Main Menu

Can the President be arrested?

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.

Print Friendly

, , ,

42 Responses to Can the President be arrested?

  1. avatar
    donna January 24, 2013 at 10:54 am #

    Orly Taitz Says She Can Arrest Barack Obama In Connecticut

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/orly-taitz-connecticut_n_2541233.html

  2. avatar
    Lupin January 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

    If stupidity came in the shape of small bricks, this woman could build the Empire State building.

  3. avatar
    donna January 24, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    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

  4. avatar
    Andrew Morris January 24, 2013 at 12:18 pm #

    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?

  5. avatar
    Reality Check January 24, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    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.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    Pithy.

    Andrew Morris: Does so make you wonder what passes [for] legal education at the vending machine she attended.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    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”

  8. avatar
    ZixiOfIx January 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    donna: Orly Taitz Says She Can Arrest Barack Obama In Connecticut

    I fervently pray that she tries.

  9. avatar
    Bob January 24, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

    Where are the Birthers telling us what Orly is really trying to say? There’s probably some rational explanation.

  10. avatar
    Sef January 24, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    Lupin:
    If stupidity came in the shape of small bricks, this woman could build the Empire State building.

    I have a better one for you: “If stupidity came in the shape of small bricks, this woman could build the Eiffel Tower.”

  11. avatar
    Scientist January 24, 2013 at 1:01 pm #

    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.

  12. avatar
    Selectivity-Obfuscation January 24, 2013 at 1:44 pm #

    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.

  13. avatar
    Daniel January 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

    Lupin:
    If stupidity came in the shape of small bricks, this woman could build the Empire State building.

    Upside down, of course

  14. avatar
    donna January 24, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

    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

  15. avatar
    JD Reed January 24, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

    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.

  16. avatar
    MattR January 24, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    Scientist: thus exposing those making it to potential perjury charges.

    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.

  17. avatar
    Yoda January 24, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

    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

  18. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 24, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

    Yoda: However, I can hear birfers now saying that he is not legally the President and therefore can be arrested.

    It’s a vexing experience realizing one has learned to think like a Birfer, isn’t it?

  19. avatar
    misha marinsky January 24, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

    Andrew Morris: Does so make you wonder what passes legal education at the vending machine she attended.

    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?”

  20. avatar
    Graham Shevlin January 24, 2013 at 5:50 pm #

    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).

  21. avatar
    SluggoJD January 24, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    Lupin:
    If stupidity came in the shape of small bricks, this woman could build the Empire State building.

    If stupidity came in ounces of rocket fuel, this woman would be circling Vega.

    Yours was better lol

  22. avatar
    Lupin January 25, 2013 at 3:05 am #

    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.

  23. avatar
    The Magic M January 25, 2013 at 4:17 am #

    Scientist: , thus exposing those making it to potential perjury charges.

    I’m still waiting for the first birther to plead insanity when the repercussions begin. :)

  24. avatar
    Northland10 January 25, 2013 at 7:47 am #

    The Magic M: 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.

  25. avatar
    The Magic M January 25, 2013 at 10:56 am #

    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.

  26. avatar
    ASK Esq January 25, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    Lupin: 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.

    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.

  27. avatar
    ASK Esq January 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    Andrew Morris: 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?

    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.

  28. avatar
    donna January 25, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    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/

  29. avatar
    RetiredLawyer January 25, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    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.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

    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.

    Selectivity-Obfuscation: 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,…

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

    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.

    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.

  32. avatar
    Northland10 January 25, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: For some reason, your comment was in the SPAM folder,

    I am leaning toward agreeing with your SPAM filter.

  33. avatar
    JPotter January 25, 2013 at 10:31 pm #

    Selectivity-Obfuscation: Obfuscation

    Indeed!

  34. avatar
    Greenfinches January 25, 2013 at 10:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: For some reason, your comment was in the SPAM folder, but that’s fixed now and shouldn’t happen again.

    Selectivity-Obfuscation:

    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?

  35. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 1:09 am #

    Selectivity-Obfuscation:will take the fifth

    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?

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2013 at 10:01 am #

    My all-time favorite is “misprision of felony.”

    Greenfinches: 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,

  37. avatar
    American Mzungu January 26, 2013 at 1:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: 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.

    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.

    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?

  38. avatar
    Northland10 January 26, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

    American Mzungu: 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.”

  39. avatar
    JD Reed January 26, 2013 at 8:28 pm #

    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!

  40. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 4:37 am #

    Northland10: Either that, or the word of the day for Birther trolls is “Screed.”

    Birther’s Word for the Day Toilet Paper.

  41. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 27, 2013 at 8:43 pm #

    Majority Will: Birther’s Word for the Day Toilet Paper.

    And what do they mean by using a term from cement finishing, anyway?

  42. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    Thomas Brown: And what do they mean by using a term from cement finishing, anyway?

    They need a mascot: Apollo Screed.