Obama Citation for Contempt of Court- Now Moving Through Judiciary

Actual document:

www.art2superpac.com...

5. Defendant Obama's behavior in failing to comply with Plaintiffs' Notice to. Produce, by appearing for trial with the requested documentary and other evidence demonstrates Defendant's contempt for this Court and for the judiciary generally- OSAB _Rule 616-1-2-,22 (5) provides, in pertinent part, that the Administrative Law Judge, upon application of a party, shall certify the facts to the superior court the county in which a party, agent, or employee of a party: disobeys or resists any lawful order or process; neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed, for a determination of the appropriate action, including a finding of contempt.

7. Plaintiffs hereby request that this Court certify the foregoing facts to the Superior Court of Fulton County for a determination of the appropriate action to be taken with regard to Defendant's contemptuous conduct.

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...

So basically the plaintiffs are requesting certification of facts to present to superior court, seeking a formal citation against Obama and his lawyer. Because neither one of them showed up on Jan 26th.

And they have every right to do so.

Now I want to see the superior court deny the request, because they too, prefer that Obama remain playing golf.



Seriously, they can file all they want to, but I doubt it will get anywhere.

Americans:
If you are ever required to show up at a court- simply refuse, and ignore it. After all, our President is supposed to set the example here for the sheeple to follow. And he just did. So, no problem. The courts and judiciary just don't matter anymore.

And to you Obama supporters- I guess since you support him, you agree too that his failing to appear is ok?



I want to see you argue your way out of THAT one. Cause you're going to lose.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I read "Obama citation for contempt of court" and almost cheered. Almost.

...I just grinned and licked my claws.

TureAmerican, you too could ignore the courts; all you need to do is become POTUS so that you are afforded Executive Privilege.

Originally posted by Muttley2012
TureAmerican, you too could ignore the courts; all you need to do is become POTUS so that you are afforded Executive Privilege.

Oh, does Executive Privilege mean exemption from all laws regarding court proceedings?

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Muttley2012
TureAmerican, you too could ignore the courts; all you need to do is become POTUS so that you are afforded Executive Privilege.

Oh, does Executive Privilege mean exemption from all laws regarding court proceedings?

In the case of witch hunts held in kangaroo courts, yes.

reply to post by Starchild23


think its while he's the president he cant be called to a state court only a federal court to stop states tying the pres in legal problems instead of doing his job

reply to post by Starchild23


Well HE may think it does. But eventually, as this moves up the ladder, if the courts in this country are worth 1 single red penny anymore, they MUST uphold the citation, and take further action to force Obama to produce the required documents.

But it is becoming obvious that he can't produce them. Or else he would have. It's one thing to ignore a bunch of birthers, but it is another to ignore a judge. This is going to get nasty, and I am going to enjoy every single split second of it. If he IS a fraud, it needs to shown.

Frivolous Lawsuit

Frivolous lawsuits are those filed by a party or attorney who is aware they are without merit, because of a lack of supporting legal argument or factual basis for the claims. Frivolous lawsuits waste time, money, and judicial resources, and fines and/or santions may be imposed upon a party or their attorney for filing such a claim.

Frivolous lawsuits may be filed for purposes of harassment or coercion...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But it is becoming obvious that he can't produce them. Or else he would have.

He already did.

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Muttley2012
TureAmerican, you too could ignore the courts; all you need to do is become POTUS so that you are afforded Executive Privilege.

Oh, does Executive Privilege mean exemption from all laws regarding court proceedings?

In the case of witch hunts held in kangaroo courts, yes.

It doesnt matter. EVERYTHING is a witch hunt,with Obama supporters,including "Fast and Furious".

Wonder how he will do pleading the Fifth with Holder?

This President is a Joke.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


NO, he most certainly has NOT produced the documents required by plaintiff. Not in this case he has not.

And the judge didn't think the case was frivolous, now did he.


And besides, the issue here is that they just refused to show up at ALL. The least they could have done, if EP were to be invoked, was to have Obama's lawyer show up on the hearing date, and file documents to that effect. But they didn't even do THAT, making a complete mockery of that court and that Judge.

It's conceivable to me that a group of citizens in each state could sue the president on any number of issues. This would result in a reduce availability to run the country.

I do believe that the president will attempt to use Executive Privilege to block suits like this.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Starchild23

 

If he IS a fraud, it needs to shown.

If by chance he is found to be a fraud. Then we the people had better seize the opportunity that opening that door created for us. This is when we, all in one voice expose the dirty deeds, start pointing fingers at the corruption and take our country back. Otherwise, Obama will just be a sacrificial lamb for the elites and they will continue with their agenda.

reply to post by Starchild23


No but seperation of powers does mean that the President of the United States can not be compelled to act or speak by the Judicial branch. A President can be impeached by congress, not detained, commanded, compelled or otherwise by the Judicial branch. That would make the Judicial branch the rulers of our country.

And just for those that conveniently like to disregard facts...

Orly Taitz downloaded the supeona form from the court website and attempted to serve the President..but he was not directly served, but rather an attorney at one his campaign offices was.

Orly Taitz is also the one asking for the Contempt charge here...

The President is not subject to the unstable demands of Orly Taitz...

And if the Judge had any intent on honoring the supeona that Orly mocked up, he would have made comment during the hearing and he did not.

If the Judge had any intent on finding the President of the United States in contempt for not responding to Orly Taitz's supeona, he would have said the same at the hearing.

I hate to dissapoint the fanatics, but I think you have seen all you are going to see come out of this circus.

reply to post by Skewed


Well you know what REALLY sucks? Is that this issue is already resolved at the top. They get to wait months or years as this makes its way through various courts, only to have it squashed, after all that time, by some high ranking federal judge- already in Obama's back pocket.

In the meantime, pain, plunder, death, and depleted uranium continue to rain down upon the innocent.

This country is a fricken joke anymore. :shk:

Hatfield filed 'proposed findings' like the other attorneys who attended, they are all under review. Why was there a need to make a new thread of this? You could have simply updated the original one you posted?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Seriously, they can file all they want to, but I doubt it will get anywhere.

You're correct there.

Americans:
If you are ever required to show up at a court- simply refuse, and ignore it.

Obama is not legally required to appear in State court. Issues regarding eligibility are specifically left up to that of congress and the electoral college, this is basic constitutional knowledge. It is beyond my ability to understand how birthers can believe that this specific president must always appear in court every time one of them files a grievance of some sort in State courts about his candidacy. You really expect the president of the United States to appear in this court case and many others time and time again? Can you get off your high horse?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


That court and Judge made a mockery of themselves by even allowing the trial to go as far as it did. The Judge should have just flat out refused to hear Orly on the grounds of fraudulent litigation.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Hey SG, how things going? By the way, he does not have to appear, his lawyer does not have to appear. Problem is, this is a state issue, not a federal one. If Obama wants to be on the ballot in the state, he has to satisfy that states requirements as laid out in the Constitution.

Who cares anyway right? Obama don't need those electoral votes anyway.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
MUST uphold the citation, and take further action to force Obama to produce the required documents.

But it is becoming obvious that he can't produce them.

Did you watch the hearing on youtube? You do know that Obama's birth certificate was entered into evidence as proof that his father was Kenyan born? Even some of the birther attorneys who attended the hearing backed away from denying the authenticity of both his birth certificates, they focused instead on his father not being a an american citizen.

So your claim here that the judge will rule in favour of him having to once again prove to birthers his birth on U.S soil, well not only is this unrealistic, but it goes against the arguments of the other attorneys who relied on it's authenticity in the first place.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Obama is not legally required to appear in State court.

Yeah, well that just shows what kind of man this President is. Required or not, this is the first time that the issue has risen far enough, with scrutiny by a judge, for a hearing to be prepared, requiring, at a MINIMUM, his lawyer's presence. But they BOTH just said to that court "F you."

Not the kind of man that will EVER have my respect. I would have produced WHATEVER they wanted, right away, to end this mess a long time ago. But he CAN'T. How about you get off YOUR high horse, and see the damn truth for what it is?

When 10 years down the road we find out that he indeed WAS a fraud, I am going to harbor some very vicious feelings towards a lot of people, and take them to my grave with me.

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
Problem is, this is a state issue, not a federal one. If Obama wants to be on the ballot in the state, he has to satisfy that states requirements as laid out in the Constitution.

It's actually a 'full faith and credit clause' issue:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Joe Arpaio, a birther sympathizer and one of the witnesses summoned to the hearings, had his representitives file a response stating he did not have to appear this hearing in Georgia based on the fact this matter didn't concern Arizona, the state in which he publically serves.