Sorry, did I say "Connecticut"? I meant, "in the baseless dreams of delusional lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz, queen of the 'birthers.'"
I should have been more careful.
According to Orly, whose legal skills some have called into question (see, e.g., "'A Rhesus Monkey Could Have Beaten Orly Taitz,'" Lowering the Bar (Dec. 6, 2012)), Obama is subject to arrest in Connecticut for violating that state's election law, or more accurately because she may have found three people who are willing to claim that he did:
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 ..., 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.
She claims that Obama's Social Security number is fraudulent, and (I think) that using it on election paperwork in Connecticut therefore violated state law. All she needs to do, according to her, is sign up "three electors" from the same town, and these four intrepid citizens can effectively require state authorities to arrest the President of the United States the next time he visits.
If you don't believe her, maybe you'll change your mind when you see it in all caps, as set forth on her website:
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
I think most of us would recommend researching the relevant laws first, let alone lining up people allegedly now willing to swear under oath that the guy violated laws you admit you haven't researched yet. (If one insists on doing the latter, which seems kind of like suborning perjury, one should not post the fact on one's website. Free advice.) I personally would also point out that warrants require probable cause, not just the word of any three yokels off the street, and so it'd be unconstitutional to apply the law in the way Orly seems to be contemplating.
But then I'm no dentist.
Orly may want to focus instead on a different legal issue that has arisen here in California, namely whether she should be sanctioned for lying to a federal judge. On January 23, Judge Andrew Guilford ordered her to explain, if she can, why she should not be sanctioned for violating an earlier order that required the parties to disclose any pending ethical or disciplinary matters. She reportedly disclosed only a "minor discovery sanction," but "[s]ome evidence has been presented ... that the sanction involved far more" than that. There is at the very least this one, a $20,000 fine for a frivolous lawsuit and "bad faith" conduct that "border[ed] on delusional."
Her 10-page response is due February 4, and should make for interesting reading (as long as it's not in all caps).
