Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Capt. Tom

There is something strange about this ruling and even perhaps the judge. For one thing the ruling as posted does not recognize any parentage at all. For another thing that a judge would make a decision based on SC of Indiana when there was evidence presented to the contrary on another higher USA court decision in conflict shows prejudice/preference . Another thing is that these kind of decisions appear to be orchestrated after a display of court fairness i.e. Carter and and the one in Washington. Something is going on that is way beyond and above the people of the USA whether that is money or fear or something else is crucial to the future of the USA. I found it interesting that this evening on Hannity Trump spoke out that there is so much unknown about Obama


392 posted on 02/03/2012 9:57:13 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: noinfringers2
There is something strange about this ruling and even perhaps the judge. For one thing the ruling as posted does not recognize any parentage at all. For another thing that a judge would make a decision based on SC of Indiana when there was evidence presented to the contrary on another higher USA court decision in conflict shows prejudice/preference . Another thing is that these kind of decisions appear to be orchestrated after a display of court fairness i.e. Carter and and the one in Washington. Something is going on that is way beyond and above the people of the USA whether that is money or fear or something else is crucial to the future of the USA. I found it interesting that this evening on Hannity Trump spoke out that there is so much unknown about Obama.

There are a lot of strange things about this ruling. The judge admits he was going to issue a default ruling, but changed his mind for the plaintiffs to present their cases, EXCEPT that they were put on leashes and given time limits. Also, it appears that the plaintiffs thought they were entering facts into the legal record and not necessarily arguing against the judge's biases. For example, who knew the judge was going to cite a 2008 appeals court as legal precedent, when it didn't prove nor even claim Obama was born in Hawaii and it didn't declare him to be a natural-born citizen. Further, the judge said he "considered" that Obama was born in Hawaii, but gives no basis for why it was considered. As the ALJ, he's supposed to present "Findings of Fact" and a consideration is not a proven fact. He dismisses Orly's experts for not establishing their expertise, yet they weren't given time. He says the PI didn't explain her methods and techniques ... and again, she wasn't given the time.

The plaintiffs didn't want this to go to a default judgment where it could be turned over on an appeal without a chance to argue against it, but they were screwed by a bait and switch move by the judge. I would hope the plaintiffs can explain this to the SoS. He could deny the conclusions of the ALJ if he feels it wasn't given a fair shake.

409 posted on 02/03/2012 10:54:03 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson