Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

reply to post by bknapple32


The case is styled Kevin Richard Powell v. Barack Obama, and the Office of State Administrative Hearings’ Docket Number is OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI.

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

The court issued a subpoena for Obama to appear, he blew them off and didn't appear. He should be happy that the judge hasn't issued a bench warrant for his arrest yet. They are giving Obama the chance to answer the accusations against him, he has chosen not to answer the accusations.

Post the official court stamped legal subpoena and any other court docs

If this is a real case, real Pacer filing numbers and court docket numbers will have been assigned.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

Do you doubt that this is a real case? Have you not seen all the various articles about this subpoena in the mainstream news? Do you know how to use google?

www.google.com...:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Additionally, here is a link to the Georgia Secretary of State Response to Obamas Request to Cancel Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearing

I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of StateAdministrative Hearings ("OSAH") has handled the candidate challenges involving your client andadvising me that you and your client will "suspend" participation in the administrative proceeding. WhileI regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As thereferring agency, the Secretary of State's Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearingsscheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, Ido not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judgeto report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of thereport, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to myreview of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in theOSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to thismatter

reply to post by bknapple32


Dual citizenship of the father or mother is fine as long as both mother and father are US citizens in the process of giving up any other citizenships at the time of the birth of the child. This would leave the child with singular citizenship in the USA only ans therefore be natural born.

reply to post by candcantiques


THANK YOU... Can we get him to resister for E-Verify? That will take him out of the COUNTRY!!!!! Non-electable fraud.
Which SSN will he use?
Which name on which tax return will this .5 % of some color use?
I beleive the republickins cannot find amoung them a true and forthright canidate!. Obvious....Just elistes squeezers.. Newt...You SUX PAL!
Now Mitt...sorry pal your the same 1/2 & 1/2... More leaning to your side...just alike the Mormons. I grew up in the land of Zion... creepy man, nice looking woman...must say....
. My step family is the worst bunch of lying cheats,Mormons I have ever met. They stold my farther's wishes and never even told me until I called to asked. So I have background experience. One day they will meet the Lord or the one...and get all they have coming. Unless they get on the space ship ;the Galatic [BS] Ship of Mormon to leave us all behind and interbreed with the youngins.
Anyway back to the deal, We need to get the two republican domomies the hell off the stage and start over . Ron Paul is the Real and only one ...but like Yoda said...Maybe there's another.... Ron Paul. I'm sure there's someone similar that we can all fall in behind.
Its like the Republickins are throwing the race...like McShame... what a limp cox he was... Come on folks lets find a true Ron Paul American to jump in and get this impeachable preident out and on his way to the Jimmy Carter home for the "Never Speaks The Truth Home of Hitler want-a bees... ok enough. I could write or spew for days...its ups to us AMERICAN FAMILY CITIZENS TO DO SOMETHING! The End...
PS anyone else wants to carry on the easy conversation ...plz , take over,, jump in... Thanks, LOVE MY FREDOM. How ABOUT you ,,ex.,Sean Penn...

ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please read the following:
We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.

Failure to post civilly and on topic will result in further post removal and the possibility of Temporary Posting Bans.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


FTR, I voted FOR Obama.

But, his BC has so much doubt cast over it, and the Hawaiian Officials made bold claims and then backed off, and the Declaration from the Congress fell well short of the one they made for McCain.

I've said many times, it is far too late to impeach, and taking him off the 2012 ballot would open up a giant can of worms that needn't be opened.

The important things going forward are to clarify some legislation about who is supposed to be vetting candidates, and defeat Obama in the election with a decent GOP candidate. That is where the attention should be focused. Let's fix the glaring hole that created this mess, and lets defeat Obama in the election.

Double, whoops.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


who did what? I missed it.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrlqban

Read Minor vs. Harpersett, the ONLY U.S. Supreme Court case that DEFINES what a Natural Born Citizen is by unanimous decision and also gives you a background of the idea of membership in a nation. Its a relative short decision so it shouldnt be too bad to read.. Read U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark as well (although I warn you it's a very long read) and compare this case with Minor's.

IMHO, Minor vs. Harpersett is not ironclad precedent. For example the decision reads:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “

That tells me that they did not feel the need to address whether it was REQUIRED to have U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. They were simply saying you could not deny someone citizenship if they were born in the jurisdiction and had citizen parents.

The court made a distinction between natural born, aliens, and those with "doubts" and defined the phrase natural born citizen to give Mrs Minor this status avoiding the construction of the 14th amendement, plain and simple.

"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. "

reply to post by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
These backwoods idiots are simply amazing, as big government as they come,
they get to determine who people can vote for, two men make that decision for
the whole state of people.

The two men used the laws of the state of Georgia as written in the state Constitution to hand down this ruling. Any other person would have had the same thing happen to them, so I disagree with your "big government" statement. This action put simply states no one is above the law, not even the president.

And your other statement about "backwoods idiots" speaks for itself.

Guy's from what I just read on the judges rulings, Obama is screwed.

www.art2superpac.com...

Seriously this is a mess for Obama.

Once a default judgement is ruled and filed, it is very hard to undo.

If he would have shown up in court, then an appeal could have happened.

Obama's disregard for the laws of the land are very clear here. Sad.

Two words for Obama now.

Deep KaKa.



Question is will we see this on MSM and all over the world?

Originally posted by Realtruth
I challenge anyone on ATS to come up with a real court case number and summons. Bet you can't, if you can I will offer my apology .

www.pacer.gov...

As of now this case does not exist, made up BS and everyone is wasting there time arguing this issue.

That link appears to be one for the dockets of FEDERAL courts, so you wouldn't likely find the information you seek there.

Anyone here who actually believes that Obama won't be on the ballet in Georgia come November, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Do you doubt that this is a real case? Have you not seen all the various articles about this subpoena in the mainstream news? Do you know how to use google?

Not anymore, this is a huge mess for Obama.

I just read through most of the legal court filings and judges remarks.

reply to post by Realtruth


Your change of attitude towards this has me more alarmed than the original story.... Really that bad?

reply to post by Realtruth


That is a great site with plenty of info especially for the person that doesnt believe the case even exists. Thank you for posting this.

www.art2superpac.com...

EVERYBODY should read all of this if you TRULY want to understand what is going on.

Like I said before, if this story has validity to it and judging on the Judges and SOS's comments....Obama has some "splainin" to do to the world and this could be the story of the decade.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Your change of attitude towards this has me more alarmed than the original story.... Really that bad?

Attitude? lol God forbid I would want to alarm or upset you. Sorry about that.

It's called deny ignorance.

Facts needed, attitude has nothing to do with asking for official proof and court filings.

www.art2superpac.com...

Get the popcorn out this is going to get interesting for sure.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
These backwoods idiots are simply amazing, as big government as they come,
they get to determine who people can vote for, two men make that decision for
the whole state of people.

You obviously don't grasp what is going on here.

Is suggest you inform yourself with the situation at hand.

He was supposed to do something. He chose not too. What kind of message does that send to the poeple of our country?
What does that say about him as a person?

About all you need to know.

Originally posted by mrlqban

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by mrlqban

Read Minor vs. Harpersett, the ONLY U.S. Supreme Court case that DEFINES what a Natural Born Citizen is by unanimous decision and also gives you a background of the idea of membership in a nation. Its a relative short decision so it shouldnt be too bad to read.. Read U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark as well (although I warn you it's a very long read) and compare this case with Minor's.

IMHO, Minor vs. Harpersett is not ironclad precedent. For example the decision reads:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “

That tells me that they did not feel the need to address whether it was REQUIRED to have U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. They were simply saying you could not deny someone citizenship if they were born in the jurisdiction and had citizen parents.

The court made a distinction between natural born, aliens, and those with "doubts" and defined the phrase natural born citizen to give Mrs Minor this status avoiding the construction of the 14th amendement, plain and simple.

"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. "

But of course no one doubts that someone who is born in a country of parents who are also its citizens are also citizens of that country. That is not the same thing as saying that people who are born in a country with a parent who is not its citizen is NOT a natural-born citizen. In fact, the decision clearly says that its not necessary in this particular case to decide whether this second sentence is true.