Boop Her Nose!
Kitty Is Too Tired to Donate
How About You?
Become a Monthly Donor
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/18/2012 7:11:00 PM PST by Obama Exposer
Obama's motion to quash:
"The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. O.C.G.A. § 50-2-20. Since the sovereignty of the State does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect. Thus, OSAH rules specify that subpoenas must be served within the State of Georgia. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5) (“A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia….”)."
"Plaintiff‟s attorney violates two rules of practice with these subpoenas. First, they must be served within the State of Georgia. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5) (“A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia….”). The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. OCGA 50-2-20. The attempted use of these subpoenas to obtain documents from Hawaii and State of Washington is improper. Subpoenas issued by Georgia courts do not have extraterritorial power. Hughes v. State, 228 Ga. 593, 187 S.E.2d 135 (1972)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
If by some miracle of justice over legality Obama was not on the ballot in Georgia the city of Atlanta would be burned to the ground with the encouragement of the White House.
And we would be on our way to Canton. RIGHT?!?!?!?!
Obama/Jablonski appears to argue Internet documentation is sufficient to suffice for a prerequisite for becoming president. This, if accepted by the judge, would seem to set a damaging precedent and seem to become a very low hurdle for proving facts in evidentiary phases of procedures in Georgia, something the judge presumably might desire to take into consideration when he makes a ruling. Judge Clay Land's decision in 2009 muddies the waters a bit, but that was in federal jurisdiction. Skimming the response, I see that Rhodes v Macdonald was referred to at least twice, but once was in the introduction and the other in the main body of the argument was in regards to sanctions against Orly, not on the key issue of whether a document posted on the Internet can be used as proof in court. Jablonski seems to be aware of perhaps thin legal ice in Land's argument on evidence enough to avoid direct reference to it but still demands the same result.
If Obama's arguments were adopted by the judge (not saying it is likely but just hypothetically), then the doors would seemingly be open not just to Obama but to any potentially unqualified candidate to manufacture a photoshopped birth certificate, post it on the Internet, and claim it in court as evidence that he or she is qualified to run for president (or whatever). Obama seems intent on playing legal chicken here and he does not seem to care much what the unintended legal consequences may be, unless he is an anarchist of sorts and the prospective damages to legal precedent and procedure is actually intentional.
Would this also apply to citizens who had not filed for the office being voted upon and were not actively seeking the office (i.e. Sarah Palin)?
Remain on the ballot? Isn’t that “be placed on the ballot”?
The SOS is apparently a Republican, so to conjecture influence to overturn a judge’s recommendation bears the burden of proof, IMHO. To conjecture that his decision would be based on a “belief” unfairly suggests a corruption of the process. Is there more that you “believe” that accounts for all this?
HF
I read elsewhere that there were at least five citizen complaints of this nature that were filed in Georgia, so if one goes the direction we’re seeing as baked into the quash, the SOS would need to be a very solid reason to overturn such judicial outcomes. Such behavior by the SOS would have more than a patina, veneer or Hint of corruption!
HF
So how long do you think the judge will take to make up his mind after the hearings are over, especially on Minor v Happersett? I am sure he will look up and compare it to Wong Kim Ark and other cases right?
I agree but HI has already said that the GA subpoenas have no weight in HI. So why the quash now! He could of sat back and watched HI take the heat, and could even say that he “supports Hawaiian law in this regard...bla bla bla...” It makes no sense to show your hand before the other side has bet, raised, called, or folded.
MMaschin: “If on the other hand, judge Malihi decides he want’s to punt on this. Then Obama’s lawyers not presenting any evidence might allow him to do so.”
As you may know, there is more than just these cases from Orly before this same judge. There is also a case concerning NBC which does not require any COLB to be entered into evidence. As a matter of fact the NBC case (being litigated by the Liberty Legal Foundation) assumes the internet birth certificate is correct and that the “document” laid claim that Obama’s father was not a US citizen.
I don’t see how the judge cannot rule on this question in some manner - the issue will be whether this challenge is debated on it’s merit or if it will be resolved based on some technical matter. If the judge rules on the issue of NBC, then that allows this matter to be appealed and perhaps it will receive it’s day in court...
“Would this also apply to citizens who had not filed for the office being voted upon and were not actively seeking the office (i.e. Sarah Palin)?”
To be honest, I’m not sure. Lisa Murkowski led a successful write-in campaign for her Alaska Senate seat, but she was not in the position of having been declared ineligible to appear on the ballot there. Hers was simply a case of not having won the party nomination; big difference, I would think.
“If just one state jams it down his throat, that’s a good start.”
If just one state jams it down his throat, I believe he’s toast. How do you explain to the electorate of the other 49 states why you couldn’t be bothered to take the simple steps necessary to legally appear on that state’s ballot?
Fixed it for ya...
"Fixed it for ya..."
When you're right, you're right. Nice one.
What really burns me is when these EFFing Obots start arguing about the amount of money Zero has spent hiding his bonifides.
"Why has he spent 2 million dollars hiding his birth certificate?"
Obot "You have no proof he has spent that much, there are other expenses included in those figures."
Me "I don't care if he has spent $1.00 hiding his papers. He asked people to have faith in him and made promises in exchange for their their most precious possession, their votes. 50+ Million American Citizens gave him that. Now he can't show them he is worthy?
He is a dishonorable piece of scum!
interesting point...
With the motion to quash the HI subpoena were there any signals that it was unnecessary because Obama would provide certified birth records? That might actually work.
Is it established that the motion(s) to quash the HI subpoena will be successful?
He is so ordered to provide those records by Monday http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834919/posts?page=147#147 Let's see if he declares war on Iran on Sunday.....
Is it established that the motion(s) to quash the HI subpoena will be successful?
No it is not established. But the Judge said "He must be qualified to be on the ballot" I take that as meaning that the judge, in his mind, does not think he is or he would have granted defendants motion to dismiss. Hence the motion to quash the subpoenas is not going to be successful IMHO, but again HI is ignoring it and then the judge will have no option but to declare a default judgement for the plaintiffs.
The way I read this is:
Obama is off the ballot unless/until evidence is presented by him that points to his eligibility.
Is that what you get?
I don’t care of Coulter and others ignore it. The horse isn’t dead in Georgia.
I don’t care if Coulter and others ignore it. The horse isn’t dead in Georgia.
Georgia denied Obama’s motion to quash the subpoenas.
See the link at 73.
That judge needs 24 hour security and not from anyone in a uniform.
What will be the distraction so he doesn’t have to appear in court?
Amazing the games these fools play with America.
Didn’t Obama say...the only have people that have something to hide...
This is a lousy pleading. It isn't clear here who got subpoenaed or for what. The implication is that she served a subpoena in Hawaii on Hawaii Dept of Public Health. It isn't apparent to me where an agency of the state of Georgia would have the power to enforce that subpoena and if correct, probably it ought to get quashed.
What you do instead is seek an order of the Georgia agency directed to the candidate telling the candidate to apply to Hawaii for a copy of whatever you want and bring it with him to the next discovery event. That has a better shot at success.
There might be some Hawaii remedy where you file the subpoena in a Hawaii Court of Record and ask the Hawaii Court to order the Hawaii department to comply. I doubt that is going to be successful either.
But I haven't studied what she is up to here and probably shouldn't comment because I don't really know what she is up against.
And if you did manage to get this kind of discovery in Georgia by some means, there is a lot of stuff you need and want from the Hawaii file besides the original doctor's certificate. So you might want to have included that in your Order.
The argument is not that he will produce certificates--the argument is that he has already done so. So you needed at some earlier point to have responded to that argument by pointing out on the record the deficiencies in the earlier documents. This pleading seems to reference that argument so I don't know how she made it--orally, or in a responsive memorandum. Probably a lot of that has already been done and argued. You can't see here what the Ad Law examiner has ruled on that if he has ruled at all.
I didn't go back and read the entire court file--not much I can do to manage what she is doing here although I think it is an important objective and she appears to have a sympathetic hearing examiner so she may have some shot to get an order and ought to do the best possible job to get the most out of whatever she is able to persuade the examiner to do.
Another interesting point here is that this lawyer who represents Zero is just some local lawyer--his comcast address infers at least that he isn't a substantial legal entity with backup to support what he is doing. This represents a decline in the kind of horsepower Zero has historically devoted to fighting this kind of action.
I would speculate that he doesn't plan to comply even if the examiner orders him to produce or determines that he doesn't get on the ballot. Instead, he intends to proceed to the courthouse with some credible legal representation and try to overturn the Ad Law examiner's decision. In that case, at least the normal legal rule is that he needs to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the order is contrary to law and the factual record before the examiner. If he then loses, he doesn't care whether he is on the Georgia ballot or not because he isn't likely to carry Georgia anyway.
In that case, maybe somebody should forge another Obama BC, the information on which contradicts the official electronic version. An anonymous email could alert OT to the existence of the new BC and she could try to enter knowledge of its existence into the record. The defense would likely protest the new document as fraudulent. But how could they prove it without a physical examination?
. . . . Check out # 79.
Thanks David.
bbl
Another interesting point here is that this lawyer who represents Zero is just some local lawyer--his comcast address infers at least that he isn't a substantial legal entity with backup to support what he is doing. This represents a decline in the kind of horsepower Zero has historically devoted to fighting this kind of action.
I picked out the best part, the remainder is too depressing.
Enough to make one wish they were in Tasmania...
Another interesting point here is that this lawyer who represents Zero is just some local lawyer—his comcast address infers at least that he isn’t a substantial legal entity with backup to support what he is doing. This represents a decline in the kind of horsepower Zero has historically devoted to fighting this kind of action.
You’re right about that. Where’s Bob Bauer, husband of the Mao lover?
Thanks for the ping!
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that the long-form birth certificate placed on the White House blog was created by the Hawaiian Dept. of Health. I do believe that whatever they created is in the hands of his personal lawyer, the one who went there to pick up two copies. I believe that one of them is the basis for what you see in the pdf but that pdf was not created by the Dept. of Health. The real thing was scanned and then modified to make the data on it match what he previously released on the short-form. For the same reason they wouldn’t vouch for the short-form, the Hawaiian Dept. of Health won’t vouch for the long-form. There’s no way that any real long-form birth certificate contains a stamp, on the FRONT, mind you, that says TXE instead of THE. That “error” was likely introduced to sidestep laws against forging a seal of certification. If you recall, nobody has ever seen or examined the underlying document that Obama’s lawyer picked up in Hawaii. If it was even present at the press conference, the spokeperson merely waved it at a distance, would not let the media examine it, and then removed it from the room before Obama even spoke. The special visit to the supposed long-form by Savannah Guthrie, notwithstanding. Her photos are no more evidence than an image on the Internet.
It is a perspective that I will keep in mind, and I consider it a reasonable possibility, but I don't consider it likely because of that "official seal" and because Hawaii isn't contradicting it. This could be explained in the manner you suggest, but it just doesn't seem likely to me. I find it improbable. Not impossible, just less likely in my mind.
I do agree with you about the two documents in possession of the Lawyer. I am certain those are real insofar as Hawaii will certify. For whatever Reason, the Lawyer certainly seems guarded about them. Hopefully the judge will force them into his perusal, and if they ARE replacement documents, hopefully the judge will announce so and demand the "original" document.
butterdezillion proved that the official (embossed) seal on Obama’s long-form birth certificate is not official. It’s the wrong size, for one thing. It’s barely visible on the scanned version on the WH blog.
The stamped certification is on the front, although other birth certificates are stamped on the back. Even a reporter at the press conference asked why the back of the birth certificate that the spokesperson was holding didn’t have a stamp.
The Hawaiian Dept. of Health has been asked and they will NOT verify OR condemn the online image. They will NOT say that they created it or say that what’s on it matches what’s in their records. They hide behind their privacy laws about not releasing any vital records information to people not allowed to receive it.
In this case, to say that something on the short-form or the long-form is NOT accurate would be (in their rationale) releasing information about a person’s vital records. It’s tortured reasoning, but they do it, among other reasons, BECAUSE they support Obama. It’s legalese that allows them to avoid having the full weight of the Obama WH come down on them, for one thing.
It may be that his original is sealed because of an adoption that he is hiding from the public. If it’s sealed, then there are more layers of law and policy that allow them to continue to obfuscate.
I do believe, as you do, that the certified copies Obama’s PERSONAL lawyer picked up are real. (Note that it was NOT the WH lawyer.)
Whatever those copies say is likely the TRUTH about the circumstances of his birth. He needed a waiver, perhaps because it was an adoption. But what we see on the released version is NOT what’s on the version the Dept. of Health gave his lawyer, I’d be willing to bet.
Say that it was an adoption and the Dept. of Health obviously knows that the parent(s) listed on the WH blog aren’t the ones on the version his lawyer received from them. Are they going to tell that to the public? They cannot do so. Which is why they evade the issue when asked.
They say nothing one way or the other. Not only don’t they condemn the birth certificates, they DON’T say they’re accurate, either.
IF those birth certificates are real and IF they match what he told the world, then there’s absolutely no logical reason to not present one of them to the court. Better yet, to ask the Hawaiian Dept. of Health to send a copy of the ORIGINAL, a copy of the page from the birth index (handwritten log book), and a copy of the microfilm directly to the court, along with a representative who will swear under penalty of perjury that all of it is authentic.
Perhaps you are right. Hawaii DOH might NOT say something if someone else fabricated it, though it's hard to believe they wouldn't make an issue out of the official seal unless it actually had their stamp of approval.
I think perhaps the judge can sort this all out. If not, Keeping Barack off of a ballot is a good default prize. Rest assured, if it had been a Republican trying to pull this off, we would not only have seen every private document in the State Archives leaked, we would have seen it front page news on every media outlet.
Certainly. The old double standard for teacher’s pet is alive and well.
I forgot to ask something that’s been bothering me: Why can’t Duncan Sunahara get one of those nifty waivers that the Hawaiians handed out for Obama, so he can see his sister’s original records? After all, the Hawaiian Dept. of Health made a big deal out of how Obama’s records haven’t been treated any differently from anyone else’s. Would they deny Sunahara, son of a WWII hero, a veteran himself, the same waiver that Obama got?
I had not heard that Obama had gotten a waiver. By "sister's records" I assume you are referring to her Hawaiian birth certificate? I do not know for a fact that she even has one, but it has been speculated that she does.
I think in the case of Duncan Sunahara, they are going to plead that "there ARE no records, and whoever is responsible for the screw up was a bureaucrat from the 1960s and is therefore no longer available to question, so why don't we just forget the whole thing? "
A Hawaiian judge will probably let them.
Sorry that I didn’t make myself more clear. The Dept. of Health came out and falsely claimed that they give out ONLY the short-form abstract.
Then someone proved that they received a copy of an original long-form as late as March of last year, iirc. So when Obama got a copy of his long-form (if you believe it’s real) in April, the health dept. claimed that he got a special waiver so they would bend their rules just for him.
Later, when Duncan Sunahara asked for a copy of his own sister’s long-form, they wouldn’t give him one. That’s why I said he should request the same waiver that Obama got. Instead, he has to sue them.
If they don’t have a long-form birth certificate for Virginia Sunahara, then upon what basis did they create the abstract they did send Duncan? There’s still the hand-written index that would have recorded her birth particulars. They had to have one before there were computer databases. She should be listed in the index with her birth certificate number. That’s how they would know where to look in the files for anybody’s birth certificate, so they could give them a certified copy.
I’m sure they’re not giving him a copy of Virginia’s original for the same reason they won’t give out anything about Obama. They’re caught if they do.
They probably will make up some sorry excuse such as we’ve heard before: There was a fire in the archives or bugs ate it.
Oh, I knew that was a lie. Their argument is “I can’t do that because *I* won’t let me.”
Anybody that believed that was a fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.