Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Obama Exposer

“Quash” - interesting term.

http://www.ehow.com/how_7879251_file-motion-quash-subpoena.html

BTW.

A F-Bow the thread on this is up to 80+ pages.

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6845


17 posted on 01/18/2012 8:02:34 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bluecat6

Yes they are nervous over at the Fogbow. One poster, Loren (who is a attorney) wrote this in a response to a poster named Curious Blue:

Curious Blue wrote:

[4. Only Presidential Electors and Congress can determine eligibility and they have already done so as to Obama in 2008, so documents & testimony are irrelevant (and the ALJ has no jurisdiction or power to decide eligibility).

I still think that it is likely that Jablonski will show up to court and argue point #4, along with asking the court to take judicial notice of the docs related to the birth certificate posted on the Whitehouse.gov web site. He may also have a COLB in his brief case just to be safe.... but he’s better off if he can get the legal ruling from the get go.]

Lorens response:

I still think that would be a terrible strategy, not because I think it’s wrong, but because the judge is clearly not inclined to agree with it. He denied the Motion to Dismiss without even waiting for the plaintiffs to respond, and it seems foolhardy to hope that the judge would suddenly change his mind AT the hearing.

And I haven’t said it before, but I think it’s also risky to put too much stock in judicial notice. Georgia has a judicial notice statute: OCGA 21-1-4. It covers things like state borders, laws and statutes, and “all similar matters of public knowledge.”

Things that have been specifically held to be NOT covered under judicial notice: street locations, county of an incorporated city, the meaning of a yellow curb under traffic law, criminal convictions, etc. Under the list of things that HAVE been allowed judicial notice, the closest I see are things that would be categorized under common knowledge: customary department store hours, normal periods of gestation, physical laws, the definition of moonshine.

In fact, there appears to be a test: “whether the fact is one of common, everyday knowledge that all persons of average intelligence are presumed to know, and whether it is certain and indisputable.” Based on this, I think it’d be awfully iffy to get judicial notice on the birthplace of the defendant, and I’m increasingly doubtful that there could be judicial notice of a DOCUMENT, particularly a document on the internet.


24 posted on 01/18/2012 9:19:58 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson