Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court Over Eligibility Hearing

Out looking for other states challenging Obama on the ballot.

California

The cause of the petition is that Mr. Barack Obama does not qualify for the Office of President of the United States because both of his parents were not U.S. Citizens at the time of Obama’s birth. Article II of the US Constitution states that only Natural Born Citizens qualify for the Office of President. Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national of Kenya.

Breaking News: January 19, 2012 ~ Precedent Case For Restraint of Fund Raising for Obama: Writ of Mandate ~ Served on the California Secretary of State.

Sacramento – A legal complaint was served on Obama for America (California) and the California Secretary of State Debra Bowen late Tuesday to keep British-born Barack Obama off the ballot for the Office of the President, because he does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a U.S. Natural Born citizen according to the Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett. The legal action was filed Jan. 6 in Sacramento Superior Court by a group of 7 ad hoc registered voters including an American Independent Party candidate for President.

Several of the petitioners tried seeking resolution against Obama after the 2008 presidential election, but they were told by the California courts that it was too late to make challenges to Obama’s legitimacy, and that they did not have “standing”.

Mass and Illinois here

This week, Retired ASAR LTC William F. Reade filed an official ballot challenge with election officials, contending that Barack Obama is ineligible to appear on the Massachusetts ballot. Reade’s challenge is well researched and filled with numerous legal citations to back his case.

But perhaps most interesting are the similarities between LTC Reade’s and Barack Obama’s citizenship status. Like Obama, Reade was born in the United States. But, also like Obama whose father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore a British subject, Reade’s father was also a British subject. As such, Reade correctly points out that he himself is not a “natural born citizen” as defined by the Supreme Court and therefore, like Barack Obama, Reade is also ineligible for the office of President.


More states are hearing the call to question Obama’s eligibility to appear on our ballots. In Obama’s home state of Illinois, three separate ballot challenges have been filed which question Obama’s eligibility and seek to bar him from the ballot.

Finally, inch by inch, the movement to expose the Impostor in Chief is gaining ground.

Obama Blocked From Registering For Alabama State Primary Until Eligibility Is Validated By Court.
Breaking => Concerted Effort By Democrats To Eliminate Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 Of The U.S. Constitution Just Prior To Obama’s Election: Presidents To Be Natural Born Citizens!
New Hampshire Lawmakers Require Obama To Produce Vault Long Form Birth Certificate.

Illinois link here

Illinois

Obama's petition to be on the Illinois ballot has been challenged, it seems 60% of the signatures are bogus. Why doesn't this surprise me? See www.theobjectors.com

Illinois isn’t the only state with an Obama petition problem
January 15, 2012
Allegations of petition fraud in Indiana made the news in December.
Charity Rorie, a mother of four, sat in her Mishawaka, Ind., kitchen, stunned that her name appeared on a 2008 Democratic presidential primary petition for then-candidate Barack Obama.
“That’s not my signature,” she told Fox News, saying her signature is “absolutely” a fake. She also said she was troubled someone forged both her signature and that of her husband, Jeff, and listed personal details such as their address and birthdays.
”It’s scary,” Rorie said. “It’s shocking. It definitely is illegal. A lot of people have already lost faith in politics and the whole realm of politics, so that just solidifies all of our worries and concerns.”
And the head of the Indiana Democratic Party resigns:
The chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party announced his resignation Monday, as investigators probe allegations of election fraud stemming from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
Dan Parker, who served for seven years, did not cite the scandal as a reason for his decision. But the uproar over possible fraud in a race for the White House has already claimed the job of one county Democratic Chairman, who sources say was forced out because of the allegations.
Numerous signatures on petitions that placed then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the party’s primary ballot were allegedly forged and then certified by the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office in South Bend.

Obama used this scam to eliminate 4 candidates in the Illinois Senate race, he ran unopposed, this is how he got into politics. Now it may be used against his own "machine". Isn't justice sweet?

reply to post by r3axion


exactly...thank you for posting these...he is not eligible to be president, but now the dye is cast and anyone can do it.....he set a new precedent. (pun intended). We were duped in the worst possible way (not.me, he never fooled me) I don't see how we can recover from this.

Originally posted by The Sword
The train left not too long ago for most of you calling for him to obey an order from a puny state judge.

He's the PRESIDENT, not a police chief, not a mayor and certainly not a senator!

Yes - - this is really stupid.

I wouldn't even expect Michelle Bachmann to show up in person for something like this.

Its nothing lawyers can't handle. Expecting Obama to show up for this is insane.

Now - if criminal charges are brought - - that might be different.

STUPID - - - that is the only word I can come up with for expecting Obama to show up in person.

i for one am glad he is not showing up. I have been hoping he would not. In the state of Georgia, failure to appear is an automatic judgement against you. So, him not showing automatically takes his name off the georgia ballot, even if he made a huge push for a write in, those write in votes would not count.

reply to post by SM2


All we need is for more states to do the same. I see that Cali and my state of Illinois are possibly questioning the legitimacy of his presidency but it would be awesome if a lot more joined in.

reply to post by Annee


By hiding facts and breaking rules, he lost that "Presidential" status. He's nothing more than a sham. People aren't putting up with it anymore. Why are you so begruding to the truth? He has spent over a million dollars hiding and hindering all of his past records. Come on, one crappy copy of birth certificate when 500 other HIDDEN pieces of evidence point to a different path???

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by r3axion

 

I suppose we should all throw common sense out the window just because we're angry at the most powerful man in the United States.

Newsflash: It's not going to happen.

If Bush and Cheney could get off scot-free, what makes you think that Obama will face any repercussions?

Wake up!

Wake up to what exactly?
This dream of the United States is no longer a land of laws, we have now become a autocratic system

Or is the individuals in charge so tyrannical that laws need not apply to them

Just curious as to where you are going with this wake up part, as i was under the assumption that we still had a democracy, if not some-one needs to let every academia through out the U.S.know, to stop teaching about our current form of government as it is now null and void

reply to post by Gridrebel


BS.

Pretty much every President has broken some laws and no one stopped calling them President or took away their authority.

It's nice, I guess, that you care deeply about something, but learn more about it before you spout a bunch of inaccurate hyperbolic nonsense.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Gridrebel

 

BS.

Pretty much every President has broken some laws and no one stopped calling them President or took away their authority.

It's nice, I guess, that you care deeply about something, but learn more about it before you spout a bunch of inaccurate hyperbolic nonsense.

Time will tell my friend.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by r3axion

 

Oh, AWESOME! He's setting PRECEDENT! This must mean that WE can just not show up when ordered!

Right?

Well, We'll see if He is arrested for contempt... I guess I got excited prematurely.

I don't know if they still teach civics in school?

The Precedent was set at the time of our founding...three branches of government,,,the Judicial branch does not rule them all.

He can show up in court as a courtessy, but obligating a President to appear for whatever nonsense lawsuits are filed against him during his presidencey? Pres. Bush would have spent his whole term flying from one backwoods court to another.

Congress has the authority to impeach a President. That is why President Bush never attended any of the thousands of lawsuits filed against him...that is why Nixon was impeached, not arrested...

If President Obama set the "Precedent" of allowing smaller courts to compell him to appear for hearings, it would be a historical first and you could count on future Presidents, Liberal or Conservattive, spending there terms apppearing for nonsense lawsuits. And technically it would infer subjagation of the executive branch to the Judicial. Just insane.

Checks and balances? Civics?...rational thinking?...Anyone?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Sword
The train left not too long ago for most of you calling for him to obey an order from a puny state judge.

He's the PRESIDENT, not a police chief, not a mayor and certainly not a senator!

Yes - - this is really stupid.

I wouldn't even expect Michelle Bachmann to show up in person for something like this.

Its nothing lawyers can't handle. Expecting Obama to show up for this is insane.

Now - if criminal charges are brought - - that might be different.

STUPID - - - that is the only word I can come up with for expecting Obama to show up in person.

If criminal charges are brought, then it is Congress who must act...Nixon.

Seperation of powers. If the Judicial branch ruled over the executive, Pres. Bush would have spent his term in court given all the lawsuits that were filed against him.

Note to add: Once impeached or out of office a President is fair game for lawsuits and prosecution.


Also ETD: Found an old case involving Madison...."If the courts are able to compell the President to answer [or appear] then can they not also compell him to act? In otherwords, once we start to shift the executive Power from he who the constitution conferred it to the Judiciary, we might as well do the work thoroughly and constitute the Judiciary as the Supreme Guardians and Rulers of our government"

Again...seperation of powers...feel free to Impeach via congress or sue after he leaves office, but the idea of lower courts compelling a President to appear, take acts etc. is an offense to the constitution and seperation of powers.

The subpoena was issued in blank, meaning the judge signed the bottom while the rest of the form was blank, and Taitz's lawyer wrote in the stuff later. Now that the judge knows what that lawyer added, we may have a a new ruling that trims back that subpoena.

For the last 30 years (or more) there have been members of the tinfoil helmet brigade filing lawsuits every day against whoever was the sitting President in courts all around the country. Perhaps they thought that the opposition would simply cave or default rather than bring the Prez, or maybe they thought that they'd have the distinction of making the President disrupt his plans to cater to their whims. Nope, never worked that way.

In this case, what is the President going to testify to? That he remembers the details of the day he was born??!

reply to post by Shoonra

Now that the judge knows what that lawyer added, we may have a a new ruling that trims back that subpoena.

Judge wrote a response to the presidents request to quash.

Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).

Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash is denied.

SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.

Link to Judge response to quash request

Illinois Ballot challenge news ....Really have to dig for this stuff

Source link

Ten days ago we pulled petitions for various presidential and delegate candidates running for office in Illinois.The original purpose was to investigate voter registration fraud. This investigation continues.

On Friday. January. 2012, I requested 60 petitions of these candidates. Each petition is placed on a single CD. 59 CD’s were correct.

The one for Barack Obama was blank. Naturally on Saturday morning, we quickly appealed to the Board of Elections, requesting the petition be sent immediately.

Crickets…. Until Monday.

Monday at 8am, a team of us arrived in Springfield to personally inspect the original petition and to begin to research the reason for the games…. Obviously, the delay in receiving the petitions handicapped our ability to prepare.

Upon inspecting the petitions, it was quickly discovered that Mr. Obama’s ballot application had significant errors. Frankly, we were astounded to see how sloppy it was; missing notary signatures, missing pages, and with slews of unregistered voters.

As a result, three of us have decided to challenge Mr. Obama’s petitions. What does this mean? It means we do not believe he has the 3000 good signatures required by Illinois law to get on the ballot. If we prevail, Mr, Obama will not appear on the ballot in the Primary election. I don’t know what the ramifications are for the General election in November.

What is next? Next week we will meet at the Illinois State Board of Elections, and the Hearing Officer will be assigned. Following that is a very tight time frame where the Obama campaign will have days to respond and then The Objectors will respond to them, a follow-up is allowed of the Obama team, and then a voter registration record examination occurs. This should all take place before the end of January. Timing is VERY short…

Second source link here

Does Barack Obama have sufficient signatures on his petition to qualify for ballot placement in Illinois Primary election to be held on March 20th? This is the question that will be addressed in the next 10 days.

While working on a voter fraud investigation, Defend the Vote, in conjunction with Jack Roeser, Publisher of Champion News, uncovered that Barack Obama’s petition application to get on the Illinois Primary Ballot was prepared contrary to Illinois election law. Overall Mr. Obama’s application was very sloppy and included petitions that were not signed and/or notarized by the circulator, 20 page gaps in page numbering, and thousand of voters whose registration could not be confirmed.

Three Objectors stepped forward challenging Mr. Obama’s ballot application. Steve Boulton, Chris Cleveland and Sharon Meroni. The Objectors seek to prevent Mr. Obama from getting on the ballot. The Objection petition is posted here.

At 11am Tuesday morning, The Objectors head down to the Illinois State Board of Elections in the James R. Thompson Center. The first meeting is scheduled before the Illinois State Board of Elections (ISBE) and will involve setting schedules for the records review and all subsequent actions. You can read the Board Agenda here.

The records review begins Wednesday morning. This will involve a day or two at the Board of Elections in Chicago reviewing voter registration records of signers on these petitions. This review will have 8 stations of “Checkers.” The Checkers search for the voter record. Both the Objectors and the Candidate will have legal representatives to affirm or object to the findings of each person looked up during the records check. This will continue until all the records in contention are checked and a determination for each petition signatures is given.

Following this record check, both sides will offer arguments on signatures that are still contested. Within a week to 10 days, the ISBE will make a final determination as to Mr. Obama’s placement on the ballot.

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by Annee

 

By hiding facts and breaking rules, he lost that "Presidential" status. He's nothing more than a sham. People aren't putting up with it anymore. Why are you so begruding to the truth? He has spent over a million dollars hiding and hindering all of his past records. Come on, one crappy copy of birth certificate when 500 other HIDDEN pieces of evidence point to a different path???

At this time that is an opinion.

You have no facts - - - and are repeating repeated birther rhetoric.

I'll wait for real facts.

reply to post by Annee


Hi Annee.

News from Alabama.

Source here, remove judge story

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Lawyers for the Alabama Democratic Party chairman filed an official objection Thursday to a Luverne man's request for a black Jefferson County judge to step down from his lawsuit challenging President Obama's candidacy.

reply to post by Shoonra


this is why he is being called to court. I apologize if facts bother you.

It must suck to realize for the first time that Barry's presidency has been a sham.

Either way, the judged declined Obama's motion to quash the subpoena.

reply to post by kawika


Hey Kawika...

First, this judge cracks me up. The President of The Untied States doesn't need to "enlighten" him as to the courts limitations, it is called seperation of powers and the Judicial branch cannot command the Executive branch to appear in court. This was made clear during the sexual harassment lawsuits filed against former President Clinton, during the Bush years with the multiple suits filed against former President Bush...ad infinium throughout history.

Perhaps he should send the Bailiff to the white house to arrest the President and see how that goes over with the secret service? In reading that last bit it appears he was not even able to serve the President the supeona, but gave it to one his legal advisors?

Makes for good comedy though.

The courts can wait until the President leaves office and if they are in a hurry they can try to impeach him, as Congress is the only one with authority to strip him of office. The Judicial branch does not have authority to command the Executive branch, if it did, the Judicial branch would rule the country.

secondly..

Three Objectors stepped forward challenging Mr. Obama’s ballot application. Steve Boulton, Chris Cleveland and Sharon Meroni. The Objectors seek to prevent Mr. Obama from getting on the ballot.

One of those people listed above worked for me for almost a year...I am not kidding...pathological liar and mentally unstable. Since that time they have made birtherism their religion. I would not give much credence to claims originating from those folks.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by kawika

 

Hey Kawika...

First, this judge cracks me up. The President of The Untied States doesn't need to "enlighten" him as to the courts limitations, it is called seperation of powers and the Judicial branch cannot command the Executive branch to appear in court.

He does if he wants to be on the Georgia ballot. Which is what this is about...

wow that is crazy glad a lot of people are upset, wish this would get mainstream media attention

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by kawika

 

Hey Kawika...

First, this judge cracks me up. The President of The Untied States doesn't need to "enlighten" him as to the courts limitations, it is called seperation of powers and the Judicial branch cannot command the Executive branch to appear in court.

He does if he wants to be on the Georgia ballot. Which is what this is about...

Well we will know tomorrow when the hearing takes place

I don't think you will like the ruling. The judge is an idiot, but not ignorant of the law or the consequences for a judge who disregards it. I think he has run out of legal wiggle room in the declarations he has issued.

Will be interesting. I will check this thread tomorrow.