Obama may not be allowed to go to Arizona if this immigration bill passes.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Probable cause-

Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.

Well, it seems that over half a million people feel that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. Usurpation of the most powerful position in our government, could be considered a crime?

Every case so far has had ONE RULING AND ONE RULING ONLY.

Standing. So as for probable cause goes, there sure as hell is PC to at LEAST ASK FOR PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.

You know, a birth certificate, a passport, a college transcript showing residency.

You know, something that has not been locked away.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Probable cause-

Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.

Well, it seems that over half a million people feel that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. Usurpation of the most powerful position in our government, could be considered a crime?

Every case so far has had ONE RULING AND ONE RULING ONLY.

Standing. So as for probable cause goes, there sure as hell is PC to at LEAST ASK FOR PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.

You know, a birth certificate, a passport, a college transcript showing residency.

You know, something that has not been locked away.

LMAO!!!!!

You just made the case for me. I thought it was not ok to say this law gives cops the leeway to stop people just for THINKING THEY ARE ILLEGAL BASED ON A NOTION. What would that probable cause be?

So the cops can stop him for just being Barak? He does not have to give them a "Legal reason for contact?" anymore? Everyone keeps telling me this law would not allow them to stop Barak for simply being Barak but he would have to be doing something that would warrant police contact to begin with.

So, what is the probable cause in this case? Barak goes to Arizona and...

Please explain this to me because you are tearing apart every defense of this law that has been put up so far.

Please, do go on...

[edit on 8-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I usually do not argue the birther stance but if you so insist.

Look at any case of corruption or fraud in government. First off you need a crime to be committed correct?

So the birther argument is that the crime of usurpation or treason has been committed that has placed him into office.

So, first you have the crime labeled or defined. Next you need evidence that an actual crime has been committed.

So far, in every case, the courts have ruled that the person providing evidence or making the accusation of the criminal activity, have been told they have no standing.

I guess the invading army (new name for illegal immigrants-because they are not immigrating, immigration means to immigrate, not invade) could argue that no one has standing.

The probable cause also could be the lack of the government to ascertain all aspects of this issue. One could actually make a criminal complaint against the electoral colleges in this case.

I will not argue the merits of the evidence. I have yet to see all the evidence presented in a court of law. Seems to the typical thing when one looks at any government corruption case. For some reason, the government shills are allowed to seal records.

Let us look at the Blago case. Do you think any and all evidence will be released? Of course not, it would show the complicit nature of everyone involved.

I bet Obama has been able to listen to the tapes. Someone probably set him down and said, "This is what we have, want to play ball"?

And the corruption in government goes round and round.