This is the second article with a similar title, the first being “Can President be Arrestedor?” from April of 2009. Once again Orly Taitz is sitting at her computer spinning fantasies about how she can discomfit the President, not realizing how utterly absurd the whole concept is.
In that 2009 article I linked to a 2000 US Attorney General opinion that answered the titular question with “no.”
This time, Taitz has lit upon a Connecticut law that allows three electors to swear a complaint against someone for elections law violations, upon which the judge is supposed to issue a warrant for their arrest. Her article’s title is: “It looks like I have 3 individuals from the state of CT, who can file the affirmation of Obama violated laws relating to elections. I need help with research of any and all laws, including CT laws of identity theft, theft of a Social Security number to include in the complaint”.
The law that Orly cites is Chapter 151, § 9-368, which says:
Sec. 9-368. Arrest of accused. Upon the written complaint of any three electors of a town in which a violation of any law relating to elections has occurred to any judge of the superior court for the judicial district within which the offense has been committed, supported by oath or affirmation that the complainants have good reason to believe and do believe that the allegations therein contained are true and can be proved, such judge shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.
Besides the insurmountable problems with any state trying to arrest the President, there are some details that get in the way of Orly’s gambit in Connecticut, namely, her failure to read the statute completely, “Chapter 151 Elections: Prohibited Acts and Penalties.” None of the unlawful conduct listed refers to candidates. They refer to voting and the conduct of elections. I read in the title of Orly’s article that she doesn’t have a clue what Connecticut elections law the President allegedly violated and she expects her Internet followers to be her legal research assistant.
A warning to anyone who plans to get involved with Orly Taitz: Consult an attorney before doing something stupid. Orly Taitz is out to get the President at all costs and does not consider the risk to others.
Orly Taitz Says She Can Arrest Barack Obama In Connecticut
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/orly-taitz-connecticut_n_2541233.html
If stupidity came in the shape of small bricks, this woman could build the Empire State building.
Lupin:
i can visualize the great pyramid –
The pyramid is estimated to have about 2,300,000 stone blocks weighing from 2-30 Tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons.
though, unlike taitz, the pyramid has a strong base of support
Does so make you wonder what passes legal education at the vending machine she attended. More seriously, though, lawyers enjoy many privileges in the justice system based on their supposed knowledge and skills. One of these is the ability to understand the law, along with the assumption that they will actually read relevant statutes. Leaving aside how she ever managed to get admitted to the CA Bar, many professions require regular recertification. And mandatory continuing ed. Perhaps this is needed for lawyers?
Doc
I think your warning to the people in Connecticut who might be thinking of following through on Orly’s silly idea is well advised. Probably nothing will happen but any time your file an obviously false complaint there is a chance you might run into a judge or a DA who will not be happy with Birther’s wasting the court’s time. Just ask Linda Jordan.
This is especially true if one of these people is Sharon Rondeau who has already been visited by the FBI when she received and published stolen court documents from Tennessee.
Pithy.
Another pithy comment at the Huffington Post:
“Too bad there isn’t a law that lets 3 people sign a petition to have someone committed”
I fervently pray that she tries.
Where are the Birthers telling us what Orly is really trying to say? There’s probably some rational explanation.
I have a better one for you: “If stupidity came in the shape of small bricks, this woman could build the Eiffel Tower.”
The 3 have to be from the same town, not just from Connecticut.
And it should be noted that the complaint has to be sworn to, thus exposing those making it to potential perjury charges.
Warped thinking resulting from “group think” is always a detriment to solving problems.
Corporations spend billions to remove or alter the players who work withing a group think environment; a serious human weakness that impedes all aspects of any organization,
The obfuscation of legitimate courses of action being taken to dethrone the the 2.5 million dollar cover up of ‘fraud’; committed by a disgusting WH beast, won’t stop the continuing push to prove who that WH miscreant is supposed to be.
There’s no answer to the ‘fraud’ committed by the WH ‘miscreant’ until a ‘jury’, that is not hindered by legalisms, to pass judgment on that vile ‘miscreant’ who took the American Rights, to have an eligible POTUS, away from them.
The pursuit of the WH ‘miscreant’ is necessary, because not one person who places their ignorant screed on this blog can prove who that “miscreant’ represents or who he is.
The following may put some person/s responsible for assuring ‘clean’ elections in jail which in turn just might cause the WH ‘miscreant’ to have to testify somehow to prove who he is. The WH ‘miscreant’ probably will take the fifth and allow more citizens to be jailed, because of his ‘fraudulent’ acts, as he did to the dedicated, honorable, decorated American military.
BTW! the ‘screed’ originators need to learn abut “unalienable rights” possessed my American citizens and spelled out in the “Bill of Rights” for all to see.
http://is.gd/aKPUhJ
Sec. 9-355. Official neglect or fraud. Any person who, without reasonable cause, neglects to perform any of the duties required of him by the laws relating to elections or primaries and for which neglect no other punishment is provided, and any person who is guilty of fraud in the performance of any such duty, and any person who makes any unlawful alteration in any list required by law, shall be fined not more than three hundred dollars or be imprisoned not more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned. Any official who is convicted of fraud in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by any law relating to the registration or admission of electors or to the conduct of any election shall be disfranchised. Any public officer or any election official upon whom any duty is imposed by part I of chapter 147 and sections 9-308 to 9-311, inclusive, who wilfully omits or neglects to perform any such duty or does any act prohibited therein for which punishment is not otherwise provided shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both.
Upside down, of course
Scientist:
since when has “perjury” stopped them? i can’t imagine a court in ny standing for someone saying to the court’s face “i’m looking for an honest judge” – seriously? early on, i freaked out when i mistakenly called a judge “mr.” only to quickly correct myself – i can’t imagine referring to their peers as “dishonest” – for anyone watching, these people have made a mockery of our judicial system with only slaps on the wrists – pro se litigants are often given more latitude but taitz, apuzzo, klayman, etc are supposed to be officers of the court
Also, anyone who would possess the horrible judgement to take it on himself to try to make a “citizens arrest” would not only face the certainty of a Secret Service takedown, but prosecution under 18 U.S.C.A. 111, which makes the interference with any federal officer in the performance of his duty a felony. Significant jail time could be forthcoming.
I don’t think perjury is too much of a worry for them. It would be hard to prove that they willingly told a falsehood under oath rather than them just repeating things that they had heard and fervently believed to be true.
Both in the 1970s and in 2000 the Justice Department did extensive research into this issue as the Constitution is silent about it. The conclusion both times was no, that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution unless and until he is removed from office. That is not to say that he could not be prosecuted once his term is over even if not impeached. However, I can hear birfers now saying that he is not legally the President and therefore can be arrested.
here is the link to the report:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
It’s a vexing experience realizing one has learned to think like a Birfer, isn’t it?
Orly is a successful graduate of the Taft School of Law and Auto Mechanics.
Located on the second floor of a shopping center.
Orly: If you read this, I have one question – “Is it safe?”
I think we are unlikely to ever see any of the current players in the “Arrest the Great Usurper” controversy actually attempt any form of arrest of the POTUS. They may be a bunch of bloviating bullshitters, but they are not stupid. They will follow the Joe Arpaio approach, by engaging in mud-slinging followed by demands that Somebody Else Do Something (Or They Must Also Be Guilty Of Treason).
If stupidity came in ounces of rocket fuel, this woman would be circling Vega.
Yours was better lol
I do realize now that the Empire State Building (like all skyscrapers — and the Eiffel Tower) relies on steel, so my “bricks” analogy, while not as bad as Mario’s instant classic about natural-born german shepherds, was still flawed.
Even with a Great Pyramid-sized pile of bricks (to borrow Donna’s own analogy), Orly still could not build the ESB — another failure! — unless one adds the “steel of her meretriciousness” to the analogy, but then it becomes a tad cumbersome.
I really have too much time on my hands.
I’m still waiting for the first birther to plead insanity when the repercussions begin. 🙂
It would be the most believable statement a birther has ever made.
Lakin came close as far as the “I was wrong” part in court goes, but of course it didn’t take him long to go back to his former self.
Don’t feel bad. I just assumed you meant Lego bricks and yes, if stupidity was Lego, Orly could build a full-scale replica of the ESB, along with the rest of the Manhattan skyline, with some of Jersey thrown in for good measure.
I can assure you that in NY it is. I assume the same goes for CA. Of course, she just may be paying the same bottle-blonde attorney who took the bar exam for her to take her CE classes as well.
Andrew Morris: Perhaps this is needed for lawyers?
CA bar: Minimum Continuing Legal Education
Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) refers to the approved continuing legal education required of California attorneys.
Attorneys are required to complete a total of 25 hours of approved credit every three years.
http://mcle.calbar.ca.gov/
However, the requirement is that one merely be present or certify that one has listened to the tapes; there is no requirement that one be tested on the material. Also, except for four or six hours of mandatory subject matter, the other 20 odd hours can be on anything, as long it is given or presented by an approved entity.
From which it ls clear that this statute refers to election officials and not candidates.
For some reason, your comment was in the SPAM folder, but that’s fixed now and shouldn’t happen again.
You can use your unalienable right to say that, but that doesn’t make it true, nor does it override my unalienable right to think your remark is fantastical.
I am leaning toward agreeing with your SPAM filter.
Indeed!
I too think the SPAM filter was right.
But we have a definite new birther idea; miscreant is a word they have recently taken to, and it sounds more like a dropper of litter than an alleged destroyer of God’s Own Country (however he is supposed to be doing that, I really haven’t got my head round it at all)! Why a well-documented Obama is such a thing, I don’t know – have they given up completely on the NBC and instead homed in on the identity documents issue?
It’s now sold as 750 ml.
Also, I like how you put “everything” in quotes, “like this.”
I guess you could call me a “communist,” or something else like a “Marxist.”
However, I voted for the “miscreant” because I wanted to make “people” like you unhappy.
BTW!, do you know what “miscreant” actually means?
My all-time favorite is “misprision of felony.”
I am trying to make sense of the sudden posts by UNALIENABLE on other discussion threads attempting to instruct everyone about the distinction between “inalienable” and “unalienable”. Is this just a sockpuppet for SELECTIVITY-OBFUSCATION responding to Doc C’s comment about unalienable rights quoted above?
Either that, or the word of the day for Birther trolls is “Screed.”
Selectivity-Obfuscation: “The pursuit of the WH ‘miscreant’ is necessary, because not one person who places their ignorant screed on this blog can prove who that “miscreant’ represents or who he is.”
So you see as the reason for pursuit of the WH “miscreant” is that we posters of “ignorant screeds” can’t furnish some satisfactory proof (to you, I presume.) Cool. By your logic such pursuit would not be necessary if Doc hadn’t created this site, and therefore we hadn’t posted. Gosh, Doc, I didn’t know you were invested with such power!
Birther’s Word for the Day Toilet Paper.
And what do they mean by using a term from cement finishing, anyway?
They need a mascot: Apollo Screed.