WOW .. both barrels loaded!
God bless and protect Judge Malihi, his family and
colleagues!
~~~~~~~~~
Related:
Obama’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Denied and a Likely Explanation
Saturday, January 21st, 2012
Excerpt:
Thanks to those who have emailed me info regarding the current eligibility subpoena process. I wanted to take some time to aggregate what’s publicly available and then provide my own non-attorney opinion on what appears to be going on.
Let’s back up and follow the subpoena issue from the beginning.
I originally questioned whether or not a State-based web site-posted subpoena that had already been pre-filled with the GA Admin Court’s judge’s signature stamp was legitimate — and, as has become exceedingly obvious, it is.
In that posting, I asked the following questions, which I think can now be answered:
Does he have jurisdiction to do so? If so, why? If not, why not?
Is he merely attempting to retrieve evidence to bolster his capacity to advise the Georgia Secretary of State on Obama’s eligibility and this is his only way to do it?
Is this a fluke and someone is attempting to set up Internet readers because administrative law judges can’t issue subpoenas? (I would have thought a judge is a judge is a judge, they can do these kinds of things within the scope of their jurisdiction)
First: Yes, the judge does have jurisdiction to do so, even in other States, assuming that, per the Interstate Subpoena Deposition Service, the receiving Court in the differing State allows for said subpoena to be enforceable in that other jurisdiction. Per the same posting on this site to which I referenced, that won’t be known until January 26, 2012. Personally, I suspect that in Hawaii’s case, they’ll consider it unenforceable.
Second: Judge Malihi apparently does think that further evidence can be retrieved. The rest of this posting will explain this point.
Third: No, this situation is not a fluke, is for real, and could have ramifications at the State level.
Furthermore, not only is the subpoena for real, but on January 18, 2012, Michael Jablonski, the Georgia-based attorney representing Obama as the Defendant in a handful of cases here in Georgia, filed a Motion to Quash Subpoenas.
I’ll leave it to you to read the associated PDF; I’ll point out a glaring admission regarding the Electoral College and Joint Session of Congress shortly.
*snip*
This simply and in a straightforward manner helps to bolster the fundamental case that States do, in fact, regulate the manner in which Electors (of the Electoral College) are appointed. Ironically, this part of the Constitution is also the impediment against term limits, because while States can regulate how federal elections are held in their respective jurisdictions, they cannot supersede what the Constitution already stipulates.
Of course, I enjoy using the fact that since States have this regulating ability, they can therefore (again, within their respective jurisdictions) demand and/or require anything they wish regarding the eligibility of any candidate for office insofar as such demands and/or requirements do not supersede what’s already in the Constitution.
Now, I’d go a step further and suggest that, since Mr. Jablonski has yet to legally bolster his arguments, I don’t think he can, for the fact that there is presently no case law that stipulates legality in the area of presidential eligibility, because
(1) no such presidential eligibility case has ever been heard on its merits, and
(2) there isn’t even a Supreme Court decision that has ever been made regarding presidential eligibility.
In fact, even the State Department agrees with this assessment (see my posting of June 29, 2009, based on attorney Leo Donofrio’s work at the time):
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Next, also understand the following. Mr. Jablonski makes the following claim in his motion (Section 1, paragraph 3):
Pursuant to the scheme established in the Constitution of the United States (Article II, Section 1) voters selected presidential electors on November 4, 2008. Presidential electors voted for president on December 15 pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 7.
A joint session of the United States Congress counted and certified the votes of presidential electors on January 8, 2009. Vice President Dick Cheney announced that the presidential electors selected Barack Obama as president with 365 presidential elector votes, exceeding the absolute majority of 270 votes required. President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.
Presidential electors and Congress, not the State of Georgia, hold the Constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates. The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.
All of the above turns on one missing key word: “solely.” As I stated back in February 26, 2010
*snip*
The Joint Session Congress has the final but not sole role of determining eligibility of a presidential candidate, especially at the beginning of an election campaign! After all, what would be the point of having a campaign with primaries and then subsequently an Electoral College except to actually vet a candidate?
Rest
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/tag/eligibility/
~ ~ ~ ~
Van Irion - Liberty Legal Foundation
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/about-van-irion/
~ ~ ~ ~
I thought it was quite curious when OReilly interviewed Huckabee, and Huck wandered into this mirage at the very end:
Huckabee on O’Reilly: Did Obama Get Foreign Student Loans in College?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eb9sGq6Sfk