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

Originally posted by Realtruth

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.

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

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

Im not sure if you took my post a little to close to heart. My point was you were the only one really asking for solid proof and I was following your reactions to this thread as the source of sanity. Once you read the evidence presented, you changed your tone from asking for proof, to obama is in trouble. Hence I take your sentiment with more validity than some blog on the internet.

It seems that the OP is in error.

Judge Malihi did not rule on the matter.

A hearing on whether President Obama should be removed from the November ballot in Georgia ended Thursday without a ruling -- and also without Obama.

www.ajc.com...

reply to post by Phage


21 pages things get buried, but you are right about the ruling, but the claim was still legit. The attorneys are claiming the Judge told them his intention in chambers and it is only a matter of filing the ruling and making it official.

So, for now, it is a legit claim, kind of, but if the Judge's official ruling comes out differently, then all the attorneys involved will be liars. Not such a stretch really.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Realtruth

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.

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

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

Im not sure if you took my post a little to close to heart. My point was you were the only one really asking for solid proof and I was following your reactions to this thread as the source of sanity. Once you read the evidence presented, you changed your tone from asking for proof, to obama is in trouble. Hence I take your sentiment with more validity than some blog on the internet.

RT is in logic mode only, lol.

The only reason I say he is in trouble is the fact he did not respond or show up, in any court of law that is a huge NO, NO.

Almost every case I have ever seen in a federal, or state court that has went to default judgement comes with it a huge financial and time consuming cost.

There are two main reasons defaults happen, first is people do not get the subpoenas because they have moved or cannot get served.

Second is they are hiding, disregarding or have contempt for the legal system and laws.

reply to post by candcantiques


This is the local video here. looks serious.

the judge has decided to reccomend that Obamas name NOT be put on the ballot in the next Presidential election. The Georgia Secretary of State agrees with the court ruling and WILL NOT BE ALLOWING OBAMAS NAME ON THE BALLOT.

reply to post by candcantiques


That is completely and 100% false.

Both sides have until February 5 to file objections and further information. No finalization can be made before then.

Rushing to be the first to post remarks like this, simply parroting the bilge from your favorite propaganda sites, doesn't make you look smart or 'on top of things'. It just makes you look stupid and gullible.

reply to post by getreadyalready

According to the article, the judge will make no ruling in regard to Obama being on the ballot. He will make a recommendation to the state Secretary of State, Brian Kemp. Whatever that recommendation is and whether Kemp follows it remains to be seen.

reply to post by Phage


If you would please go back to page one and go to the link I supplied you will find that the judge in fact did make a decision on the outcome of the case. It meerly has to be published. Furthermore I would state this. When the judge orders you to appear before the court and not only do you not show up but your lawyer doesnt show up either, do you believe that the judge has the option of ruling in your favor?

You can't pull the president from the ballot. The judge just stated tonight it will be a summary judgement. The judge isn't going to do this. Furthermore, like I said you can't pull the president from the ballot, not possible.

reply to post by rnaa


I will say it yet again. Obama was ordered to appear before court. He didnt. Neither did his lawyer. Does the judge actually have the option of ruling in the favor of Obama when he chose to not show up to defend himself. The judge has nmade his decision and stated so in chambers with the plantiffs. The decision has to be published but the decision has been made.

Originally posted by candcantiques
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.

Pointing something out. I always investigate the core base of any website. Art2superpac appears and claims to not be affiliated with any side.

However - - from their site:

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors. www.art2superpac.com...

That is not showing unbiased to me.

Ive been away from ats for about a year, but i think the biggest issue here is that phages posts are outlined in orange.. how does something like this happen???

reply to post by candcantiques

The Georgia Secretary of State agrees with the court ruling and WILL NOT BE ALLOWING OBAMAS NAME ON THE BALLOT. That means that Obama will recieve ZERO popular vote and ZERO electoral votes from the state of Georgia.

Oh yeah. You realize that the election is question is the PRIMARY ELECTION don't you? The one that selects delegates to the Democratic Convention? Not the GENERAL ELECTION that selects electoral votes?

If you are confused about this little technicality, I'm sure your Community College can hook you up with an American Civics course.

Also, President Obama didn't receive any electoral votes from Georgia in 2008, so why would it matter?

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by rnaa

 

I will say it yet again. Obama was ordered to appear before court. He didnt. Neither did his lawyer. Does the judge actually have the option of ruling in the favor of Obama when he chose to not show up to defend himself. The judge has nmade his decision and stated so in chambers with the plantiffs. The decision has to be published but the decision has been made.

If Obama, nor his legal representatives show up in court, on the 26th the judge will have to submit a default judgment, end of story.

If this were any other defendant in the USA and you did not show up in Federal or State court, your toast. Default Judgment entered.

Originally posted by rnaa

the judge has decided to reccomend that Obamas name NOT be put on the ballot in the next Presidential election. The Georgia Secretary of State agrees with the court ruling and WILL NOT BE ALLOWING OBAMAS NAME ON THE BALLOT.

reply to post by candcantiques

 

That is completely and 100% false.

Both sides have until February 5 to file objections and further information. No finalization can be made before then.

Rushing to be the first to post remarks like this, simply parroting the bilge from your favorite propaganda sites, doesn't make you look smart or 'on top of things'. It just makes you look stupid and gullible.

posts like this should be moved directly underneath the op so people can see both sides to the story. one side being false, and this side being truth

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Nevermind. Look like I was probably wrong.

reply to post by candcantiques


I have been watching this story for quite some time. I was waiting to see if the Judge would issue a warrant for obammys arrest, but taking his name off the ballet is just as good!

S & F

reply to post by Phage


I posted that a ton of pages back. lol
I figure people want to believe what they want to believe.

It wouldn't HURT Obama much though, electoral vote wise, anyway, b/c he didn't carry GA the first time.

reply to post by rnaa


I am sorry that you seem to believe that this is small news. It isnt small news and it does matter.

reply to post by Annee


Annee we are not talking about eligibility anymore, this is about not showing up in court and disregarding the law.

This is a serious issue.

If the President, the highest office in the United States defies the laws of the land, and does so arrogantly, then we are truly in a sad state of affairs.

I truly hope everyone is actually seeing this, and not getting too caught up in the eligibility issue now.