Posted on 01/26/2012 12:06:03 PM PST by Red Steel
The AJC is lying in order to present a prejudicial narrative to the populace. It is what they do.
And if Orly didn’t get all the other crap out there there would have been one question and one question only! Then the AJC would only have one question to report on.....
I would agree with you that Orly needed only to submit that he could not be a NBC because his stated parents were not both U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth (or ever).
BTT!
Thanks, Red Steel. This is interesting.
I still appreciate that Ms. Taitz did finally manage to get the doubts about Obama’s birth documentation and SS# into the official record.
I am sure that is correct. There was default decision. There was trial so evidence was exchanged between plaintiff and defendant. So I don’t see anything as being “on the record” so to speak. keep in mind that was an administrative hearing and the this “court” is a function of the executive branch and not the judicial branch of GA government.
Sorry for the typo but it should read “I am NOT sure that is correct”
I hate to quibble over small points. This sounds like a Clintonean debate on the meaning of the word “is”. On appeal judges have a long history of ruling however they want and making judgments that are often based on “evidence” never presented in trial. So it is certainly not over, but to me it looks like the impenetrable fortress built by Obama's team of lawyers is showing a few cracks.
There will be no appeal. An executive decision is not subject to judicial review. The administrative “court” is an executive function not a judicial function. The SoS’s affirmation of the administrations initial decision is an executive decision. This is not a judicial matter.
“There will be no appeal. An executive decision is not subject to judicial review.”
I think that I understand the point that you are trying to make. However, I think that you partially mistaken or splitting hairs. I believe the administrative court’s ruling and the Georgia’s Attorney General’s response to it can be contested in Superior Court or possibly a Federal Court depending on the arguments although technically this action would not be considered an “appeal” per se. Since the goal of Obama’s team of lawyers has thus far been to keep these questions out of the court system you may be correct that there will be no “appeal”.
Absolutely correct. The Secretary of State in any state has the power to remove a candidate from a ballot pending production of that candidate's bona fides. Said candidate can either satisfy the SOS by presenting evidence directly to him, or by suing the SOS (the state) to be placed on the ballot, presenting the evidence of qualification in court.
What the Georgia SOS needs now is nerve; courage; cojones. Just take the the illegitimate SOB off and be done with it. Make him sue. Make the courts tell us what a "Natural Born Citizen" is. As huntin' and shootin' Americans we have the God-given right to know whether or not we are crazy, or whether Obama is illegitimately in office.
That is the job of the courts. In the meantime, the SOS doesn't need a court to take the SOB off the ballot, so take him off and let's go hunting.
SSay, I hate to be a PITA, but does anyone have a PLAN, A PROGRAM, A LEADER to implement them, and THE ABILITY to communicate that to me, about how we are going to save the country, which is heading for a big rock faster than an Italian Ocean Liner?
The judge is an administrative law judge and apparently he issues not a ruling in this type of case, but a "recommendation" and then, the final decision as to whether Obama's name appears on the ballot rests with the Secretary of State.
The judge does not issue any true ruling that is binding on anybody and it's the Secretary of State who is subject to the political pressure involved regardless of what the judge does recommend.
Further, the failure to appear does not automatically result in a default judgement, the judge can still rule on "the facts" as he sees them, not necessarily default to ruling in the plaintiff's favor because the defendant failed to appear.
I am suspecting this one also will be swept aside without a true ruling on the merits of the case. But I hope I'm wrong
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.