Tweet
A Warning Shot Heard Loud and Clear
WHO WAS REALLY IN “PERIL” IN GEORGIA?
The Post & Email
Keith Baker
2/11/2012
"Who was Kemp warning of "peril" in his January 25 letter to Obama attorney Michael Jablonski? Had the issue of Obama's placement on the Georgia ballot already been decided?"
“If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”
The stern warning is clearly stated. At least most of us would interpret it that way. If you don’t show up to the legal proceedings there is bound to be a punitive consequence. It is understood that peril is not a good thing, particularly when used in the context of a legal proceeding.
But what does “peril” actually mean?
Well, the warning does not, in words, say what peril is. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. By common usage, the meaning of which most people are familiar with, it was never doubted that causes have effects, and that when a cause is poorly executed, negative consequence may result. This is peril, as opposed to safety and security. Some people go further and include as a negative consequence uncertainty without regard to punishment. As to this class of risk in a legal proceeding there is doubt that uncertainty is equivalent to punitive consequence, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this examination, it is unnecessary to resolve those doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider that peril is punitive, and that failing to participate in the proceedings, as stated in the warning, will result in lawful punishment.
The word “peril” is certainly comprehensive in the context of the warning. Judgment against the defendant and a ruling for the plaintiff are implied in the warning. That is undeniable. In fact, the entire reason the warning was issued was to convey this very sentiment.
By saying “[t]his is peril, as opposed to safety and security. Some people go further and include as negative consequence uncertainty without regard to punishment,” is it left open to consider that uncertainty is peril? Or does the statement only leave open the possibility that uncertainty is among those results which may be considered to be a negative consequence?
Now consider the following:
If you read the above and determined that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” means that all children born in the United States are natural born citizens, then you probably also agree that uncertainty is peril. You would not be alone in holding this point of view. In fact, many who have made this same determination have also concluded that every decision that is adjudicated in a court of law in the United States poses significant peril to all parties involved. Why? Because all decisions involve plaintiffs and defendants.
Given this thread of rationale, is there any wonder why the author of the original warning determined that peril lies not with the client that failed to heed his warning, but rather with the parties that chose to adhere to it? Truth be told, Kemp was just following already-established logic and current precedent. After all, Obama does occupy the White House. That must mean he is a natural born citizen. That also must also mean that the peril lies with us and not him, because the warning shot fired in his direction is now over our heads."
View the complete article at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/...oud-and-clear/
WHO WAS REALLY IN “PERIL” IN GEORGIA?
The Post & Email
Keith Baker
2/11/2012
"Who was Kemp warning of "peril" in his January 25 letter to Obama attorney Michael Jablonski? Had the issue of Obama's placement on the Georgia ballot already been decided?"
“If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”
The stern warning is clearly stated. At least most of us would interpret it that way. If you don’t show up to the legal proceedings there is bound to be a punitive consequence. It is understood that peril is not a good thing, particularly when used in the context of a legal proceeding.
But what does “peril” actually mean?
Well, the warning does not, in words, say what peril is. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. By common usage, the meaning of which most people are familiar with, it was never doubted that causes have effects, and that when a cause is poorly executed, negative consequence may result. This is peril, as opposed to safety and security. Some people go further and include as a negative consequence uncertainty without regard to punishment. As to this class of risk in a legal proceeding there is doubt that uncertainty is equivalent to punitive consequence, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this examination, it is unnecessary to resolve those doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider that peril is punitive, and that failing to participate in the proceedings, as stated in the warning, will result in lawful punishment.
The word “peril” is certainly comprehensive in the context of the warning. Judgment against the defendant and a ruling for the plaintiff are implied in the warning. That is undeniable. In fact, the entire reason the warning was issued was to convey this very sentiment.
By saying “[t]his is peril, as opposed to safety and security. Some people go further and include as negative consequence uncertainty without regard to punishment,” is it left open to consider that uncertainty is peril? Or does the statement only leave open the possibility that uncertainty is among those results which may be considered to be a negative consequence?
Now consider the following:
"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."
If you read the above and determined that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” means that all children born in the United States are natural born citizens, then you probably also agree that uncertainty is peril. You would not be alone in holding this point of view. In fact, many who have made this same determination have also concluded that every decision that is adjudicated in a court of law in the United States poses significant peril to all parties involved. Why? Because all decisions involve plaintiffs and defendants.
Given this thread of rationale, is there any wonder why the author of the original warning determined that peril lies not with the client that failed to heed his warning, but rather with the parties that chose to adhere to it? Truth be told, Kemp was just following already-established logic and current precedent. After all, Obama does occupy the White House. That must mean he is a natural born citizen. That also must also mean that the peril lies with us and not him, because the warning shot fired in his direction is now over our heads."
View the complete article at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/...oud-and-clear/