WHO WAS REALLY IN “PERIL” IN GEORGIA?
by Keith Baker
(Feb. 11, 2012) — “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.
If I ever have legal problems and am charged and/or subpoenaed to a court of “law”, I am going to plead the Obama Defense. In doing so I will fail to answer to or show up for any legal proceeding in my defense.
This should guarantee my immediate acquittal and victory. Right?
A contract can only last a maximum if 99 years. The states contracts with the federal government seriously need to be renegotiated or cancelled as the individual states so decide.
That is what needs to happen. Enough already, I would rather pay my taxes to the state for our use. Protection? We have our own, between militia, sheriff, police and military we have enough. These people thrive on fear and intimidation. They don’t scare me!! Money we can print our own. Theirs is FAKE MONOPOLY MONEY anyhow.
I WANT A DIVORCE!!!!!
“But what resort is left to us . . .”
We are on the down side of a very slippery slope.
The states must first regain power. Money is the source of power. That means the states must get off the federal teat, i.e. stop taking pork, grants, and gimmes with huge hooks in them. The legislation to make this happen has been filed over and over in Georgia for years. It dies in committee and then at the end of the session, is refiled at the next series of sessions, etc. To ask the people to assume total responsibility for the funding of their sate budget is like touching the third rail. To expect a weasel in the state legislative process to file and pass legislation that will withhold unconstitutional federal funding is unthinkable for a legislator to do from a “career” stand point.
Georgia rolled over like a dead cockroach on the ballot challenge to protect the federal funding for the Savanna port modifications that will allow the new Chini freighter to dock. There is no doubt that this is an economic must for Georgia but to lower oneself to the level of a prostitute to get the money is unconscionable.
“Judge” Malalhi and the SOS are under the control of economic whores, as it were.
What to do is make sure the elected ones understand that We know what they are doing and We don’t approve of it.
It will also help if a select cadre of individuals consider a plan for if there has to be a reset, prepare themselves to get by between now and after the reset, and then pick up the pieces on the other side. If all that happens is that your town gets destroyed by a tornado then you will not have wasted your preparations. :-)
Keith,
Absolutely brilliant ! But what resort is left to us who desire by peaceful means to expose the Fraud in our House when the party at the reception refuses to do anything but toast the groom who has laid waste to the brides beloved? Even if the Supreme Cout hears this case as I have pleaded with them for over 3 years to do the public is fickle. It seems to me that our stategey must include exposing the fraud so perhaps our efforts should be directed to those with the authority to do this. Somehow we must convince the Attorneys General of States to attack his eligibility on the basis of fraud and in the least force Obama to release his sealed documents to establish legal authority.
Many people think that if this question were to come before the supreme court that it would find resolution. I would remind all who still harbor illusions about the Supreme Court that they dismissed three cases which presented solid evidence of Obama’s ineligibility the night before the election after a closed door meeting between eight of the nine justices and the named defendant (Obama) in all three cases. And this was before Obama had Sotomeyer and Kagen on the bench. If you still think the Supreme Court has any will to uphold the Constitution or the law you are more than sadly naive…you are not only blind but ignorant and living in La La Land. The judicial branch of our government was nullified that night and now the legislative branch is nullified by a president that makes rulings without consent of congress and brazenly brags about it openly to the American people. The balance of power is gone and with it our constitutional republic. If you think we are not living under a dictatorship…think again.
The message the GA Secretary of State Brian Kemp sent to all the other states is…If you threaten to expose the usurper you can pretty much name your price. A president that can be blackmailed is one that cannot be trusted with the responsibility of national security…or anything else for that matter.