Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

"When somebody submits a copy … the other party has a right to examine the original"

Precisely why Team Kenyan has never shown up in ANY court to face the music and why they will never EVER submit any documentation as 'proof' the way tank's butt lover mashes his mushroom about so publicly on his blog everyday.

Do these Obot morons and their "lawyers" over at Foggyville and Dr. CON "blogging" wasting everyone's time understand this?

Of course not!

Stupid ignorant fucks!! ullhair

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Here's the bottom line:

If the Plaintiff's lose in GA, they will appeal, therefore the original documents are in play.

If Team Kenyan loses, the dumb fuck Obot underwear bloggers assume they will appeal as well.

They will not.

Submitting forged documents is a crime. Appealing means the original documents come into play, which ultimately means discovery, something Team Kenyan led by Jablonski is well aware of.

Team Kenyan will not -- CANNOT! -- allow this to happen. They will sooner walk away and completely ignore any judge in any court (to the befuddlement of the loser Obot underwear bloggers) than risk exposing the "crime of the century".

Sheriff Joe's report is due out any day now.

We are witnessing the final days of the most deceiving presidency in history!

OP:

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

When this all blows up, I expect the ineligible Kenyan to start a major war, or something equally BIG.

Absolutely no way this radical Alinsky Marxist resigns peacefully the way Nixon did.

 

[roscoe]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO

When this all blows up, I expect the ineligible Kenyan to start a major war, or something equally BIG.

Absolutely no way this radical Alinsky Marxist resigns peacefully the way Nixon did.

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

"When somebody submits a copy … the other party has a right to examine the original"

Say's Orly Taitz!!!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
You cannot make this shit up!!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
And birfers believe her!!:LMAO:LMAO
0-96 and this lady has all the answers!!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
Do you see how sad these stupid fucks are??:houra:houra

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

When this all blows up, I expect the ineligible Kenyan to start a major war, or something equally BIG.

Absolutely no way this radical Alinsky Marxist resigns peacefully the way Nixon did.

I'll second that Roscoe!!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
What a joke!!

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Here's the bottom line:

If the Plaintiff's lose in GA, they will appeal, therefore the original documents are in play.

If Team Kenyan loses, the dumb fuck Obot underwear bloggers assume they will appeal as well.

They will not.

Submitting forged documents is a crime. Appealing means the original documents come into play, which ultimately means discovery, something Team Kenyan led by Jablonski is well aware of.

Team Kenyan will not -- CANNOT! -- allow this to happen. They will sooner walk away and completely ignore any judge in any court (to the befuddlement of the loser Obot underwear bloggers) than risk exposing the "crime of the century".

Sheriff Joe's report is due out any day now.

We are witnessing the final days of the most deceiving presidency in history!

OP:

How many stupid pills did you take today??I will not even waste the time with this stupid shit!!Just to damn dumb to waste the effort on this stupid shit.

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

"When somebody submits a copy … the other party has a right to examine the original"

Precisely why Team Kenyan has never shown up in ANY court to face the music and why they will never EVER submit any documentation as 'proof' the way tank's butt lover mashes his mushroom about so publicly on his blog everyday.

Do these Obot morons and their "lawyers" over at Foggyville and Dr. CON "blogging" wasting everyone's time understand this?

Of course not!

Stupid ignorant fucks!! ullhair

Keep showing just how stupid you are!When the state of Hawaii puts it seal on the copy they are saying it is legal and tender!I know you are stupid but what do you not understand about this??Geez you get dumber every day !!I am afraid by Friday you will be below retard level.
What a dumbass.

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Good old Orly!!:LMAO:LMAOYou just cannot make this shit up!
More proof of just how stupid she and her worshipers are!Joe sure does pick some winners huh?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79683398/2012-01-04-ORDER-Denying-Farrar-s-Motion-for-Default

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Here's the bottom line:

If the Plaintiff's lose in GA, they will appeal, therefore the original documents are in play.

If Team Kenyan loses, the dumb fuck Obot underwear bloggers assume they will appeal as well.

They will not.

Submitting forged documents is a crime. Appealing means the original documents come into play, which ultimately means discovery, something Team Kenyan led by Jablonski is well aware of.

Another free educational lesson I will give you.I should start charging your dumbass.
Full Faith and Credit clause found at Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution, which states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Keep showing just how stupid you are!When the state of Hawaii puts it seal on the copy they are saying it is legal and tender!I know you are stupid but what do you not understand about this??Geez you get dumber every day !!I am afraid by Friday you will be below retard level.
What a dumbass.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Full Faith and Credit clause found at Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution, which states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.” [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It's just the Constitution and all but these birfers keep showing just how out of touch and stupid they are when they repeat this stupid shit. [/FONT]

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Another free educational lesson I will give you.I should start charging your dumbass.
Full Faith and Credit clause found at Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution, which states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

The state of Georgia's law???
Georgia rule.24-9-902.
(4) A duplicate of an official record or report or entry therein or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Code section or complying with any law of the United States or of this state, including Code Section 24-9-920;

:LMAO:LMAO

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Full Faith and Credit clause found at Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution...

...extends to state based courts.



(why do I even bother educating these uninformed, unhinged hyenas????) :doh1

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/hrs0338/hrs_0338-0017_0007.htm

Obot underwear bloggers are beyond dumb!

:3dgros13:

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Obot underwear bloggers are beyond dumb!

:3dgros13:

:LMAO:LMAOStupid......it was a HEARING!!:LMAO

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

...extends to state based courts.



(why do I even bother educating these uninformed, unhinged hyenas????) :doh1

:LMAO:LMAOStupid....it was a HEARING!!:LMAO:LMAO

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

The state of Georgia's law???
Georgia rule.24-9-902.
(4) A duplicate of an official record or report or entry therein or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Code section or complying with any law of the United States or of this state, including Code Section 24-9-920;

:LMAO:LMAO

But according to Joe at the HEARING this was invalid!!:shoot:

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Here's the bottom line:

If the Plaintiff's lose in GA, they will appeal, therefore the original documents are in play.

Wrong again stupid.Then it will go to a COURT HEARING.Then the burden of proof is put into Orly's hands and we all know how that will end up.:LMAO

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

If Team Kenyan loses, the dumb fuck Obot underwear bloggers assume they will appeal as well.

They will not.

Appeal to what???They have already met the requirements twice now??

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Good news for Dr CON: if his doctors ever need a stool sample, they need only take a scraping off of tank's nose.

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:houra
[h=1]Illinois ballot challenge, preview of Georgia?[/h]by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2012-02-01T17:58:07-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">FEBRUARY 1, 2012</abbr> in BALLOT CHALLENGES
Embedded below is the agenda for the February 2, 2012 meeting of the Illinois State Board of Elections with recommendations from the Hearing Officer and the General Counsel. These recommendations are in the cases of Freeman v. Obama and Jackson v. Obama, both so-called "birther” challenges.
In the Freeman case, Hearing Officer Jim Tenuto wrote:

A copy of the Candidate’s [long form] birth certificate is attached to the Candidate’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss the Objector’s Petition. The Hearing officer finds that the birth certificate clearly establishes the Candidate’s eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen.”
​

The General Counsel agreed.
In the next case, Jackson submitted an argument similar to that raised in Georgia that a Natural Born Citizen must be born in the United States to two citizen parents. Both the Georgia and Illinois arguments cite the Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett, and both argue against the application of the Supreme Court’s decision inUS v. Wong. Jackson also argues that Barack Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen because he was born with dual citizenship, US and UK.
Obama’s attorney moved to dismiss stating, among other things, that the challenge was based on an incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”
Jackson wrote in his Motion In Opposition to dismissal:

Because Obama was not born to citizen parent(s), assuming he was born in Hawaii, he has to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) to be a “citizen of the United States.” First, that amendment and statute do not provide anyone with the status of a “natural born Citizen,” which status is only obtained by satisfying the American common law definition of the clause as confirmed by Minor v Happersett.
​

In response to this argument, the hearing officer, with concurrence of the General Counsel, while not addressing any part of Jackson’s argument specifically, concluded that the submitted birth certificate clearly makes Obama a natural born citizen.
I’m sure birthers will point to the “Chicago Mafia” or say that Obama got to these officers; however, I think they should consider the possibility that this is the way normal people react to birther claims, and that they may see more of the same in Georgia a few days hence.
Illinois Elections Commission Freeman v Obama and Jackson v Obama agenda and recommendations

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:houra
Illinois ballot challenge, preview of Georgia?

by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2012-02-01T17:58:07-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">FEBRUARY 1, 2012</abbr> in BALLOT CHALLENGES

:cocksuck: :cocksuck:

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Good news for WND: if his doctors ever need a stool sample, they need only take a scraping off of Joe's nose.

Or even Orly's for that matter.Maybe Lawrence Sellin?What about Coach Collins??I know ORYR?Yes, yes!!

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]? 2011 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]:cocksuck:
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
:cocksuck::cocksuck:
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
:cocksuck::cocksuck: :cocksuck:
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
:cocksuck::cocksuck::cocksuck::cocksuck:[SIZE=-1]


[/SIZE]

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:cocksuck: :cocksuck:

Good thing you cannot debunk anything he say's huh?We know but keep acting like you can.:LMAOOh well when this is all you got .........:LMAO:LMAO

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")


:cocksuck::cocksuck:

:cocksuck::cocksuck:

:cocksuck::cocksuck:

:cocksuck::cocksuck:

:cocksuck::cocksuck::cocksuck:
[h=2]Birther Summit[/h]
:cocksuck::cocksuck:

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:houra
Illinois ballot challenge, preview of Georgia?

by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2012-02-01T17:58:07-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">FEBRUARY 1, 2012</abbr> in BALLOT CHALLENGES

In the Freeman case, Hearing Officer Jim Tenuto wrote:

A copy of the Candidate’s [long form] birth certificate is attached to the Candidate’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss the Objector’s Petition. The Hearing officer finds that the birth certificate clearly establishes the Candidate’s eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen.”
​

The General Counsel agreed.

:3dapplaudir::mutley

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

If looks count then yes!!

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[h=1]Orly sums up (adds wrong)[/h]by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2012-02-01T23:09:29-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">FEBRUARY 1, 2012</abbr> in BALLOT CHALLENGES, ORLY TAITZ
Orly Taitz has posted on her web site her 22-page Proposed findings of facts and law in the case of Farrar v. Obama [link to PDF file on Taitz web site].
I?m reading it now wondering if Taitz wrote it herself, and have concluded that she did:

Obama, is so egregious that it warrants forwarding of the evidence and findings of this court to the Attorney General of Georgia for criminal prosecution of Obama for elections fraud, uttering [it?s a legal term] of forged and altered documents, Obstruction of Justice and Social Security fraud. Additionally, the evidence submitted to this court warrants forwarding to the immigration and deportation services of the Department of Homeland Security for criminal prosecution; as well as to the U.S. Congress for impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by Defendant, Obama.
​

That?s from the opening paragraph and I can imagine Judge Malihi reacting negatively to such language. I started cataloging all of the mistakes in English usage and capitalization, but the list got very long very fast so I quit. I note the nonsensical statement on the unnumbered third page that the holding in Haynes v Wells (2000) relied on O?Brien v Gross (2008) which would involve time travel. Certainly Orly?s document could have benefitted from proofreading by an native English-speakingATTORNEY.
Despite saying that she wouldn?t say much about the Constitutional definition of ?natural born citizen,? Taitz spends about 5 of her 22 pages on it including the misnamed ?Kim Ark? case. This is cool: Kim Ark is not controlling because it was not a unanimous decision. Yep, 2 dissents. Throw in the ?mystery? of Chester A. Arthur. She cites the Federalist Papers as a source for the John Jay letter! Oh and, ?Obama still did not qualify as a natural born due to lack of ? a valid social security number?.
Is this racist?

It is possible, that an image on a mug constitutes a prima facia [sic] evidence in Mombasa, Kenya, maybe an image on a T-shirt represents a competent, admissible evidence in Jakarta, Indonesia, however in the United States of America, where we hopefully retained a rule of law, an image on mugs and T-shirts represents neither prima facia [sic] evidence, nor competent, admissible evidence.
​

Even if it?s not racist, it?s surely a comma splice and even I know how to spell prima facie.
I?ve only scratched the surface of the mess that is Taitz?s Proposed findings of facts and law, but I leave you with my favorite quote:

Defendant?s behavior shows guilty mind
​

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

but I leave you with my favorite quote:

Defendant’s behavior shows guilty mind
​

:LMAO:LMAO:lol:mutley:whino::dancefool:3dmdr::3dmdr:

And this is Joe's Queen!!

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:LMAO:LMAO:lol:mutley:whino::dancefool:3dmdr::3dmdr:

And this is Joe's Queen!!

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/obama_got_served.html

February 1, 2012
Obama Got Served

Cindy Simpson

Obama was served a subpoena to appear in a hearing last week in Georgia over his eligibility to appear on the state's ballot. Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, immediately filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which was denied by OSAH Judge Michael Malihi. In his denial, Judge Malihi seemed to leave open the possibility for a quash, if Jablonski had only offered appropriate legal authority in support. The judge asserted that "Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority."

Instead of respectfully following procedure, however, Jablonski went over the judge's head and straight to Secretary of State Brian Kemp with a letter, sent the day before the hearings were scheduled, arguing that the entire matter should be dropped as it was "baseless, costly and unproductive[.]" Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."

Kemp responded that his office lacked authority under Georgia law to suspend the hearings, and warned Jablonski that "if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26[SUP]th[/SUP] was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.

The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.

Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi. Irion asserts that "... Defendant Obama willfully defied this Court's order to appear and testify[,]" and his "actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers between the branches of government." Irion argued that "uch a declaration cannot go without response from this Court" and moved that the Court refer the "matter to the Superior Court of Fulton County for confirmation that the Defendant violated Administrative Rules of Procedure ... and to determine appropriate sanctions."

Now, will we get the opportunity to debate the meaning of "subpoena" -- or whether the law even applies to this president?

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26[SUP]th[/SUP]was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

Even the mainstream media isn't stupid enough to defend the ineligible fraud anymore.

op:

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

<header class="story-header" style="margin-top: 12px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 7px; padding-bottom: 24px; padding-left: 12px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tiimes, 'New Times Roman', serif; line-height: 19px; "><hgroup style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; ">CITE OBAMA WITH CONTEMPT, LAWYERS URGE

Refusal to follow subpoena 'no less than declaration of total dictatorial authority'

<time datetime="2012-02-02T14:44:31+00:00" pubdate="" class="updated" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(130, 178, 220); ">Published: 12 hours ago</time></hgroup><fig class="author-img" style="max-width: 70px; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 5px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; max-height: 80px; height: 90px; "> </fig>by BOB UNRUH Email | ArchiveBob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.
</header>

A Georgia resident contending Barack Obama is ineligible for the state?s 2012 presidential election ballot is asking that a court cite him with contempt.

In a motion filed in the case pending before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi, attorney Van Irion, representing David P. Weldon, urged the court not to overlook the fact that Obama had been subpoenaed for last week?s hearing. Obama?s attorney, he pointed out, acknowledged the subpoena by asking that it be quashed. But when the judge refused his request, he but told a state elections official he would not participate.

?Plaintiff Weldon moves this court to refer an order for contempt to the Superior Court for confirmation that defendant Obama is in contempt of court,? the motions says. ?Grounds for this motion are that defendant Obama willfully defied this court?s order to appear and testify during this court?s hearing of January 26.?

The motion explains that when Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, ?requested that the Secretary of State [Brian Kemp] halt the proceedings. ? The letter ended with a statement that the defendant and his attorney would suspend all further participation in the proceedings of this court pending response.?

But after Kemp confirmed later that day that the hearing would continue and said that failing to participate ?would be at the defendant?s peril,? Obama and his lawyer still refused to attend.

The letter from Obama?s lawyer to the state official, ?coupled with the defendant?s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law,? the motion says. ?The ? actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.?

Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is ?unprecedented,? Irion writes. ?While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. ? In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. ? When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.?

Obama?s action, he says, ?amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant?s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.?

Irion, representing Weldon, and several other attorneys argued before Malihi last week to have Obama?s name stricken from the Georgia state ballot.

The hearing was held on concerns raised by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state?s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.

The state law requires ?every candidate for federal? office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy ?shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.?

State law also grants the secretary of state and any ?elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate? in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate?s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

The controversy over Obama?s eligibility dates to before his election in 2008. Some contend he was not born in Hawaii and that the birth documentation the White House released in April is a forgery.

Others say it doesn?t matter where he was born, as his father never was a U.S. citizen.

The Constitution requires presidents to be ?natural-born citizens,? and experts say that the Founders regarded it as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Jablonski had asked Malihi to quash the subpoena, requested by Taitz. When the judge refused, Jablonski wrote to Kemp.

The attorney told Kemp that ?serious problems? had developed in the hearings ?pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.?

Jablonski said, ?At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.?

He said the judge had ?exercised no control? over the proceeding.

?It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,? Jablonski wrote.

Kemp said the hearing, however, was in line with Georgia law, and he would be reviewing Malihi?s recommendations in the case.

He also had a warning about the cost of not showing up for a court hearing.

?Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.?

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a ?natural-born citizen? is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation?s archives that addresses the definition of ?natural-born citizen.?

That case states: ?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.?

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

??Natural born citizen? in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,? he said. ?Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.?

If you ?go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require ? that?s precisely what a natural born citizen is ?. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,? he said.

?Now what we?ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama?s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn?t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.?

In an extensive proposal regarding what the judge?s determination should include, Irion wrote that because of Obama?s failure to meet the understood meaning of ?natural born citizen,? and the fact he ?presented no argument on the substance of the issue at hand,? he should be determined to be ineligible.

Irion?s proposal said Obama should have had the entire burden of proof in the case, because ?the Supreme Court of Georgia has clearly established that it is the affirmative obligation of a candidate to establish his qualifications for office, and that the burden is not upon the challenger.?

His suggestions said while the Democratic Party of Georgia has a right to determine its membership, that right coexists with the state?s right to govern.

?The party is free to submit any name as their next presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots where such candidates are clearly not qualified to hold the office sought.?

He also pointed out that voters do not have the authority to waive constitutional requirements.

?Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority?s desire to violate them. Without such protections, any law could be enacted simply because it becomes popular. ?. Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be.

?Defendant?s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution runs contrary to the Constitution.?

In Taitz? proposal to the judge, she raised concerns about elections fraud, evidence of forgery in the birth certificate image, Social Security fraud and the use of multiple last names.

?Plaintiffs assert that based on law and fact, Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot in the state of Georgia as a presidential candidate and such finding should be forwarded to the secretary of state of Georgia,? she wrote.

She said the contempt ?exhibited by the defendant ? is so egregious that it warrants forwarding of the evidence and findings ? to the attorney general of Georgia for criminal prosecution.?

?It is common knowledge and described at length in defendant Obama?s memoirs, such as ?Dreams from my Father,? that Obama?s father was a foreigner. Obama senior was a foreign exchange student who resided in the U.S. for a couple of years while he got his education and he returned to his native Kenya. At the time of Obama?s birth, his father, who came from Mombasa, Zanzibar region of Kenya, was a British ?protected person?. Obama automatically inherited his father?s British citizenship upon the British Nationality act of 1948. Upon the declaration of the independence of Kenya on December 11, 1963, Barack Obama automatically received his Kenyan citizenship on December 12, 1963.?

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

"... Defendant Obama willfully defied this Court's order to appear and testify[,]"

:LMAO:LMAOThe brain dead idiots just do not get it!!It was a HEARING and no court ordered the subpoena!!If that was true then don't you think Sheriff Joe would be in handcuffs by now too?:LMAO:LMAO
You keep regurgitating the same old idiotic lies and stupid shit that only a brain dead birfer would believe.Do you honestly think that by repeating it over and over will make it true??Quit wasting my time with your stupid shit.The last 3 pages are your idiotic ramblings that are nothing but lies and bullshit.I understand that is all you have but quit wasting bandwidth thinking someone will actually buy this shit.

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

<header class="story-header" style="margin-top: 12px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 7px; padding-bottom: 24px; padding-left: 12px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tiimes, 'New Times Roman', serif; line-height: 19px; "><hgroup style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; ">CITE OBAMA WITH CONTEMPT, LAWYERS URGE

Refusal to follow subpoena 'no less than declaration of total dictatorial authority'

<time datetime="2012-02-02T14:44:31+00:00" pubdate="" class="updated" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(130, 178, 220); ">Published: 12 hours ago</time></hgroup><fig class="author-img" style="max-width: 70px; display: block; float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 5px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; max-height: 80px; height: 90px; "> </fig>by BOB UNRUH Email | ArchiveBob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes .”</header>

See!!!The same old idiotic shit wasting space!!Bring something new to the table so I can make you look stupid with some new material.Do you have tourett syndrome??You babble the same old stupid shit at an alarming rate.My God you are hopeless!!

 

[Joe Contrarian]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Doug Vogt's Mega Neutron Bomb On Obama's Eligibility

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO

[h=1]Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate[/h][h=2][/h]

• ShareThis
• Print
• E-mail

By Bill Rankin

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
President Barack Obama?s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.
Enlarge photo

Susan Walsh, AP​

A Georgia judge rejected a "birther" challenge that claimed President Barack Obama was ineligible for the Georgia ballot.


[h=3][/h]

[h=3][/h]

• [h=5][/h]

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth.
The findings by Malihi, a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination. Last month, at a hearing boycotted by Obama's lawyer, Malihi considered complaints brought by members of the so-called "birther" movement.
With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification papers, Malihi said he found the evidence "unsatisfactory" and "insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."
A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation and "none ... provided persuasive testimony," Malihi wrote.
Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.
Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen," Malihi wrote. Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.
Even though Malihi ruled in Obama's favor, he expressed displeasure that the president's lawyer, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta, refused to attend the recent hearing.
"By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski," Malihi wrote. "This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing."

​

 

[tank]

Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO

Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

• ShareThis
• Print
• E-mail

By Bill Rankin

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.

Susan Walsh, AP​

A Georgia judge rejected a "birther" challenge that claimed President Barack Obama was ineligible for the Georgia ballot.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth.
The findings by Malihi, a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination. Last month, at a hearing boycotted by Obama's lawyer, Malihi considered complaints brought by members of the so-called "birther" movement.
With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification papers, Malihi said he found the evidence "unsatisfactory" and "insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."
A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation and "none ... provided persuasive testimony," Malihi wrote.
Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.
Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen," Malihi wrote. Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.
Even though Malihi ruled in Obama's favor, he expressed displeasure that the president's lawyer, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta, refused to attend the recent hearing.
"By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski," Malihi wrote. "This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing."

​

0-97!!!!!!:LMAO