Posted on 01/19/2012 7:23:55 AM PST by Seizethecarp
So Obama has to appear with documents in hand, or else be in contempt of court? Am I understanding this right?
That the "family" business would be related to the legal custody of Barry is the most likely thing of which I can conceive. It is only through Barry that Barack Sr. has any "family" connection in Hawaii at all.
Wow, this is truly amazing. If this actually holds true, there will certainly be a big story here in at least some major media outlets. The President doesn’t just show up in GA and appear in court without some significant press.
Perhaps Obama’s handlers will schedule a golfing outing at Agusta or label his visit as a campaign activity...
Just a random thought here.
Perhaps the forger did the little smiley face and “X” to snare the DOH? Meaning, since the smiley face and “X” show without a doubt the thing is a forgery - over the top obvious - what to speak of all the other proof, the forger and accomplices now have the DOH over a barrel. The DOH never complained at the time, and are now therefore “partners in crime” up to their eyeballs. The DOH cannot now disavow any of it. They have to continue in the forgery crime spree. They’re chained to it.
Or the whole thing could be designed for publicity so he can display a forgery that the HDOH willingly certified. And then he’ll bomb France so nobody will be paying attention when the gaping holes in his documentation are pointed out...
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 —
Pretty difficult statement if the thing was forged by anyone but DOH Hawaii.
Also, it is interesting that he was about to say "a-". Was he going to say "a birth certificate", then thought better of it? He probably realized that saying "*a* birth certificate" would sound unnatural, and draw attention to the fact that he hadn't said " *the* birth certificate." He then says "what they have on file."
Note use of the word "have" instead of "had." He knows full well that the State can change what "they have on file" but cannot change what is "original." It seems to me that this lawyer is walking all around the truth without stepping into a later provable falsehood. More evidence that the document is a LEGAL replacement.
The original BC can not see the light of day. No way is he going to court. No way is Hawaii producing.
Race card is next.
Georgia State Rules of Administrative Procedure allows ALJs to place the burden of proof on a party to the proceeding but does not describe in detail instances. See
http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf
at 616-1-2-.07 Burden of Proof (1)(e)(2):
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge may determine that law or justice requires a different placement of the burden of proof.
The default is described in (1):
The agency shall bear the burden of proof in all matters except that...
It’s probably a bit loosy-goosy because it is an administrative law hearing and not a full court, so there maybe no formal rule in the administrative procedures for how to file a motion of this type.
So it seems to me that it is a letter from Hatfield to the ALJ (allowed if copies are sent to Obama’s lawyer) but intended to be regarded by the ALJ as a motion. The letter/motion was spurred by Obama’s response to Orly’s subpoena of the original long form birth records, etc. to quash the subpoena (as the letter mentions in para. 10). It is technically not a legal response brief to the quash which is in a parallel case (Farrar). The judge took the letter as a motion and ordered Obama to regard it as a “motion for (ALJ) determination of placement of burden of proof.”
Reading between the lines, I would guess that Hatfield may be beginning to feel confident about the judge’s leanings by writing a letter of this sort. He is taking no risk by referring to Orly’s case since he is mainly referring to the quash by Obama which after all is a legal document in the public view of a case which was only recently separated and still under the same judge.
Here I think one might reasonably conclude that without Orly and her efforts, not just with this case but over the preceding years, there might be no such letter forthcoming from Hatfield. Indeed, Swensson’s strategy is probably derived from a close study of Orly’s and others’ earlier failed attempts. It is seems possible that Hatfield and Orly might now be in genteel accord with one another and working in loose association with one another in finding a breach in Obama’s legal stonewalling, and then filing through.
No they are not (IMHO). Please see my response to your earlier post on this at post #210:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2834919/posts?page=210#210
“Pretty difficult statement if the thing was forged by anyone but DOH Hawaii.”
I don't see the logic of your conclusion which appears to be based on an assumption that Bauer is telling the truth about Fuddy’s attestation being an attestation OF THE PDF IMAGE. I do not believe that Fuddy made any such attestation, but only that she was present when a copy from the bound 1961 BC was made and certified...and then given to Obama’s personal attorney. But Fuddy has no knowledge of what happened to that certified copy that she attests to have witnessed. So Fuddy has protective deniability regarding the pdf subsequently claimed by the WH to be the document that Fuddy saw created.
With Obama’s entire presidency at stake would Abercrombie, Fuddy and Onaka lie about the authenticity of the WH pdf either directly or indirectly???
Does Obama’s Chicago mafia have the ability to make them an offer they can't refuse...or maybe they are willing partisan accomplices guaranteed of protection as long as Obama remains in office.
BTW, good catch on Pfeiffer’s slip of the tongue!
Finally, Orly has Obama ordered to appear in court.
This is just priceless.
I hope Terry Lakin goes to the court to witness the DQ.
Check out # 143, then see documents at # 145 , and # 147 , - also # 149 .
Thanks bushpilot1.
Thanks for the explanation. It seemed to me that Hatfield was asking for the burden of proof to be placed upon Obama, which didn’t make sense to me, because the burden of proof has always been on Barack Obama. No one ever forced him to prove it, and instead took it either on faith or turned a blind eye.
I can’t figure Orly out to be honest. Her tenacious focus on the Birth Certificate I believe to have played into Obama’s hands. As long as people are spending their time and efforts on THAT, they aren’t researching legal history. It is the Legal history and the LAW which is the real issue,
I hope and PRAY that Hatfield not only has Donofrio’s analysis of Minor v Happersett AND McCarthy v. Briscoe (429 US 1317 - NOT the appellate court case of 1977, but the SCOTUS case (in chambers) 1976 case. Between those two SCOTUS cases, Obama is nothing but a criminal. BY LAW an Usurper.
My happy thought of the day - Obama removed from the White House in chains, Michelle in chains and tears behind him looking at paying reparations to the American people for all the money they have stolen from us. Yep. Happy thought! :)
Obama WILL be disgraced. This WILL happen. Sooner or later, it WILL happen.
Its people like you with clear objective analysis into the law and process which are helping to make it happen!
Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions.
- - -
unto such our Loving subjects, natural born, denizens or others that shall be willing to become our subjects, and live under our allegiance in the said colony, upon such terms ...
The children of the subjects and denizens, born in Georgia, became natural-born subjects or denizens. The bolded part in the second paragraph above emphasizes they are talking about different classes of persons, not one class with multiple characterizations.
If he loses CA, he’s lost.
Isn’t CA one of the only states that has another candidate registered?
You’re welcome.
Yes, I think Hatfield is doing just what you said, and it is just that he is using valid legal procedure to do it.
IMHO administrative law is often complex and nebulous because the procedures are not always straightforward and obvious.
Personally I give Orly the benefit of a doubt. It has to be tough to be a successful lawyer in court when the opponent is very powerful. She is going after the most powerful man in the world, a challenge that most lawyers might instinctively duck on the principle that he who has the most money (or perhaps equivalently, the most power) wins. Has she made mistakes? I imagine that she herself would say yes. But no one and no process is perfect. This particular angle of attack was only recently opened (presuming the issue of Obama’s eligibility first came up around the summer of 2008), with Obama’s formal entry into the Georgia primary. The media portrays law as all about drama (perhaps a la Perry Mason) but in fact it might be more all about procedures and precedents, and beyond that, how a judge and the court clerks view procedures. I can still view Orly as being in the role of a sometimes innocently misguided but otherwise well-meaning loyal opposition, and with some measure of courage to continue even when met with unpopularity and criticism from her own side. She is also doing this by endlessly criss-crossing the country to appear at one or another hearing and taking the time to learn the laws of each state in doing so, and she has been doing it for almost four years. That has to be tough for anyone, much less an immigrant whose native language is not even English. As to the tenacity involving the birth certificate, it should not really be much of an issue to Obama to begin with. I would imagine Orly’s response would be along those lines... the whole Little League argument. The birth certificate is the first document that establishes the identity of an individual whose qualifications can be held in question. Due credit to Swensson who finessed the BC issue, but he did so with the hindsight that many previous direct attacks on Obama’s eligibility by Orly and others had failed. I am not a lawyer but I thought that the way he did it was very ingenious. So I think of the progess to date as more of a tag team effort. I might be right or wrong, just my $0.02...
Second: The gist of Team Obama's defense is that somehow, he is "grandfathered in" Having been elected, received the votes of the Electoral College, and having been sworn in by the CJ. Therefore "he don't got to prove nuthin' to nobody."
Third: The Administrative Judge will have to order him off the ballot if he doesn't show.
Fourth: That is the BEGINNING of the legal show, not the end. Because it is at this stage that Team Obama will have to bring suit ... as a PLAINTIFF.
This might stall out on Step 2. OTOH, if the GA boys are playing it straight ... this could be the fast track to the SCOTUS.
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.