Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well then, WHO in this country would have standing? According to the courts...NO ONE.
A candidate . That's what's happening in Georgia. However, the candidate should have filed in a state where the votes would have matter; say a Blue state, where Obama would have won the ticket?
No, instead we have a pretend candidate, who files in a state that Obama would never have won.
it isn't march yet. And the absentee and mail in ballots have already been printed. So is Georgia going to now throw all of those ballots out?
Of course not. The decision is non-binding.
And if the SoS does remove him (yeah, not going to happen), that means he's in for a world of hurt on the federal level. I don't think the GA SoS will want to sacrifice what little credibility GA has now to entertain birthers.
“Citing Haynes v. Wells, Hatfield said the entire burden of proof is placed upon defendant “to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office,” and stated, “Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell are not required, and should not be required, ‘to disprove anything regarding [Defendant Obama’s] eligibility to run for office …’” “
Referring to Jablonski’s argument in his motion to quash in Taitz’s challenge, Hatfield said he seemed “to somehow be contending that the fact defendant Obama currently occupies the presidency is, in itself, evidence of defendant Obama’s constitutional eligibility to that office.”
“On the contrary,” wrote Hatfield, citing Malone v. Minchew, “there is [no] presumption, at least not a conclusive presumption, that a person named or appointed to an office ... was eligible and qualified to hold the office. Such qualification or eligibility depends upon facts which, when challenged and drawn in question in a proper judicial proceeding, is a judicial question to be determined by the courts.”
In his letter he ignores the other 2 attorneys, but is pretty much saying 'I am afraid of Orly'.
He is asking the Secretary of State of GA to take the trial away from the judge on the eve of the trial. He is mostly crying on the shoulder of the Secretary of State of GA and saying that Orly is bad, because she issued all of those subpoenas.
Does this look like a behavior of an innocent person? An innocent person would have come to court and showed all the valid documents with the embossed seals, which are verifiable. Instead he is acting like a 5 year old brat, saying “I am afraid of Orly.
Interjection of point to ponder...
Since the court has accepted into the public record, numerous affidavits testifying to irregularities in BHO's status, and said affidavits are made UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, why won't BHO just present his credentials and thus refute those affidavits.
It would be an automatic sanction for PERJURY if he can refute their affidavits.
Slam dunk.
Case closed.
All those so-called "Birthers" (or your favorite epithet here) are going to the iron bar hotel for a felony....
Instead, BHO refuses to rebut those affidavits nor produce the original credentials ordered by said court.
If BHO is innocent, he is behaving quite oddly.
If BHO is guilty, we are facing a crisis that won't end well, no matter what.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
