Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The law apparently "bothers" to keep a well funded group of conspiracy birther nutjobs encroaching on the constitution. Thank goodness for that at least

Look at this leftist loon double speak.

In true orwell style he now acts like it is an encroachment on the constitution to ask the courts or a state election board to verify that a candidate has some proof of eligibility.

These loons have no regard for truth when they write. They just use doublespeak.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you are a complete troll and liar. you started the bickering.

I made the simple and correct statement that Obama chose to default instead of producing proof of eligibility. The plaintiffs elected to put on their case instead of accepting a default. (that was non normal part)

You can argue with case law and blacks dictionary all you wish.
Your bullshit can not change the facts.

Obama was supposed to attend the hearing or at least send his lawyer, Obama was to respond to a subpeona for documents. He chose to default instead of comply with the subpoenas after his motion to quash failed.

In every non moron brain in america... that is a default.

---
Note:
By the way, you still have presented the georgia code or case law saying an ALJ judge can not issue a subpoena for documents or a subpoena for attendance. You know why because you are full of shit... the motion to quash failed.

You are quibbling about what is the definition of default, nothing else.

There are numerous reasons why in law the definition or an appearance of default may not have actually occurred.
That is why there is also a definition of vacate. Even Judges may consider a default has occurred where in law, one hasn't.

There is also a definition of frivolous . If you think Obama's response or rather as you assert it, the lack of one, fits the definition of default, then Oily Titz's certainly fits Black's definition of frivolous.

However unlike Obama, Taitz has had judgment made against her which completely fits with Black’s frivolous and has been fined $20,000 by a Georgia Court!!!! no less, for behavior fitting Black's Frivolous definition.
Yet by the way you go on, you obviously don't agree with Black's that any of this is frivolous.
That you wrongly jump to conclusions by not understanding that law is not only about definition, will be one reason why you're always so uninformed.

I keep saying (how many more times), Obama was not "supposed to attend a hearing" as you say. There was no subpoena ordering his attendance. It's questionable what subpoenas were actually valid. It's extremely doubtful a Georgia Court would have jurisdiction over a President especially personal.

Subpoenas sent out by Oily Titz were found to worthless to the point the Judge even entered an order explaining to the Russian dentist why one of them was no use.

The Judge will have wanted the Defendant to reply in the usual manner to a claim he allows for hearing in his court, albeit a crazy claim. In that regard he obviously got pissed with Obama's lawyer and the way he went about things, his motion and writing to Kemp against all the nonsense waste of time.
The Judge even gave it another shot after the motion to quash, with a week during the hearing for each side to present additional information should they desire to.
Why he would even entertain a case he must have known must fail because it is fundamentally made up from utter twattery, only he knows. Probably something political.


-----
Note:

Go look up the Georgia code I refer to, you lazy birther. First, I suggest try looking up its relevance to the point I made, not to the one you are confused about which I never mentioned.
It’s nothing to do with an Administrative Law Judge not being able to issue a subpoena for documents or a subpoena for attendance.

Talk about moron, you've a nerve.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Look at this leftist loon double speak.

In true orwell style he now acts like it is an encroachment on the constitution to ask the courts or a state election board to verify that a candidate has some proof of eligibility.

These loons have no regard for truth when they write. They just use doublespeak.

What crap you come out with jem-o-loon. Biggest loon of them all.

Trying to verify a candidate has proof of eligibility by means of groundless claims without any foundation whatsoever, and refusing the statements of sworn notaries, and trying to re-interpret the Constitution against all basic common law, contrary to what it says and what has been explained it means by the single most important writer of it, is what's doublespeak loonery.

You as an un-American birther own that.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

What crap you come out with jem-o-loon. Biggest loon of them all.

Trying to verify a candidate has proof of eligibility by means of groundless claims without any foundation whatsoever, and refusing the statements of sworn notaries, and trying to re-interpret the Constitution against all basic common law, contrary to what it says and what has been explained it means by the single most important writer of it, is what's doublespeak loonery.

You as an un-American birther own that.

not a word you said above is true.

1. If you wished to verify a candidate is eligible...in america you would use the procedure given. In Georgia it was the courts.

Stu - troll score... 5 out of 5

2. There need not be any interpretation of the Constitution by the challenger. What we know is the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the issue.

Stu troll score 2 out of 3. You could just be dense and not a troll on this issue.

3. WTF are you talking about sworn notaries. Obama has never ever produced a shred of evidence for the courts or state election boards. When subpoenaed to produce evidence both Obama and the State of HI... chose to submit nothing... No notaries, no evidence. Stu Troll score... 10 out of 10.

 

[Lucrum]

Is there any chance we can just get you two guys in a boxing ring?
Maybe someone would offer to video it for us.

 

[pspr]

Quote from stu:
Trying to verify a candidate has proof of eligibility by means of groundless claims without any foundation whatsoever, and refusing the statements of sworn notaries, and trying to re-interpret the Constitution against all basic common law, contrary to what it says and what has been explained it means by the single most important writer of it, is what's doublespeak loonery.

Whoooooa. I would love to see someone with a Phd. in English dissect this incredible run on sentence. I think every logical and grammatical convention in the language has been turned upside down in this insane example of verbose.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from pspr:

Whoooooa. I would love to see someone with a Phd. in English dissect this incredible run on sentence. I think every logical and grammatical convention in the language has been turned upside down in this insane example of verbose.

I'm sure brASS/Gabby will be all over this one as soon as he notices it.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
not a word you said above is true.

That's not true.

Quote from jem:
1. If you wished to verify a candidate is eligible...in america you would use the procedure given. In Georgia it was the courts.
Stu - troll score... 5 out of 5

Never said any different about procedure and the courts. Do try and at least comprehend the simple part.
The claim fell flat on its ass. Again. Over 80 attempts and it fails every time. That would be because it has no standing in Georgia, in the courts, or in law.

Quote from jem:
2. There need not be any interpretation of the Constitution by the challenger. What we know is the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the issue.
Stu troll score 2 out of 3. You could just be dense and not a troll on this issue.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on lots of issues that don't need ruling on.

Quote from jem:

3. WTF are you talking about sworn notaries. Obama has never ever produced a shred of evidence for the courts or state election boards. When subpoenaed to produce evidence both Obama and the State of HI... chose to submit nothing... No notaries, no evidence. Stu Troll score... 10 out of 10.

As I say you're a birther, you ignore statements made publicaly by sworn notaries that are in the public domain. You might as well ask if Obama was eligible by age.

Good at hurling insult. Bad at addressing the real issues. Bad at making a sensible case. Just like a birther.

 

[stu]

Quote from pspr:

Whoooooa. I would love to see someone with a Phd. in English dissect this incredible run on sentence. I think every logical and grammatical convention in the language has been turned upside down in this insane example of verbose.

It comes as no surprise you can't follow a sentence containing more than one comma.
But don't worry, Lucrumb in his usual leaning toward nonsensical birthers like yourself and Jem will hypocritically attempt to shift what you've rather unsuccessfully tried to do onto to someone else.

Quote from Lucrum:

I'm sure brASS/Gabby will be all over this one as soon as he notices it.

There ya go.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

That's not true.


Never said any different about procedure and the courts. Do try and at least comprehend the simple part.
The claim fell flat on its ass. Again. Over 80 attempts and it fails every time. That would be because it has no standing in Georgia, in the courts, or in law.


The Supreme Court has not ruled on lots of issues that don't need ruling on.


As I say you're a birther, you ignore statements made publicaly by sworn notaries that are in the public domain. You might as well ask if Obama was eligible by age.

Good at hurling insult. Bad at addressing the real issues. Bad at making a sensible case. Just like a birther.

Stroll in full b.s. mode.

--Now back to facts.

Your b.s can not change the facts.

Obama was supposed to attend the hearing or at least send his lawyer, Obama was to respond to a subpeona for documents. He chose to default instead of comply with the subpoenas after his motion to quash failed.

In every non moron brain in america... that is a default.