. Considering the courts opinion Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore NOT eligible to be POTUS. Minor VS Happersett is VERY relevant and important to the continuations of the rights and freedoms set down by the framers. IT IS NOT FRIVILOUS



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrlqban
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


He is not being sued as President and this case is not a criminal one. He's being sued as candidate wanting to get on the ballot because there are questions about his eligibility to be on the ballot. It's a civil law suit.


this is true, but his lawyers will claim he is doing official presidential duties and cannot go to court for this ridiculous claim. So then the court will have no choice but to go along with the U.S> supreme court ruling of his immunities. His lawyers aren't stupid...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyMuerte
Been to Georgia lately? It is a backwoods, redneck, hillbilly loser kind of state.

What a great way to speak of your fellow Americans.
A court ruling on a technicality causes you to look down your nose on hundreds of thousands of people you do not know and ridicule them.

Kudos to you.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 




They also presented some of the ridiculous birther stuff (photoshopped BC and forged SSC). Obama will be on the ballot and win easily, imo.


Yes, it seems that two of the three lawyers are making the claim that the Judge offers a default judgement since Jablonski didn't show up and they refused, saying they wanted their 'evidence' on record. So...

The "Vattelists" immediately entered a print of the PDF image of both Birth Certificate formats (the standard form from 2007 and the non-standard form from 2011) and stipulated that it was a true copy of the actual Birth Record and that the information on them was correct. Then they left the hearing en mass, apparently not even interested enough in their own pet project to see how it turned out.

The "Orlyites" then brought up the irrelevant SSN issue and Orly succeeded in getting her own witness to incriminate herself on the stand by admitting that she had accessed a Social Security Administration site under false pretenses (which is illegal by the way). This lady is likely to find herself in hot water.

Orly then went on to assert that the PDF images were suspect, despite the fact that they had already been entered into evidence with no objections as true and faithful. It is interesting to notice that Orly never mentioned the actual paper documents or whether the information on the PDF was the same as the paper document. As an aside, I have it on good authority that the Georgia SoS now has in his possession an officially certified hard copy of the Obama Birth Certificate, hand delivered to him in person. My understanding comes to be 3rd or 4th hand, so it is only strong rumor, but that rumor has more going for it than the crap that the OP has parroted.

Orly also tried to show a video with an image of an Indonesian kindergarten registration document that listed Obama's birth place as Hawai'i (the Judge said no thanks), another witness had a presentation that he wouldn't show the judge, just the 'audience' who couldn't read the writing because it was too small, and at one point, Ory herself took the stand was sworn in, and proceeded to depose herself! One of the all time great Orly performances.

All in all, not a successful day for the anti-Constitutionalists, despite their cock-a-doodle-dooing.


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



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Minor VS Happersett =


“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners


This court case sets a precident for what is and what is not a natural born citizen. Considering the courts opinion Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore NOT eligible to be POTUS. Minor VS Happersett is VERY relevant and important to the continuations of the rights and freedoms set down by the framers. IT IS NOT FRIVILOUS


Neither was McCain.

That was easily remedied.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
I don't understand why some people keep flaming Orly Taitz.
She might not be the best lawyer you have seen but she as done some pretty good research imo.


edit on 26-1-2012 by _SilentAssassin_ because: (no reason given)


The only thing is that her incompetence in court is a smoke screen to the real Constitutional issues we are facing with an ineligible President. Otherwise, she has fought hard, can't deny that.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


What was his lawyers excuse for not showing up?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


McCain was born of TWO United States citizens on US Government property. Natural born citizen.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 



who knows....They obviously have weighed out the matter and don't care about it..Even if the judge was to rule he can't be on the primary..Who cares..he is the only democrat anyways on the general ballot, so the primary doesn't matter.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
time for the debate be back later



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Hypothetically if this case goes the distance and the SOS rules that Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot, does this set some precedent that other States can argue or follow suit with?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Going back to the title and first message of this thread:

No, the judge has NOT ruled. I am sure that when the judge makes his decision, someone will post a pdf of the genuine article.

In the meantime, everyone is simply speculating and I expect a great many will be eating crow.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


I don't know, but it will definitely raise some eyebrows.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 
This is good news in the right direction as far as I am concerned and while I am at it:

Another reason I support Ron Paul:



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Hypothetically if this case goes the distance and the SOS rules that Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot, does this set some precedent that other States can argue or follow suit with?



If there was a ruling/default judgment since Obama didn't show then....

Obama's attorney will have to untangle the "Default Judgment" mess, because if this is the case then everything in the complaint is valid, since it was uncontested.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join