Posted on 08/31/2010 10:19:15 AM PDT by butterdezillion
I'll post the whole thing on the first response so the links will be clickable. This is an example of (probably criminal) journalistic malpractice by The Hutch News - an example of how the media behaves on almost every issue including the eligibility issue. I explain why I believe the media ignores our factual corrections at its own peril.
I believe this is what we need to be saying to the media whenever we find deliberate deception.
Not the kind of case where a private attorney general remedy works.
Further, what no one still seems to get is that to address this issue in the private litigation setting is going to require enormous effort just to get in the door.
And the real relief you are looking for is judicial sanction for discovery that proves your position. Which discovery in turn is likely to be a large and expensive undertaking.
Among other things, you will need a number of lawyers--not just one. Look at your adversary--Bauer has a large international law firm at his disposal with several senior partners directing work by a number of second and third level attorneys. In order to contest him, you will need the same kind of personnel and horsepower.
I will say that the Supreme Court appointments open a new avenue of possible challenge. A Supreme Court Justice must be appointed by a "President". So any litigant before the court would have a position from which to challenge the ability of these two ladies he has apponted to sit on a panel.
When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.
Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case--then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified.
Or maybe you have a client who lost below on a case where the ladies are on the side of the prevailing party. You move to exclude them from the panel.
But all of this is going to take real legal support.
Bump - for later read.
In this instatnt case I think the candidate who is not supported could sue for defamation or fraud and his damages are lost endorsement and possibly lost election based on misinformation tp voters. The fact that it is on an opinion page does IMO give the paper more leeway..but they should at least allow for the candidate to make a rebuttal...
I myself am sick of all the lies and false promises by candidates who after election turn 180 degrees-(mcamnesty come to mind? Obama?) we the people need a method and means to call them on their bullcrap without having to wait till the next election when memories sometimes fade...now that would be real campaign reform....
When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.
Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case--then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified. "
Wouldn't the all elusive "standing" need to be found in order to get to discovery in order to determine the claim that they (Barry's SCOTUS picks) are not qualified? That brings the issue right back to where we are now. No?
Have you been in contact with or sent your info to Issa?
Everyone who is afraid of doing something to resist should consider this:
“Some people believe that armed citizens don’t stand a chance against an army, especially one as powerful as USA. This is the BS lie all governments around the world want you to believe, but the reality is very different.
If every block in the country, USA for example, has a dozen men with fire arms, the one that doesn’t stand a chance is the military force. It’s the perfect guerrilla setup, and a general’s worst nightmare.
You can’t nuke or level every block. You can’t arrest the entire country. The “fighters” are already armed, fed, spread out, integrated and infiltrated into the military and government branches. It’s impossible to win.”
Fernando Ferfal Aguirre (SURVIVING THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE )
This is ‘our big stick’- one we don’t even have to use. If we the people would realize this before they starve us, poison us or pauper us out of our homes, maybe more Americans would have the courage to get off their duffs (and be more like butterdezillion).
I am sick of all the lies and false promises by the Parties themselves. The GOP knowingly put McLame against Hussein knowing that BOTH has serious eligibility questions. One would have thought that after Obama and Hillary smoozed over McLame’s NBC, I was waiting for the GOP to slap Hussein with a congressional inquiry but that didn’t happen because they were in on it all along. The GOP didn’t want this election and had McLame stumping for Hussein’s campaign the entire time. Just look at how they treated Sarah. Then we were told we didn’t have to be afraid of Hussein. Yep, it was all there but the sheeple never saw it and the media did a masterful job of covering it up.
You go, girl! Keep at it. America needs citizens like you.
Completely agree. The GOP knew exactly where the country was heading economically, dismal employment outlook, etc and with the growing threat of Iran and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...they truly didn't want this rotation and the fact that they "promoted" a weak candidate like McAmnesty (aside from the military hero he is) with his own eligibility issues (as you mention) is the proof, IMO, they wanted nothing to do with being in a position of power at this time. I'm thankful for the "fresh blood" of the T.E.A. party groups and all those that have participated in the town halls protests.
In other words, the “GOP” is pretty stale and weak at the moment. Time for some true conservative, Constitutional patriots.
There fixed it. The issue isn't that a false statement is made by the media.....the issue is that the media will not retract statements that are PROVEN to be false. Think Dan Rather here if you have to......
Now you go back and contemplate Washington's farewell address where he specially WARNS this nation about partisanship, party loyalty, and the destruction of freedom. Contemplate also what it means when one political party hijacks the media for use as a propaganda arm and censors/suppresses any opposing viewpoints that it can get away with including lies and deceit. How does that promote the 1st amendment? Really??? How does it???
Some of you people just can't grasp what is going on apparently.
Thanks for the reply.
The fact is that NO ONE did their job in vetting Obastard. Congress simply ignored the issue of his citizenship for fear of being called racists. The media and the Rats ignored it because they didn’t care where Obastard was born because he hated the US as much as them.
Proven by who? By whose standard of evidence?
Do you grasp that you are proposing a truly drastic increase in government oversight of the media?
What makes you think that will serve your ends as opposed to being another tool for established power to maintain that power?
What standard of evidence do you need to know that the Hawaii Secretary of State did not release Obama’s birth certificate?? Do you think that was a true statement??
Not the kind of case where a private attorney general remedy works.
Further, what no one still seems to get is that to address this issue in the private litigation setting is going to require enormous effort just to get in the door.
And the real relief you are looking for is judicial sanction for discovery that proves your position. Which discovery in turn is likely to be a large and expensive undertaking.
Among other things, you will need a number of lawyers—not just one. Look at your adversary—Bauer has a large international law firm at his disposal with several senior partners directing work by a number of second and third level attorneys. In order to contest him, you will need the same kind of personnel and horsepower.
I will say that the Supreme Court appointments open a new avenue of possible challenge. A Supreme Court Justice must be appointed by a “President”. So any litigant before the court would have a position from which to challenge the ability of these two ladies he has apponted to sit on a panel.
When you get to the Supreme Court, your client party wants you to look carefully at where the individual justices come down on his issue. So you are looking for a client on the opposite side.
Certiorari is granted on a vote of four Justices. So maybe you have a client who prevailed on a lower appellate court decision where the two ladies were two of the four votes to hear the case—then you move to strike the writ on the grounds they are not qualified.
Or maybe you have a client who lost below on a case where the ladies are on the side of the prevailing party. You move to exclude them from the panel.
But all of this is going to take real legal support.
Since the founding of the republic 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate has rejected twelve, taken no action on five, and postponed votes on three. The President has withdrawn his nomination on eight occasions. Seven others have declined the nomination.
“Do you think that was a true statement??”
I do not believe it to be a true statement.
Standard of evidence? That’s laughable. You mean LACK of evidence. What standard of evidence was used to show Dan Rather was using a forged document presented as factual? You tell me.
And what makes you think that continuing to post your ‘the use of propaganda should be protected BS’ isn’t the REAL tool here for maintaining establishment power?
You have to be a statist to seriously be posting what you have posted.
Well, we shall see how things go.
Butterdezillion - Just turned my computer on, can’t sit here for more than a minute, so haven’t seen if this is on FR:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ent-142967590/ KUHNER: President’s socialist takeover must be stopped
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela’s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.
snip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.