Replies

With the motion to quash the HI subpoena were there any signals that it was unnecessary because Obama would provide certified birth records?

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.

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?

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.