Posted on 01/19/2012 7:23:55 AM PST by Seizethecarp
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You’re seeing the big picture.
Is there a link showing that Bauer wouldn’t let Obama hold the actual document? And are we really supposed to believe that Savannah Guthrie was allowed to hold (and feel the raised seal) of a document that even Obama was not allowed to hold? Whatever could be the reason for that - except, as you suggest, to provide legal distance between Obama and the document they’re trying to claim was an official document from Hawaii?
“Rahm Emanual probably went to Kenya to obtain and destroy the Kenyan passport records. Not a BC.”
IMO Rahm could have gone to Kenya to destroy BOTH Kenyan passport records and the BC. Why not BOTH?
Corsi published in his book “Where's the Birth Certificate” an image he claims is an internal Kenyan government memo documenting evidence that Barry's BC was taken illegally from the Kenyan records and that the fact that the BC was missing was discovered as a result of a request from the Bush Administration's ambassador to Kenya that a check be made for the BC, IIRC.
BHO Srs visit to HI in 1971 is still a great mystery. In the Ayers written “Dreams” it is mentioned that some “family business” was taken care of on that visit. Logic dictates that this “family visit” could ONLY pertain to legal custody issues relating to Barry. Without any non-forged documents from HI in evidence we don't know yet, IMO.
In #182, the following was a quote:
“For his protection, he had to escape Indonesia, but he was an adopted Indonesian citizen. I believe they contacted his “father in order to assert his Kenyan citizenship. His father probably established Kenyan documents, such as a passport, in order to take custody from his Indonesian father. He most likely added Obama Jr. to his Kenyan passport.”
So I have heard at least, the three types of law are civil, criminal, and admiralty. Obama is not being accused of anything so it's not criminal. It does not involve ships on sea, etc., so it's not admiralty. Just my opinion, but that seems to leave civil. The concerns are between citizen Obama and three citizens of Georgia, with the state more or less arbitrating.
“Is there a link showing that Bauer wouldn’t let Obama hold the actual document?”
It was actually Pfeiffer (WH Comm director...see Wiki below...not a lawyer) who said it but he was immediately backed up by Bauer as can be seen from the transcript on the White House’s own webpage. Shockingly an unidentified member of the White House press corp posits that the pdf could “just be a photocopy of a piece of paper”:
begin quote
Q And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any — (laughter.)
Q Will the President be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.
MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to —
end quote
Here is Pfeiffer’s Wiki page showing that he and his wife are deep Chicago Obama campaign operatives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pfeiffer
Daniel Pfeiffer (born December 24, 1975, Wilmington, Delaware)[1] is Assistant to the President of the United States and the White House Communications Director.[2] He was previously a member of Obama’s presidential transition team.[1]
In 2000, he was a spokesperson for Vice President Al Gore. He has since worked for Senators Tim Johnson, Tom Daschle, and Evan Bayh, and was communications director for the Obama campaign.
Pfeiffer was formerly a spokesman for Senator Evan Bayh.[3] He graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University.
On July 16, 2006, Pfeiffer married Sarah Feinberg, a senior adviser and spokeswoman for Obama’s former Chief of Staff, and current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel.[4]
If the supposed certified copy of the BC was not even there for Obama to hold or displayed for anybody to see, when does Savannah Guthrie claim to have felt the raised seal herself?
The holes in everything this administration does are stunningly gaping.
Q Will the President be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.
MR. BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to —
end quote
Note in the above White House transcript that the DHOH director attests to the copying of a BC but she does not specifically “attest” to the White House pdf...as in sign under penalty of perjury a document stating that the White House pdf is genuine...the same image which Pfeiffer and Bauer pointedly will NOT let Obama hold in his hands!
IIRC there is NO legal attestation from the DHOH director admissible as evidence affirming that the White House pdf is authentic. And why would there be? A legitimate certified long form BC is supposed to be a “self-authenticating” document (absent credible challenge...not speculative challenge) in any court under the Federal Rules of Evidence...and protected by the “full faith and credit” clause protecting state documents in the federal courts and the courts of other states.
Trying to find NBC status in this is like trying to find a virgin in a whorehouse in Mexico. It's definitely possible.
Those were subpoenas for Obama directly, not subpoenas to federal or Hawaii government agencies?
Ultimately as long as Obama has people within these agencies who are willing to lie and forge for him, he will eventually come up with something that could superficially pass as genuine. And every government agency that claims to have any records for him has already been caught acting in bad faith if not outright falsifying records for his sake.
I’m glad the judge is making the right decisions so far. It could still be a set-up; the proof of the pudding is whether he will require an audit of the government records, based on already-known fraud on Obama’s behalf within those agencies.
I'm not sure how I missed this press gaggle, but just taking a quick read-through, it contains a whole gaggle of lies about the COLB and probably about the newer alleged LFBC.
In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document -- independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.
This fails to mention that the so-called "factcheckers" (who have no qualifications to verify legal documents) didn't come to the headquarters to look at the alleged document until nearly two months later (or three months earlier going by the timestamp on their photos).
Q When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes.
Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.
MR. PFEIFFER: We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by -- the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.
This part above is an outright lie. The back of the alleged document was never posted by Obama's campaign people. It only showed up in the factlack dot org photos two months later, except there's no conclusive evidence that the signature is on the back of Obama's alleged COLB. It could just as easily be from a different COLB. I'm not going to go through this whole thing. These two lies are enough to establish that these people are lying liars, and that they are willing to lie about Obama's LFBC too.
It appears that it is not the motion to quash the subpoena for Obama himself to appear that has been denied (an Orly motion) but just motion to quash the documents:
“(Jan. 20, 2012) — 11:45 a.m., ET – Atty. Orly Taitz informed The Post & Email moments ago that Georgia Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi has denied Obama counsel’s request to quash subpoenas requesting original documentation of Obama’s birth, aliases and social security number application, school records, and other records.”
Of course, this is Orly Taitz reporting this and sometimes there has been a “mistranslation” by her of what a court ruled.
In para. 9, they are arguing that the Georgia Supreme Court case Haynes v. Wells (2000) forms precedent that the candidate affirmatively establish his eligibility for office, not the SoS’s office. Additionally in para. 11, they cite a “basic fairness” principle. Apparently the usual procedure absent a complaint from an elector is that the SoS office makes a determination in a somewhat ad hoc manner, and that this ad hoc manner can result in a determination that the candidate is effectively qualified to run with little or no actual proof that he or she is qualified. They are suggesting that this is not fair in this case since there is a complaint and it would not be fair for the SoS office to act as an advocate for Obama in the determination by siding with Obama and presuming that he is already qualified. Because it is disputed, they want the SoS office and the courts to act neutral to the question before them of whether Obama is eligible or not.
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
DAVID FARRAR,
LEAH LAX,
CODY JUDY,
THOMAS MALAREN,
LAURIE ROTH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
DAVID P. WELDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
CARL SWENSSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1215136-60-MALIHI
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Orly Taitz
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1215137-60-MALIHI
: Counsel for Plaintiff: Van R. Irion
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1216218-60-MALIHI
: Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield
; Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
KEVIN RICHARD POWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1216823-60-MALIHI
: Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the
office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling
his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
In support of his motion, Defendant argues that “if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to
interrupt duties as President of the United States” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia.
However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the
subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to
attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court
with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority
evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is]
irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at
the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.” Ga. Comp.
R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).
Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court’s rules
provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party’s counsel of record. Ga.
Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
It IS the subpoena for him to appear that is upheld. And if the judge is denying this quash motion then I see no reason why he would grant any other motion to squash anything!
Thanks. That explanation makes a little more sense. I think maybe presenting that paragraph sooner in the motion could possibly make the argument a little bit stronger, but hopefully it won’t matter. If it’s true that Obama’s motion to squash has been denied, then that’s a pretty good indication that this judge accepts Hatfield’s arguments.
I think we can all agree that the PDF we've seen is not likely a copy of his original birth certificate. As long as the judge is convinced of this, we shall likely get better answers.
Wow, that is huge.
How does MSM ignore this?
They’ll be digging through this judges garbage by Saturday.
To fulfill the requirement of the Full Faith and Credit Clause it has to have the official legal certifying marks. The PDF has vestiges of a seal that does not meet the official, legal requirements to certify a vital record copy.
The only certified copy that could have that particular seal is a computer-generated abstract, not a copy of an original. If it was a copy of an original it would have to use the official HDOH seal rather than the registrar’s seal.
So either the HDOH didn’t send Obama anything that had the official HDOH seal on it, or else Obama’s people chose to use an abstract (which would have only the registrar’s seal on it because it also had the image of the State of HI seal at the top of the page) as the template from which they built their PDF forgery.
If the PDF was in any way based on the actual document the HDOH sent Obama, then they sent him an abstract, not an original copy.
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.