Obama argues against appearing at eligibility hearing (says GA has NO role in eligibility)

World Net Daily ^ | January 18, 2012 | Bob Unruh

[Seizethecarp]

Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

[exit82]

All good points.

Obama is only fifty years old and he is a cipher.

We know more about people who lived 250 years ago, than we know about him.

The dam has to break at some point, and when it does, his whole constructed life will come apart.

[edge919]

As for No. 4, that puts Obama in a brand new position, and if this thing stretches out for years by him trying to fight to be eligible ... well, he’s young enough he can try to run again in 2016, 2020, 2024, etc.

[SteveH]

Just to add (as I have little doubt you are already aware) that denizen has multiple meanings among civilians, but Black's Law Dictionary (7th edition) reads as follows:

denizen 1. A person given certain rights in a foreign nation or living habitually in a foreign nation. 2 English law A person who holds a position midway between being an alien and a natural-born or naturalized subject.

Methinks Hatfield is being badass indeed in his letter/motion, and I have every confidence that this choice of wording has the full attention of Mahili, Jablonski, and even Obama. Allegorically, this is probably as close to "circling in for the kill" on the Discovery Channel as it gets in the court system.

Having stated that, Kenny Bunk seems correct that this is the first of several steps. One could speculate that if Obama won't provide documentation that he has in his possession that he is qualified for the office he currently holds, it is prima facie evidence of mental incompetence and he should be immediately replaced per the XXV Amendment. IMHO only a traitor or an insane person would drag the country kicking and screaming through a SCOTUS hearing because of the Constitutional crisis it would herald if the imminent decision were to go against Obama. If so, someone (someone very powerful, no doubt) will have a quiet chat with Obama about ALL of the potential consequences of throwing the civilized world and financial markets into confusion and doubt, and be invited to resign. Markets hate uncertainty, and Obama has been dishing it out ever since he took office. One way... or another... the problem will be solved, perhaps more quickly than the legal world is ordinarily geared to expect.

[Red Steel]

Obama probably believes he will be crowned king by then.

Then again, I hear Obama is eligible to be President of Kenya.

[edge919]

Steve, I like your style. The “mental incompetence” thing is funny as hell. Great comment. All the while, Newt is gathering momentum. Maybe Obama should be considering a 3 a.m. phone call to Hillary to get ready to take over for him.

[Red Steel]

Fourth: That is the BEGINNING of the legal show, not the end. Because it is at this stage that Team Obama will have to bring suit ... as a PLAINTIFF.

Yes, and it would be OBummer vs. the State of Georgia. ;-)

[Red Steel]

...unto such our Loving subjects, natural born, denizens or others that shall be willing to become our subjects, and live under our allegiance in the said colony, upon such terms ...

I was wondering when someone would notice that nice word "denizen" by Hatfield.

Nice term. ;-)

[LucyT]

Check out # 171 , 182 , 185.

Thanks Seizethecarp.

[edge919]

I was wondering when someone would notice that nice word "denizen" by Hatfield.

It's a brilliant play IMO, and especially, as I was saying, coupled with Georgia legal history. I had discovered that section in the state's charter, I think, a couple of years ago, so it's great if it can now come into play to help disprove the common law/14th amendment = NBC canard.

[bushpilot1]

I have lots of stuff on a denizen..

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

“My Knowledge of Japanese extends to just a few words, and none of those are them. :)”

“Lazed Seeru, wa?” is just the way a Japanese person would pronounce “raised seal”. :)

[thecodont]

I like the idea of a quiet chat.

I like it very much.

[thecodont]

Thanks for the ping.

Looks like this is picking up steam. Prayers up!

[bitt]

ping to whole thread

[Danae]

Erm..... what’s the ping for? Not sure what I am looking for anyway... :) Thanks!

[MamaDearest]

(says GA has NO role in eligibility)

If so, GA should take him off the ballot! He appears to be accountable to no one anywhere!

[Fred Nerks]

thanks, bitt.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks bitt.

[Fantasywriter]

Thanks for the ping, lj. I fall into the DL, KB camp on this one. I think what Obama released was a special ‘abstract’ prepared for him to reflect exactly what he wanted it to reflect. As such, it’s not a forgery per se, though it’s not even close to the original ‘birth record’.

HI’s fraud lies in not identifying it as such. Instead, they have actively tried to pass it off as an original BC. Now think about this. If you were going to release an abstract that differed wildly [due to adoption, etc.] from the original, ‘half-handwritten ‘birth-record’’, and yet you wanted to keep people from asking the fundamental question: ‘is this a copy of the original BC or an abstract of subsequent filings?’ - what would you do?

I submit you’d add a smiley face and other bizarre anomalies. That way people would focus on those and not on the obvious. I realize many disagree w me. That is how I see it, though, fwiw.

Thanks again for the ping. Things are definitely getting interesting!

[DiogenesLamp]

Because of the legal consequences, you would only add the words “or abstract of the record on file” because that means it doesn’t have to be real or original, it just has to be what’s “on file.”

That other stuff is artifacts I think. It would be foolish to otherwise call attention to something you wanted to pass scrutiny.