. . . . Lucas Smith Ping at # 113 , - then check out # 110 , # 112 .
Thanks danamco. Good find.
Posted on 01/22/2012 10:53:42 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
A Georgia judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta Thursday for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.
Orly Taitz, the California attorney who brought the legal challenge to Obama's name on the March Georgia presidential primary ballot, says this is what she has been working for over the last three years.
"This will be 100 times bigger than Watergate," she said Saturday morning, referring to the scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974. "There are high ranking judges and federal officials who are involved in this cover up. The ramifications of this trial will be enormous."
Taitz said she expects the president's legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court.
"But he's in a catch-22," she said. "If he is appealing this decision, then he looks guilty. The whole nation understands this man is a fraud."
Taitz has led the "Birther" movement that insists Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. She is also familiar to Georgia courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
For quite a while, there were the usual poster(s) here doing their best to undermine the Constitution and explaining why we are wrong about obama's eligibility and doing their best to confuse and obfuscate the definition of a NBC.
They're no longer around for some reason. Banned perhaps? Or maybe they've done their own research and figured out they are on the wrong side? I don't know.
None the less, FR is hardly the only place where obama's ineligibility is discussed. Usually, like this article, the information posted here is often articles that were published elsewhere.
I think FR does some fine work, though. Some of the FR researchers have done an excellent job of explaining the issue and documenting and explaining case law and I would not be surprised if many take advantage of that research and use what's posted.
obama's eligibilty is like a loose thread on a poorly woven garment. Tug at it enough and the whole thing comes unraveled.
We, the People, whether we've sworn an oath or not, must do our patriotic duty and tug and tug and tug at that loose thread and all the others we can find until that sack cloth is unraveled and the truth is finally known to all.
It's the very least we can do to repay those who have given their lives in service to our nation and to us.
Thank you.
Here’s an interesting thread and Obama Exposer has this to say:
President Obama To Ignore Georgia Subpoena And Head To Las Vegas Jan 26th.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2836407/posts?page=45
From what I am hearing now is that Obama is trying to set it up for some kind of mis-trial type appeal where he can claim he got incompetent representation by Jablonski for the ballot hearing? He could then attempt to get another judge of their liking to hold the hearing in front of?
So...the most powerful man in the free world has now found himself represented by an incompetent ... and might want to ditch the whole thing including the judge and start all over.
That should work...?
Interesting, America’s Sheriff Arpaio has also been “called” in!!!
Thank you. Glad to see that even the RATS are “informed”!!!
Good day.
Not showing up for an Administrative Hearing, or providing the documents ordered, is, sorry to say, just not that big a deal, especially for a sitting President. GA's subpoena on the HI authorities is not that big a deal either.
The Administrative Judge may direct relief to Obama's opponents if he doesn't show, or if documents subpoena-ed are not produced.
As it always has, the issue boils down to this:
Will the GA authorities who have the power to remove BHO, Jr. from the ballot, use it? Only then will the case be heard on its merits because if Obama wanted to be on the ballot, he would then have to bring suit against the state of GA. He would be the "injured party," the Plaintiff. This would most certainly be fast-tracked to the SCOTUS.
I read it all. You’re still a defeatist, and stated that you look forward to being right in the future.
You must be a very miserable person to hope you are right.
It’s not “realism”, it’s “defeatism” that helps the evildoers win.
Let’s hope the GA authorities do their duty!
This backs Team Obama into a bit of a box. They may shoot their way out by finding a friendly judge to issue an injunction or a stay of some sort, but I believe this brief limits their options in bringing a successful suit against Georgia ... again ... all this sound and fury will signify naught if the GA officials decide to allow Obama on the ballot after all.
By all means read the brief. I hope a couple of Supreme Court Justices are doing the same.
My problem with reading legalese is that I’m too dumb to grasp the import. I do know that most of the words (not all!) are English, but the overall meaning invariably escapes me.
From what I am hearing now is that Obama is trying to set it up for some kind of mis-trial type appeal where he can claim he got incompetent representation by Jablonski for the ballot hearing?
If this is what they are trying to do then they truly are incompetent. There is no jury. There is no trial. So there is no mis-trial.
The will be a finding of fact by an ALJ. There will be a hearing to enter testimony and documents into this this finding of fact. No trial.
The SoS will the use the facts from the ALJ to make a decision of eligibility or not. The SoS may, if he is that reckless, ignore the ALJ findings and do what he wants. But that is why there is an appellate process. If the judge (again, no jury) finds the SoS acted recklessly or negligently based on 5 or 6 SPECIFIC criteria the judge can can overturn the decision by the SoS.
There is no trial here. There is no jury. There is a decision to be made by the SoS with a set of facts collected and documented by the ALJ. No one gets ‘convicted’. This is all administration of a fairly well defined process in Georgia law. Hence why an ALJ is involved and not a trial judge.
Regardless of what the SoS decides this WILL get appealed. But during the appeal it only the handful of criteria for overturning that will be used along with the fact presented by ALJ. The process will not start over again at the appellate level.
This is why the facts, documents, briefs, etc. going to the ALJ better be good and tight and not relaying on proving things that are not already accepted fact - even though most of know some of these things are very, very suspect. The ALJs findings and statement of facts will be critical at the appellate level.
A fellow 'birther' Lucas Smith asked Mario Apuzzo, Esq. the following questions regarding Thursday's GA court hearing. These questions are being asked by patriots across the nation. Apuzzo is the premier Constitutional attorney on "natural born Citizen"
A question from Lucas Smith to attorney Mario Apuzzo: If Obama fails to appear for the administrative court hearing in Georgia, tentatively scheduled for January, 26 2012, what legal repercussions could he be confronted with? Posted on January 20, 2012 by Lucas Daniel Smith Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi of the Office of State Administrative Hearings, State of Georgia, has today (01.20.2012) denied President Obama’s motion to quash the subpoena compelling his (Obama’s) attendance at a hearing tentatively scheduled for January 26, 2012.
My question is if Obama fails to appear for this hearing is there anything that can be done about it? What legal repercussions could anyone, not just the President (de facto), be confronted with? Can an administrative judge issue a warrant for a person’s arrest? I understand that some administrative judges can issue search warrants but I don’t know that they can issue arrest warrants. Lastly, have I correctly titled Judge Malihi as an “Administrative Judge”? Or is he some other sort of judge?
------------Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says: January 21, 2012 at 4:57 pm Lucas, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this issue on your very informative blog. Here is a quick answer. The subpoena issued to Obama comes from an administrative court rather than a law court. A court-issued subpoena has the authority of a court order whether it comes from a law court or an administrative one.
Obama just happens to be the President now and would have to take time out of his official schedule to honor the subpoena. Nevertheless, Obama is subpoened as a private individual, not as the President.
Does Obama have to honor the subpoena? The only way to get out of honoring a subpoena is to have it quashed on a motion to quash. Obama tried that and it has so far failed. He can attempt to file a motion for reconsideration. But until the court changes its mind, he must honor the subpoena and here is why.
“It is beyond dispute that there is in fact, a public obligation to provide evidence, see United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 339 U. S. 331; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 284 U. S. 438, and that this obligation persists no matter how financially burdensome it may be. Footnote 10″
“Footnote 10 [I]t may be a sacrifice of time and labor, and thus of ease, of profits, of livelihood. This contribution is not to be regarded as a gratuity, or a courtesy, or an ill-required favor. It is a duty not to be grudged or evaded. Whoever is impelled to evade or to resent it should retire from the society of organized and civilized communities, and become a hermit. He who will live by society must let society live by him, when it requires to. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192, p. 72 (J. McNaughton rev.1961).” Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 (1973). This is one case among the many on this issue. Indeed, Obama, as a member of legally constitutued society, as a “public obligation” to provide evidence to a court, whether that court is a law court or an administrative one. His obligation is even greater given that the subpoena touches upon his right to eventually hold a public office should he win the election. Even Congress, which is not a law court, issues subpoenas which must be obeyed at the risk of suffering severe sanctions, including incarceration. The only way that Obama could avoid the subpoena is to show that he has some privilege that protects him from giving the requested evidence. Again, Obama has been subpoened as a private person, a candidate for public office, not as the President of the United States. From the Georgia court’s ruling on Obama’s motion to quash, we can see that Obama failed to make such a showing that convinced the court that he in fact has such a privilege.
If Obama does not honor the subpoena, the court, applying Georgia law and precedents from federal law, can issue an order to show cause to him ordering him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. If he still does not comply, then he would be held in contempt of court. The court in such a case will issue sanctions to him, which can include a monetary penalty, an adverse ruling against him in the case itself, or even incarceration. Since he is the currently putative sitting President, the court would probably just opt for an adverse ruling rather than jail. That would be the best option since it gets to the heart of the matter. That adverse ruling would be that Obama has not met his burden of proof to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court could recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State that Obama’s not be allowed to be placed on the primary ballot. In the end, the Secretary of State will make the ultimate decision. Additionally, the current sitting President of the United States not honoring a court-issued and properly served subpoena related to whether the President is constitutionally eligible for that very office could also be deemed a “high Crime[] or Misdemeanor[]” under Article II, Section 4, the article dealing with impeachment of the President. Congress could declare such conduct a high crime or misdemeanor and inititate and prosecute impeachment proceedings against Obama and they should. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
HOW???
. . . . Lucas Smith Ping at # 113 , - then check out # 110 , # 112 .
Thanks danamco. Good find.
Thank you for the ping. Beckwith noted today on some thread or other that the Governor and the SoS of GA are both conservatives. I just tried to find that comment but haven’t found it yet.
I hope the SCOTUS Justices are reading it.... but I would not bet on it. It is an administrative court which, if Obama ignores could easily be a PR nightmare. He will have to either address it, or risk making it worse.
I am sincerely looking forward to Thursday.
Thanks! Smith is pretty sharp!
Well pal, you can go ahead and vote for the republican version of obama.I will stick with the guy that just handed your guy his ass on more than one occation.
Thanks for the ping, and the post you two! I’m waiting patiently for Thursday... I have to run and buy some more popcorn or something. LOL Quite the interesting times ahead!
Didn’t Clinton try to ignore a subpoena arguing against testifying as a private citizen while he was President? As I recall that would be precedent in so far as compelling a sitting/acting President to testify under oath when presented with a subpoena from any court of law. Yes, with Clinton it was a criminal court proceeding, but I would think the same would hold true for other proceedings as well.
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.