Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 12:10 PM EST - U.S. Markets close in 3 hrs 50 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. Message Board

  • pantone101naturalblondie pantone101naturalblondie Jan 8, 2012 6:13 PM Flag

    Relevant to future stock market direction

    PE, before the 'Occupy Wall Street' thread gets any more convoluted, I'm making the Judge Malihi case a new topic. I'm replying to the first part of your Sunday 01:52 PM post "Re: VERY on topic - about Occupy Wall Street - Part2 (b)" (241169&mid=244107) at

    http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_A/threadview?m=tm&bn=700&tid=241169&mid=244107

    http://
    messages.finance.yahoo.com/
    Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_A/threadview
    ?m=tm&bn=700&tid=241169&mid=244107

    >>That's [the judge's pre-trial order asking "Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163] a biggy. The answer has to be no. Of course they can choose to ignore the precedent.<<

    Ignoring the precedent would take either unmitigated chutzpah or the judge and/or his family threatened with extinction . . . because . . . (1) the Supreme Court's decision in Minor vs Happersett was UNANIMOUS and (2) that precedent has been cited in at least twenty-five Supreme Court cases so far. The state of Alabama's Deputy Chief judge in the Office of State Administrative Hearings (i.e. a relatively insignificant judge in a relatively insignificant court) would be ruling against the Supreme Court's unanimous Minor vs Happersett decision and ruling contrary to those twenty-five Supreme Court cases adhering to the precedent set by that decision.

    To make sure I don't inadvertently mislead you or base our hope on mistaken assumptions, I went back and reread the info in writings by both Leo Donofrio and Dianna Cotter. If there's an error in my opinion, an original error precedes mine.

    When I reread Judge Malihi's pre-trial order (which is dated December 1), I noticed that "Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163" is underlined and enclosed in a box, but so are all the other "case[s], statute[s], rule[s], and/or regulation[s] cited" in the judge's order. That must be his way of making sure they stand out clearly.

    I also found at Orly's site a PDF of Judge Malihi's denial of Obama's motion (dated January 3) to dismiss. See if you think the judge sounds firm in this:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf

    http://www.
    orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/
    Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf

    Orly's ecstatic announcement on January 3rd of the judge's denial of Obama's motion to dismiss might be a record setter. Two hundred and fourteen (214) readers commented!!

    <Thank you god!!! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battle for the first time a judge ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else involved without any impediment.>

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29976

    http://www.
    orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29976

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • >>I also found at Orly's site a PDF of Judge Malihi's denial of Obama's motion (dated January 3) to dismiss. See if you think the judge sounds firm in this:<<

      Yes emphatically denied. But never underestimate the ability of the Supreme Court to find a penumbra emanating from the constitution that whispers into their ear and counsels the politically correct solution.

      Still, go Orly!

      • 1 Reply to pecuniary_emulator
      • >>Yes emphatically denied. But never underestimate the ability of the Supreme Court to find a penumbra emanating from the constitution that whispers into their ear and counsels the politically correct solution.<<

        If the Supreme Court does that, breaking with precedent and the twenty-five (25) Supreme Court cases known SO FAR to cite that precedent-setter, civil war and a rerun of the American Revolution are sure to break out.

        I fear for the life of Judge Malihi and/or his family. He definitely didn't take the safer fork in the road. It took great courage for him to dismiss Obama's motion.

        >>Still, go Orly!<<

        I didn't realize until last night that that Georgia eligibility challenge comprises three individual cases now coalesced into one. I probably read it somewhere earlier but was too excited to notice. The judge consolidated suits brought by Orly, Van Irion, and J. Mark Hatfield. The Hatfield name rings a bell (other than linked with McCoy), but not Irion's.

        Did you read the article at L 659354? It quotes a number of Irion's comments and is very much worth reading because of the reason, regarding the Constitution, in the comment (at L) below the article's introductory paragraph(s). That article also says:

        <Malihi agreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that Georgia Election Code mandates “every candidate for federal and state office” shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought . . . .

        Malihi said, “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written … Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden.”>

        Can you imagine what America would be like today if the Supreme Court judges faithfully adhered to Malihi's standard?

    • pantone101naturalblondie pantone101naturalblondie Jan 12, 2012 6:27 AM Flag

      I tried and tried to post the other half of my prior reply, but kept getting the err0r page, so I'll try again later. This is my reply to your 2:10PM post on Tuesday, which I put on the back burner then and yesterday because a serious matter intervened on Tuesday, which still isn't resolved, but my attention span is better now.

      >>Yes, though I doubt he could back off now [if he were threatened] . . . I've never heard of anyone calling off a trial though I know nothing about that.<<

      I suspect those who might want that particular trial called off would have to employ a mode more subtle than direct threat. What's the first thing you notice about the judge's subpoena to BHO? (I doubt I would've noticed it if SodaHead.com hadn't kind of directed readers' eyes to it.) See if you get the notion that Malihi is one, ah, irritated judge/citizen.

      http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Barack-Obama-01.06.2012-subpoena_0001.jpg

      http://www.
      orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/
      Barack-Obama-01.06.2012-subpoena_0001.jpg

      Orly says that subpoena was sent to Obama’s Georgia attorney, Michael Jablonski.

      >>Yes it has but what a twist in the plot Hillary would bring. Mitt might be the guy to beat her, they probably both roll the same.<<

      What does "roll the same" mean? If you think Mitt can beat Hillary, that's a good consolation prize. Also, we would not have to worry about whether he'd try to repeal Obamacare. If Judge Malihi's trial deposes Obama, every single one of Obama's executive orders, appointments, and bills he signed will be null and void. *POOF* Besides shocking patriot citizens into delirium, that should detonate the stock market. :-)

      >>Yes but it occurs to me the SC doesn't have to ignore the precedent which states if the parentS are citizens you are natural born but just add that if you have one parent who is a citizen you are natural born. That is, the case doesn't preclude there being other natural born citizens. That's an end run around the case law . . . it also allows the SC to define anyone in the world as a natural born citizen. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.<<

      That would be a radical reinterpretation of the SC precedent which has already been succeeded by at least twenty-five (25) citations. It would mean children of one US citizen parent and one illegal immigrant parent could be a US President infused with divided loyalties. If the Supreme Court changed that Minor v. Happersett precedent the resulting response would eclipse anything we've ever seen. Constitution adherents would be enraged en masse to the point of strokes and heart attacks, and the survivors would rush with t0rches to all of Washington, DC.

    • >> . . . What's the first thing you notice about the judge's subpoena to BHO? <<

      The judge's subpoena to BHO. I had no idea he actually subpoenaed Obama to appear in his court on Jan. 26. Somehow I don't think he'll be successful in getting that served. Not having ever received a subpoena and not knowing what they should contain I have no idea what might be unusual about this one.

      >>What does "roll the same" mean? [about Mitt and Hillary]<<

      There would not be that much difference between how they run the presidency.

      >> . . . Also, we would not have to worry about whether he'd try to repeal Obamacare. If Judge Malihi's trial deposes Obama, every single one of Obama's executive orders, appointments, and bills he signed will be null and void. *POOF* . . .<<

      Maybe. I wouldn't count on that. Those are acts of congress and president Biden could sign them.

      >>That would be a radical reinterpretation of the SC precedent which has already been succeeded by at least twenty-five (25) citations. . . .<<

      It doesn't change the original interpretation, it just adds to it. The SC might not want to go there though because then almost anyone (let's say distant relatives) who are American citizens could be used to justify NBC status should the SC deem it so.

      >> . . If the Supreme Court changed that Minor v. Happersett precedent the resulting response would eclipse anything we've ever seen. Constitution adherents would be enraged en masse to the point of strokes and heart attacks, and the survivors would rush with t0rches to all of Washington, DC.<<

      Don't be so sure. To most people that's inside baseball, they'll defer to the experts.

    • pantone101naturalblondie pantone101naturalblondie Jan 13, 2012 12:35 PM Flag

      ¥ just spewed out another Error 999, so I'll try the second half of my reply and go back to the first half (about Orly's sub p0enas, now four of them) later.

      >>["roll the same" means] There would not be that much difference between how they run the presidency.<<

      What a prospect. :-(

      Oh, but I just thought of something. Issa and Grassley are not yet finished with their investigation of, and exposé of, Gunrunner/Fast & Furious. If the State Department is involved as has heretofore been reported, guess which presidential candidate will be likewise exposed.

      >>Maybe. I wouldn't count on that. Those are acts of congress and president Biden could sign them.<<

      Obama's recent recess appointments were no acts of Congress, nor were his czar and czarina appointments, nor were his executive orders. And how can there be a president Biden if Biden is an integral, complicit member of the usurper's 'government'?

      >>It doesn't change the original interpretation, it just adds to it. The SC might not want to go there though because then almost anyone (let's say distant relatives) who are American citizens could be used to justify NBC status should the SC deem it so.<<

      True. And do you remember how the full paragraph read?

      <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.  (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])>

      Don't you think messing with that would have to be extremely tricky? For instance, what could a redactor do with "never doubted"?

    • >> . . . If the State Department is involved as has heretofore been reported, guess which presidential candidate will be likewise exposed.<<

      You talking about Hillary? She's not a candidate yet but yeah she'd be in for some investigating . . . might keep her from even entertaining the thought of running.

      >> . . . And how can there be a president Biden if Biden is an integral, complicit member of the usurper's 'government'?<<

      He's not illegal and he got elected. He'd become president if Obama was removed.

      >> <. . . 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. . . .>
      Don't you think messing with that would have to be extremely tricky? For instance, what could a redactor do with "never doubted"?<<

      That says having American citizen parents make's one natural born and you aren't an NBC if you are an alien or foreign. If the SC were to determine Obama's father made him foreign then, yes that should preclude him being NBC . . . but would they make that determination. I'm just pointing out it's not as cut and dried as it would seem.

    • pantone101naturalblondie pantone101naturalblondie Jan 13, 2012 2:13 PM Flag

      >>You talking about Hillary? She's not a candidate yet but yeah she'd be in for some investigating . . . might keep her from even entertaining the thought of running.<<

      Yes, about Hillary. And didn't she herself, one day in the past few weeks, declare adamantly she would not run again for President? That (informal?) announcement made me think she knew she'd be investigated.

      >>He's not illegal and he got elected. He'd become president if Obama was removed.<<

      I just browsed through constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira's October 2008 discussion about the alleged usurper. Doesn't this appear to get in Biden's way?

      <Eighth . . . if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.>

      http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

      http://
      newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

      >>That says having American citizen parents make's one natural born and you aren't an NBC if you are an alien or foreign. If the SC were to determine Obama's father made him foreign then, yes that should preclude him being NBC . . . but would they make that determination. I'm just pointing out it's not as cut and dried as it would seem.<<

      I believe the SC would be under a microscope like never before. It's now public knowledge that Obamabots did all in their power to redact and hide that key statement in Minor v. Happersett PLUS all the 25 (maybe more?) citations of it. Remember even Cornell's law school was complicit? Now that that paragraph and the criminal treatment of it has been discovered and publicized, virtually every challenge/lawsuit about which I've read references that paragraph.

    • >>Yes, about Hillary. And didn't she herself, one day in the past few weeks, declare adamantly she would not run again for President? . . .<<

      I vaguely recollect that. Her (or the state department's) apparent involvement in selling weapons to shady Central American groups might easily have prompted that.

      >> . . . Doesn't this appear to get in Biden's way?

      <Eighth . . . if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. . . .>

      But he would be installed as a constitutional president. Like I said, he was qualified, he ran for the office of vice president and he was elected. The fact that Obama was not qualified wouldn't affect any of that.

      >>I believe the SC would be under a microscope like never before. It's now public knowledge that Obamabots did all in their power to redact and hide that key statement in Minor v. Happersett PLUS all the 25 (maybe more?) citations of it. Remember even Cornell's law school was complicit? Now that that paragraph and the criminal treatment of it has been discovered and publicized, virtually every challenge/lawsuit about which I've read references that paragraph.<<

      It would certainly be the right thing to find Obama not qualified but maybe not so politic. In right verses political I'm not sure which would win. Political has a pretty good track record lately.

    • pantone101naturalblondie pantone101naturalblondie Jan 14, 2012 2:59 PM Flag

      >>I vaguely recollect that. Her (or the state department's) apparent involvement in selling weapons to shady Central American groups might easily have prompted that.<<

      That reason popped into my mind the nanosecond I read it.

      >>>> . . . Doesn't this appear to get in Biden's way?

      <Eighth . . . if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. . . .>

      But he would be installed as a constitutional president. Like I said, he was qualified, he ran for the office of vice president and he was elected. The fact that Obama was not qualified wouldn't affect any of that.<<

      Yes, Biden was qualified and elected when he ran for VP, but, along with at least some members of Congress and along with at least some informed MSM operatives — and ESPECIALLY along with INFORMED Pelosi et al. who RE-worded and SIGNED the DNC's 'Official Certification of Nomination' — it is very likely that Biden was, as constitutional lawyer Vieira described, part of "the Establishment [who] allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people [who] acquiesced in that charade."

      http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

      http://
      newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

      Do you remember the DNC's 'amended' Official Certification of Nomination in which Madam Pelosi altered the original . . .

      <the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution>

      . . . to this . . .

      <the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively>

      . . . and then signed that revised Official Certification of Nomination even though she had already signed the as-yet-UNaltered version?

      The candidate for vice president in that Official Certification of Nomination was Joseph Biden. One can argue that he may have been uninformed and innocent as a dew-tipped meadow in the rosy dawn. But I do not believe the alleged usurper's partner will be allowed sanctification via elevation to the presidency.

      >>It would certainly be the right thing to find Obama not qualified but maybe not so politic. In right verses political I'm not sure which would win. Political has a pretty good track record lately.<<

      I'm hoping We the People with pitchforks and torches will wield a bit of influence in the SC's decision. But you sure are right. Political has won and has ruled over constitutional and the right things since long before the 2008 election.

      Meanwhile, here is the latest chapter in Orly's Adventures in Dissemblerland.

      http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/13/breaking-orly-taitz-reports-on-january-13-hearing-in-hawaii/

      http://www.
      thepostemail.com/2012/01/13/breaking-orly
      -taitz-reports-on-january-13-hearing-in-hawaii/

      Now I need to get back to some editing and postpone my next reply, and next attempts to post ¥'s two Error 999 specials, until later, 'Nol. It's student stuff (which is why it comes in at weird hours), but no less deadline matter than the papers that pay better.

    • pantone101naturalblondie pantone101naturalblondie Jan 15, 2012 4:00 AM Flag

      This is the first of my two replies that met up with an Error 999 yesterday. The second one finally made it through the gate unscathed earlier.

      >>The judge's subpoena to BHO. I had no idea he actually subpoenaed Obama to appear in his court on Jan. 26. Somehow I don't think he'll be successful in getting that served. Not having ever received a subpoena and not knowing what they should contain I have no idea what might be unusual about this one.<<

      I'm rewriting what I wrote yesterday (Thursday) afternoon about "the first thing you notice[d]" because, after literally hours of searching and getting more and more confused, I finally looked in Wikipedia and a paragraph there seems to fit the confusing things I've read:

      <Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court (see below) in the name of the judge presiding over the case. Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued "in blank" and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness. If a witness is reluctant to testify, then the personal service of subpoena is usually required with proof of service.>

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

      http://
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

      This is only part of my reply, but I will see if it gets past the Error 999 gate. When I again tried my entire reply earlier, it failed.

    • pantone101naturalblondie pantone101naturalblondie Jan 15, 2012 7:05 AM Flag

      >>>> . . . What's the first thing you notice about the judge's subpoena to BHO? <<

      The judge's subpoena to BHO. I had no idea he actually subpoenaed Obama to appear in his court on Jan. 26. Somehow I don't think he'll be successful in getting that served. Not having ever received a subpoena and not knowing what they should contain I have no idea what might be unusual about this one.<<

      Well, as you've now seen, the first part of my reply on that subject finally got past the Error 999, but not the rest, so for three more subpoenaes jaunt down ye olde breadcrumb trail to the Village:

      http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=2941&mn=346&pt=msg&mid=11348573

      http://
      investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=2941
      &mn=346&pt=msg&mid=11348573

      I rewrote my reply so that it would inform everyone who reads it. But I'll tell you here that what I had wanted you to notice in Obama's subpoena was that it was addressed not to 'President' but to 'Mr'.  I had thought that 'Mr.' evinced the judge's opinion, but Orly's corrected my misperception, as you'll see when you read at the Village.

    • View More Messages
 
AKAM
60.01-0.28(-0.46%)12:09 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.