Why wasn't Obama in contempt of court?

WND ^ | February 9, 2012 | Diana West

[Red Steel]

Diana West risks 'birther' label by analyzing evidence in hearing BHO 'boycotted'

One thing I’ve learned while researching my new, nearly finished book is that both history and news, history’s so-called rough draft, are not written by the “victors” as much as they are censored, twisted and reconfigured by what I can best describe as “the mob.”

I’m not referring to the Mafia. What I’m talking about is a mob-like amalgam of sharp elbows and big mouths who dictate acceptable topics, their narrative flow and an approved range of opinion – the consensus-makers. Defying consensus, breaking what amount to Mafia-like vows of “omerta” – silence – and delving into the verboten, is the worst possible crime of anti-mobness, punishable by eternal hooting and marginalization.

Few transgress. Which explains the news blackout on an extraordinary chain of recent events that took place in and around a Georgia courtroom and pertained to challenges to President Obama’s eligibility to be a presidential candidate in Georgia in 2012. In the end, the president defeated the challenge. He will be on the Georgia primary ballot come March. But therein lies an amazing tale.

Already I can feel the chill hiss of “birther” at the mere mention of these events, all because I haven’t included the mob-requisite catcalls that are “supposed” to go along with such accounts. But there’s nothing to mock here.

Last month, after Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi denied motions by President Obama’s lawyer Michael Jablonski both to dismiss proceedings against the president and to quash a subpoena, three attorneys made history. For the first time, attorneys were permitted to enter evidence into the court record challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president.

[Harlan1196]

It was accurate - the judge offered the plaintiffs a default judgment that would have taken Obama off the ballot.

The plaintiffs rejected the default judgment and promptly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[tablelamp]

Clinton v. Jones
“ We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so.”
Footnote 14
“Although Presidents have responded to written interrogatories, given depositions, and provided videotaped trial testimony, see infra, at 23, no sitting President has ever testified, or been ordered to testify, in open court. “

[tablelamp]

Robert Ray the successor as special prosecutor to Ken Starr sanctioned Clinton. The sanctions were:
1. Impeachment
2. Clinton had to admit providing false testimony
3. Clinton had to acknowledge he’d violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court
4. 5 year suspension of his law license, $25,000 fine
5. $90,000 civil contempt penalty
6. $850,000 settlement to Jones
7. A finding by the federal court that Clinton engaged in contemptuous conduct.

[bitt]

I’ll vote for whomever shows his LFBC, school records, SS records, financial aid documents and college grades and thesis, selective service docs, etc.

We could raise TEN MILLION DOLLARS overnight for the GOP candidate who would promise to do such a thing during the first Obama debate.

[little jeremiah]

Conspiracy definition, a few online dictionaries, the last entry is a more complex legal definition. Very interesting. Do you think that “conspiracy” means “fantasy that isn’t true” or something?

1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

2. The action of plotting or conspiring.

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law - an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

---

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law - An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

---

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.

Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.

Conspiracy also resembles attempt. However, attempt, like solicitation, can be committed by a single person. On another level, conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist before a crime is actually attempted, whereas no attempt charge will succeed unless the requisite attempt is made.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.

According to some criminal-law experts, the concept of conspiracy is too elastic, and the allegation of conspiracy is used by prosecutors as a superfluous criminal charge. Many criminal defense lawyers maintain that conspiracy is often expanded beyond reasonable interpretations. In any case, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys alike agree that conspiracy cases are usually amorphous and complex.