Tweet
(1) VANITY - Question About GA Ballot Challenge
Free Republic Thread
Started 1/15/2012 by 'butterdezillion'
Excerpt:
"The Congressional Research Service says that the individual states are in control of choosing their own presidential electors. So presidential eligibility issues are under the jurisdiction of state courts. But according to http://interstatedeposition.com/comp...atewitness.htm one state can't issue a subpoena for something in another state; they have to get somebody local in the other state to issue a subpoena and then that subpoena will be processed by the state where the records reside. If they refuse to issue or honor the subpoena then the other state is fresh out of luck.
We've already seen that Hawaii will ALWAYS hide the truth about Obama's records, even when it involves clearly breaking their laws and rules. They will never agree to any subpoena for their records.
IOW, the only way we will ever get access to those records for ballot purposes is if a bunch of state SOS's refuse to put Obama's name on the ballot unless and until those records are provided. If Obama wants to be on the ballots he needs to figure out a way to get the HDOH to provide the original birth certificate and the microfilm on which the original BC is filmed.
Is that what GA Judge Malihi said - that if Obama wants to be on the ballot those things have to be provided? Did Orly just copy pre-printed forms that had Malihi's signature, or did he actually require that those records be provided before Obama can be on the ballot?
Also, law enforcement people - is one state's law enforcement in the same predicament if they want a search warrant, subpoena, or deposition from something/somebody in Hawaii? Eric Holder is obviously never going to let federal law enforcement investigate Obama's many crimes including forgery and perjury. Are the feds the only people who COULD force Hawaii to submit to a criminal investigation?
Somebody help me understand exactly what boat we're in right now. As far as I can see from here, it seems like if both Hawaii and the US AG are willing to provide legal sanctuary for criminals the only recourse for the rest of us is impeachment of the US AG. Am I understanding this right? What protections do the rest of the states have against a rogue, criminal state that will hide criminals?"
COMMENT #35 (butterdezillion)
"I wonder if GA can record all the phone calls this judge (Michael Malihi) makes or receives between now and the time he makes his decision.
I find it hard to believe that Obama would be able to compromise the integrity of Chief Justice Roberts but wouldn’t be able to do the same for a GA state judge. I fear this is a set-up.
I agree with you that it’s good there are the other 2 cases that stand apart from Orly, because she’s botched up some of the legal details on her other cases. I’m glad she’ll be bringing some of the evidence of criminal activity and corruption to the judge’s attention, though; maybe it will make him more alert.
Of course, if this is a set-up it won’t matter how alert he is."
COMMENT #42 (butterdezillion)
"When Roberts publicly stated that he trusts the justices to know when to recuse themselves - not long after Sotomayor and Kagan refused to recuse themselves from the Hollister conference where their own positions were at stake - I knew that Roberts’ integrity is severely compromised.
The only situation I can think of that would be a greater conflict of interest than that is if a judge was accused of murder and refused to recuse herself from the decision of whether the case should go to trial. If a chief justice publicly affirmed his trust for a judge who did that, everybody would know something was very badly wrong.
And that statement coming out within the context of the Obamacare case suggested to me that Roberts isn’t just compromised on Obama’s eligibility either, but on whatever Obama’s handlers want SCOTUS to rule on.
I think Orly’s intentions are good but she’s spread herself out too thin and has botched things up as a result. She’s been fighting so hard for so long. That wears a person down. After a while I think maybe a person succombs to the seductive belief that the end justifies the means so that compromises the integrity."
COMMENT #49 (butterdezillion)
"I think plausible deniability is why they’ve waffled around about Obama’s records, their procedures, etc. They give the APPEARANCE of affirming what Obama has posted but there’s always waffle room. They always leave waffle room.
Even looking at what Nagamine argued against Taitz on Friday, they claim that even if a subpoena applied to them, HRS 338-18 won’t allow them to obey a subpoena because it only allows release to individuals who (among other things) are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to have a legal right to access the record. Sounds to me like they would claim that a judge ordering the disclosure of the record would not be enough; the judge would first have to declare himself as having a legal right to access the record.
That kind of parsing words is what they do. Waffle room. It allows plausible deniability. I’ve been wrestling for over 2 1/2 years with that kind of waffling from them.
Dead men tell no tales, but the HDOH is gonna have a hard time justifying their refusal to give Duncan Sunahara a photocopy of Virginia’s long-form when that disclosure is REQUIRED by UIPA (Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act). Not a hard time justifying it to the judge. The Hawaii judge will wink at the corruption; I’m convinced there is no rule of law whatsoever in Hawaii government. But they will have a hard time justifying it to the public, which is the only real trial any of the Hawaii bureaucrats face - which is why they want to shut us down through the “vexatious requestor” law and their obfuscations.
All in all, though, neither Obama nor the HDOH have anything to worry about in regards to presenting a halfway decent forgery to Malihi unless he requires other documentation too.
What I really wonder, though, is who can force the HDOH to produce their transaction logs and original microfilms, give depositions, etc. And in what type of setting (i.e. criminal or civil trial, etc). I’m doing too much talking and not enough listening. I really want to understand how that works."
View the complete Free Republic thread at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2833394/posts
Free Republic Thread
Started 1/15/2012 by 'butterdezillion'
Excerpt:
"The Congressional Research Service says that the individual states are in control of choosing their own presidential electors. So presidential eligibility issues are under the jurisdiction of state courts. But according to http://interstatedeposition.com/comp...atewitness.htm one state can't issue a subpoena for something in another state; they have to get somebody local in the other state to issue a subpoena and then that subpoena will be processed by the state where the records reside. If they refuse to issue or honor the subpoena then the other state is fresh out of luck.
We've already seen that Hawaii will ALWAYS hide the truth about Obama's records, even when it involves clearly breaking their laws and rules. They will never agree to any subpoena for their records.
IOW, the only way we will ever get access to those records for ballot purposes is if a bunch of state SOS's refuse to put Obama's name on the ballot unless and until those records are provided. If Obama wants to be on the ballots he needs to figure out a way to get the HDOH to provide the original birth certificate and the microfilm on which the original BC is filmed.
Is that what GA Judge Malihi said - that if Obama wants to be on the ballot those things have to be provided? Did Orly just copy pre-printed forms that had Malihi's signature, or did he actually require that those records be provided before Obama can be on the ballot?
Also, law enforcement people - is one state's law enforcement in the same predicament if they want a search warrant, subpoena, or deposition from something/somebody in Hawaii? Eric Holder is obviously never going to let federal law enforcement investigate Obama's many crimes including forgery and perjury. Are the feds the only people who COULD force Hawaii to submit to a criminal investigation?
Somebody help me understand exactly what boat we're in right now. As far as I can see from here, it seems like if both Hawaii and the US AG are willing to provide legal sanctuary for criminals the only recourse for the rest of us is impeachment of the US AG. Am I understanding this right? What protections do the rest of the states have against a rogue, criminal state that will hide criminals?"
COMMENT #35 (butterdezillion)
"I wonder if GA can record all the phone calls this judge (Michael Malihi) makes or receives between now and the time he makes his decision.
I find it hard to believe that Obama would be able to compromise the integrity of Chief Justice Roberts but wouldn’t be able to do the same for a GA state judge. I fear this is a set-up.
I agree with you that it’s good there are the other 2 cases that stand apart from Orly, because she’s botched up some of the legal details on her other cases. I’m glad she’ll be bringing some of the evidence of criminal activity and corruption to the judge’s attention, though; maybe it will make him more alert.
Of course, if this is a set-up it won’t matter how alert he is."
COMMENT #42 (butterdezillion)
"When Roberts publicly stated that he trusts the justices to know when to recuse themselves - not long after Sotomayor and Kagan refused to recuse themselves from the Hollister conference where their own positions were at stake - I knew that Roberts’ integrity is severely compromised.
The only situation I can think of that would be a greater conflict of interest than that is if a judge was accused of murder and refused to recuse herself from the decision of whether the case should go to trial. If a chief justice publicly affirmed his trust for a judge who did that, everybody would know something was very badly wrong.
And that statement coming out within the context of the Obamacare case suggested to me that Roberts isn’t just compromised on Obama’s eligibility either, but on whatever Obama’s handlers want SCOTUS to rule on.
I think Orly’s intentions are good but she’s spread herself out too thin and has botched things up as a result. She’s been fighting so hard for so long. That wears a person down. After a while I think maybe a person succombs to the seductive belief that the end justifies the means so that compromises the integrity."
COMMENT #49 (butterdezillion)
"I think plausible deniability is why they’ve waffled around about Obama’s records, their procedures, etc. They give the APPEARANCE of affirming what Obama has posted but there’s always waffle room. They always leave waffle room.
Even looking at what Nagamine argued against Taitz on Friday, they claim that even if a subpoena applied to them, HRS 338-18 won’t allow them to obey a subpoena because it only allows release to individuals who (among other things) are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to have a legal right to access the record. Sounds to me like they would claim that a judge ordering the disclosure of the record would not be enough; the judge would first have to declare himself as having a legal right to access the record.
That kind of parsing words is what they do. Waffle room. It allows plausible deniability. I’ve been wrestling for over 2 1/2 years with that kind of waffling from them.
Dead men tell no tales, but the HDOH is gonna have a hard time justifying their refusal to give Duncan Sunahara a photocopy of Virginia’s long-form when that disclosure is REQUIRED by UIPA (Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act). Not a hard time justifying it to the judge. The Hawaii judge will wink at the corruption; I’m convinced there is no rule of law whatsoever in Hawaii government. But they will have a hard time justifying it to the public, which is the only real trial any of the Hawaii bureaucrats face - which is why they want to shut us down through the “vexatious requestor” law and their obfuscations.
All in all, though, neither Obama nor the HDOH have anything to worry about in regards to presenting a halfway decent forgery to Malihi unless he requires other documentation too.
What I really wonder, though, is who can force the HDOH to produce their transaction logs and original microfilms, give depositions, etc. And in what type of setting (i.e. criminal or civil trial, etc). I’m doing too much talking and not enough listening. I really want to understand how that works."
View the complete Free Republic thread at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2833394/posts
Comment