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

Skip to comments.

Obama's Attorney Files Motion To Quash Subpoenas In The Georgia Access Ballot Challenge
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78686303/Farrar-Taitz-v-Obama-Motion-to-Quash-Georgia-Subpoenas-Obama-Ballot-Access-Challenge-1-18-2012 ^

Posted on 01/18/2012 7:11:00 PM PST by Obama Exposer

Obama's motion to quash:

"The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. O.C.G.A. § 50-2-20. Since the sovereignty of the State does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect. Thus, OSAH rules specify that subpoenas must be served within the State of Georgia. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5) (“A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia….”)."

"Plaintiff‟s attorney violates two rules of practice with these subpoenas. First, they must be served within the State of Georgia. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5) (“A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia….”). The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. OCGA 50-2-20. The attempted use of these subpoenas to obtain documents from Hawaii and State of Washington is improper. Subpoenas issued by Georgia courts do not have extraterritorial power. Hughes v. State, 228 Ga. 593, 187 S.E.2d 135 (1972)

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ballot; birthcertificate; certifigate; congress; corruption; elections; ga; georgia; mittromney; naturalborncitizen; newtgingrich; obama; ricksantorum; sarahpalin; scotus; sourcetitlenoturl; teaparty; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last
It seems that his legal argument with respect to the administrative subpoenas having only limited powers and only within the State of Georgia is correct. Obama's attorney Michael Jablonski also takes a jab at Taitz witness Doug Vogt (CEO of Archive Index System) who is to testify about the layers and anomalies in Obama's long form abstract birth certificate January 26,2012. He calls him a 'office machine salesman'.
1 posted on 01/18/2012 7:11:10 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Those witnesses are agreeing to testify.


2 posted on 01/18/2012 7:17:40 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Thomas Watson and Steve Jobs were “office machine salesmen”.


3 posted on 01/18/2012 7:21:13 PM PST by Andy from Chapel Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
I suspect the judge will rule that Steve will have to produce documentation. Whether or not Hawaii complies is irrelevant.
4 posted on 01/18/2012 7:22:38 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Yes, the subpoena is only valid in Georgia. And if the Democrats wish to certify Obama in Georgia using only documents obtained and available in Georgia I’m sure Taitz would enjoy that very much.


5 posted on 01/18/2012 7:24:56 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Obama's War on Prosperity is killing me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
Here's to hoping Steve goes golfing during a storm:


6 posted on 01/18/2012 7:26:34 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Help me out here. Suppose that Georgia can’t force anything out of Hawaii due to questions of state sovereignty. But, isn’t Georgia in control of its own nominating process?

Then, although it Georgia may not be able to compel document production from Hawaii, Georgia could also decide that the defendant Barry isn’t documenting his qualifications because those document were not produced. In other words, it could become in Barry’s interest to produce documentation supporting his claim as a legal candidate if he can.


7 posted on 01/18/2012 7:29:04 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Still, I have no doubt that Hawaii would honor these subpoenas if no personal attorney did not intervene to quash them if this was before the day Obama arrived on the national scene. They don’t follow their own laws or regulations and play evasive games to protect Obama.


8 posted on 01/18/2012 7:29:21 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Which he can’t IFF his father was born in Kenya.


9 posted on 01/18/2012 7:30:33 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Obama makes the choice not to support his case with birth documents makes him one step closer of not getting on the ballot in Georgia.


10 posted on 01/18/2012 7:32:14 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy

Actually IFF his father or mother was not a citizen of the US.


11 posted on 01/18/2012 7:34:03 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Great word, “Quash”.

Obama, Quasher-in-Chief.

Hmm, hmm, hmm.


12 posted on 01/18/2012 7:38:03 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Here is Taitz response to the ‘Motion To Quash’ her subpoenas.

Here’s an excerpted response from Dr. Taitz, Esq.’s blog:

1. most of his motion is a total BS, irrelevant material, improper attacks on plaintiff’s counsel with an attempt to prejudice the court

2. Obama has no standing to challenge subpoenas issued and addressed to other parties. If other parties want to challenge, it is up to them. It is interesting that he mentions Susan Daniels, John Smpson and Loretta Fuddy, I wonder why? Is there something in their testimony he does not want to be heard by the judge?

3. there is nothing in subpoena issued to him, that is improper or oppressive

4. he was properly served through his attorney in Atlanta GA, within the jurisdiction


13 posted on 01/18/2012 7:38:16 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Exactly, no docs no play. GA is holding all the cards. They control who gets on the ballot.


14 posted on 01/18/2012 7:43:30 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

So let’s see if I can get this right. The court in GA is saying we need to verify that the candidate is qualified. No one on the candidates side is offering qualifying documents so the court says to HI we need some docs. Then the candidates lawyers argue that GA has no authority to ask for the docs. So there will be no docs and the GA court will have no choice but to say no tickie no laundry....

In other words I am at a loss to understand why the candidates lawyers want to squash a subpoena that is being ignored in the first place. This is Russian Roulette IMO.


15 posted on 01/18/2012 7:45:38 PM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I think some are missing a valid point here.

The Court and Plaintiff’s dont need Hawaii necessarily to provide evidence.

The subpeona can be issued against OBAMA himself to produce the records!!!!


16 posted on 01/18/2012 7:50:52 PM PST by neverbluffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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: VeniVidiVici

great point

Georgia can say fine, if Obama can’t produce any documents, he ain’t getting on the ballot

I think his “attorney” has outsmarted himself


18 posted on 01/18/2012 8:08:10 PM PST by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

The big guns are laying cover for the small guns (Hawaii officials).

The small guns may go public under pressure. They have been allowed to get away with their dancing since 2008. And the shells are being ‘walked in on them’ now. So the covering fire is coming from WH to make them feel safe.

Brian Schatz should be put on the stand and asked directly:

“Why did you provide invalid candidate documents in 2008 that did not include the eligibility statement? What it an attempt to defraud the elections commission?”

Schatz knows, as do others in Hawaii. Emails and phone calls between Hawaii and Washington must be burning up the wires.


19 posted on 01/18/2012 8:11:40 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 15 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Another important factor is who has the ultimate burden of proof. As I see it is on Obama once his eligibility is challenged by a Georgia citizen. The burden of proof standard is usually preponderance of the the evidence. The only way the ALJ can rule in favor of Obama on the motion is if he is bought out or threatened. The case has to go to trial on the merits if the ALJ is going to be able to come up with findings of fact and recommendations for the Sec of State.
20 posted on 01/18/2012 8:16:27 PM PST by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

bump


21 posted on 01/18/2012 8:21:56 PM PST by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

So, if this suit goes through, does it mean that O’s name will not appear on any presidential ballots in Georgia, and that his supporters in GA will either have to write him in or vote for someone else?


22 posted on 01/18/2012 8:23:46 PM PST by redhead (, , , comedian...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

>> He calls him a ‘office machine salesman’.

Happens with ‘office machine’ COLBs.


23 posted on 01/18/2012 8:24:10 PM PST by Gene Eric (C'mon, Virginia -- are you with us or against us?!)
[ 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]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
Exactly, no docs no play. GA is holding all the cards. They control who gets on the ballot.

If only it were that simple. If the WH manages to win a limitation argument, as they are trying to do, to get a judgement that Georgia's thresholds somehow violate Federal law or procedure, then it gets kicked out of Georgia and heard on the federal level.

This Georgia judge seems disinclined to acknowledge any limitations to State jurisdiction in this matter. So it seems the groundwork is being laid by the WH for a Federal appeal against losing on the State level.

25 posted on 01/18/2012 9:58:47 PM PST by Talisker (Apology accepted, Captain Needa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Under Hawaii state law, disclosures are supposed to be made by the DOH upon orders from courts of competent jurisdiction. Generally such courts would be facilitating issues concerning divorces and adoptions, so it seems like it should be very typical for subpoenas to be issued from other states and for Hawaii to comply with those subpoenas. This is the general idea behind the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is that states cooperate with each other on such legal matters. That Obama’s lawyers would try to quash routine subpoenas is very incriminating.


26 posted on 01/18/2012 10:52:20 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

I was intrigued what the outcome may be.

Not much, it would seem.

No wonder concern by the voting public SO abysmally low.


27 posted on 01/18/2012 11:08:30 PM PST by raygun (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law DOT html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“This Georgia judge seems disinclined to acknowledge any limitations to State jurisdiction in this matter. So it seems the groundwork is being laid by the WH for a Federal appeal against losing on the State level.”

To get on the Georgia ballot one must prove eligibility for the office which one is running, period.

Federal law doesn’t have jurisdiction. That was the whole point of going to the Supreme Court in 2000 over changing election rules/practices in the middle of an election. The Republicans said, “No, you cannot do it.” Democrats said, “Yes, we can.” SCOTUS said it isn’t a Federal issue - it belongs in the Florida Supreme Court.

Obama’s lawyers may just commit a fatal error trying to take this into a Federal Court.


28 posted on 01/19/2012 12:25:28 AM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Reading this exchange, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama supporters KNOW that something is irregular around the circumstances of Obama’s birth certificate. This is funny/ strange, because judging from all the jokes they crack about the “birthers,” one would have thought that they think the birthers’ claims are total bogus and paranoia. And now it appears that they are worried. Hmm... I wonder why?


29 posted on 01/19/2012 12:51:41 AM PST by Mimi3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"That Obama’s lawyers would try to quash routine subpoenas is very incriminating."

It surely is.

30 posted on 01/19/2012 1:47:32 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama" Eligibility: Don't let 'em (continue to) get away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: redhead

If the court finds that he is ineligible to be the GA ballot, in other words he is not a NBC, then people can write is name in but it they will not count those votes.


31 posted on 01/19/2012 3:39:09 AM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

“If the court finds that he is ineligible to be the GA ballot, in other words he is not a NBC, then people can write is name in but it they will not count those votes.”

Correct. Not eligible to be on the ballot means just that. Write-in ballots with his name would be discarded in that case.


32 posted on 01/19/2012 4:16:15 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama" Eligibility: Don't let 'em (continue to) get away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
His lawyer may show the short form and then state that this satisfied the US congress, representing 56 other states.

It's now obvious that he prefers losing Georgia over opening up the Hawaii records. That tells us he's not qualified.

Indonesian citizen by adoption. Kenyan citizen when the adoption was annulled by his Daddy.

33 posted on 01/19/2012 4:38:47 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
The whole thing is insulting.

In my lifetime, I never thought a US president could hide the circumstance of his birth and citizenship.

Ford and Clinton both let the truth out. They were adopted. Not a big deal. We the people have an absolute right to know who it is that governs us. This SOB feels otherwise.

The arrogant communist bastard can't be allowed to get away with this again. If just one state jams it down his throat, that's a good start.

34 posted on 01/19/2012 4:52:04 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: redhead

-——have to write him in-——

Write in’s for an uncertified candidate will not be counted


35 posted on 01/19/2012 5:01:40 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Why move to quash?...to prevent HI from producing documents directly to the court, and not through Obama.

Do the HI copies match obama’s copies?


36 posted on 01/19/2012 5:08:36 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: iontheball
It's just a hearing. No trial.

I am caught driving without a license in GA.

They impound my car. The Judge gives me a week to come back with a PA license. I come back and tell him he's not entitled to see it, and I intend to drive in his state without one.

37 posted on 01/19/2012 5:17:32 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Good point.

Any real document in Hawaii will not match what Obama has thus far produced. We know that the long form is a fabrication. So they will not cooperate because they can't cooperate without getting caught.

So risking the loss of one or more states is a preferable option for them.

An honest candidate could and would surrender every DOH document for inspection. This is unbelievable that an American President would choose to do this.

38 posted on 01/19/2012 5:29:32 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

bflr


39 posted on 01/19/2012 5:30:48 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Good post. A poster over at Sean Hannity forums commented this:

Interesting, the WH is attempting to quash subpoenas that are not directed at them. But to Hawaii - since the WH will not provide simple documents apparently. So the WH is not attempting to intervene in a transaction that they are not party to.


40 posted on 01/19/2012 5:35:38 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat
He will be on all 50 states ballots.

Why?

A court/the court will rule since it a Federal level election that a state not placing him on the ballot infringes on voters rights or is a violation of rights or some such drivel. Heck we may even see a twisting of the interstate commerce clause because of election funding ...

BUT...while it would be nice to get to see and vet 0bama, we should be much more concerned with the people pulling the strings behind him. If he is ever proved ineligible and this progressive/socialist coup is ever proved...there are numerous traitors at all levels of government. It isn't just about 0bama ...

41 posted on 01/19/2012 5:41:49 AM PST by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Georgia can say fine, if Obama can’t produce any documents, he ain’t getting on the ballot

That's the leverage, and that's the Georgia law.

But does Georgia have the balls?

42 posted on 01/19/2012 5:45:44 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer; waterhill; ixtl
Interesting.

Bookmark for later and (((ping))).

43 posted on 01/19/2012 6:12:48 AM PST by Envisioning ( Call me a racist................, one more time......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Obama Has Lost!

You cannot refuse to testify in a civil suit without consequence. The 5th Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right to refuse to testify against himself, but a civil suit defendant does not have that right.

If Obama does not show in Georgia to testify under oath, then Plaintiffs will receive a Default Judgment.

If Obama were to show up in Georgia, then he would have to answer questions under oath that would incriminate him.

1) Where were born>
2)Have you ever been told by your parents or grandparents you were a citizen of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain?
3)Have you ever been issued a passport from Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain?
4)Did you attend Occidental College as a foreign national?
5)Do you have a Certificate of Naturalization on file with the USCIS?

Obama's only option is to claim lack of jurisdiction in the State of Georgia and appeal.
44 posted on 01/19/2012 6:21:33 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

There are several pro Obama supporting attorneys commenting over at the pro Obama website called the Fogbow who seem to be nervous about this move and think that Obama’s attorney is making a mistake if he is going to rely on the image of the birth certificate as proof of eligibility.

Here are their comments:

attorney Sterngard Friegen wrote about Mr. Jablonski’s (Obama’s attorney) messiness:

“I don’t understand starting off the motion by pointing out that the info is already available all over the Internet. That does look foolish. None of those images are admissible evidence for anyone.” and “I don’t think there is any justification for the hodge podge mess Jablonski has filed. If he would bother to read it he’d be embarrassed. I think it makes him look foolish and unprofessional.”

and this:

“Well, that’s it then; Jablonski fell right into Orly’s trap!

See, he argues that Orly has copies of the files posted on the Web ... so now Orly can call in her experts who will testify why that stuff up on the Web site is a forgery! Then, the Georgia judge has to rule that Obama is not eligible, and then Orly can go back to Hawaii with that ruling, and Judge Nishimura has to let her see the original documents!

Checkmate!!”

and another attorneys view:

“I wonder if Jablonski & crew may be working too much in a vacuum.”

Another:

“But I gotta say, even with my leniency, I don’t understand starting off the motion by pointing out that the info is already available all over the Internet. That does look foolish. None of those images are admissible evidence for anyone.”

One more:

“Also, remember what the statute says about any appeal: it is conducted only on the evidence in the record.

So if a COLB is *not* introduced at the hearing, it can’t suddenly be added as evidence on appeal. And if Jablonski can’t win on the state powers argument on appeal, then he’s kinda stuck.”

And here is one Fogbow poster named Tomtech who is so nervous, he actually wrote a letter to the White House. Here is his post and he is a Texas democratic delegate:

I must admit that I am a little worried. Not about Orly’s antics, but about Jablosnki’s strategy. I went as fas as sending the following to the White House via their e-mail system.

Quote:

Please present your COLB at the Georgia Administrative Law Hearing on 1-26-2012

I have been, and will be, an Obama Delegate to the Texas Democratic Convention and I have no doubts about the Presidents eligibility for the Office.

Too many low information voters only hear the initial headline and are oblivious to information which comes later.

The last thing this country needs is a headline stating “Georgia Judge declares Obama unqualified to be President”.

If Jablosnki stay’s with the arguments presented in pre-trial motions and fails to produce the COLB it is possible that Judge Maliki will rule against him since he failed to meet the burden of proof required under the state and then the headline above will be atop every newspaper in the world the next day.

I know the ruling will have little impact on the President’s Nomination and will most likely be overturned on appeal, but that headline will cause worldwide unrest and could possibly lead to extreme problems domestically.

Please ensure Jablosnki meets the burden of proof required by Judge Maliki and doesn’t cause problems this country and the world can’t afford through strictly relying on a jurisdictional argument.


45 posted on 01/19/2012 6:33:57 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Then, although it Georgia may not be able to compel document production from Hawaii, Georgia could also decide that the defendant Barry isn’t documenting his qualifications because those document were not produced. In other words, it could become in Barry’s interest to produce documentation supporting his claim as a legal candidate if he can.

It is astonishing that we are even having this conversation. EVERY SINGLE STATE should demand to see a certified copy of his original birth certificate before even considering letting him on the ballot. This is simple. You no have, you no go on ballot.

I chalk it up to utter incompetence that 50 agencies charged with certifying candidates simply took Nancy Pelosi's word instead of doing due diligence.

46 posted on 01/19/2012 6:34:58 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
Any real document in Hawaii will not match what Obama has thus far produced. We know that the long form is a fabrication. So they will not cooperate because they can't cooperate without getting caught.

I've said this many times. I think that fabricated document Obama has produced was fabricated by Hawaii DOH. I think it is a replacement birth certificate which is intended to look like an original. (Just like mine) When State's issue replacement birth certificates, they really aren't designed to survive intense scrutiny by interested parties. They are designed to pass a cursory inspection by someone glancing at them.

I think Hawaii DOH sent the PDF to the White House (or gave it to Obama's attorney) and they didn't realize it contained the evidence of it's creation. (They are bureaucrats and they aren't very smart.)

Anyway, I think it *IS* a legal document, but it is NOT an *ORIGINAL* document. Whether or not the Judge will consider this in evaluating it (should they produce a certified copy) is another thing altogether.

So risking the loss of one or more states is a preferable option for them.

If producing the correct documents demonstrates that they have been LYING to everyone from the very beginning then, Yeah, losing a State is the lesser of two evils from their perspective. However, I would suggest (as I have been for the last 3 years) that if he loses a single state because he refuses to produce the document, it will be too big of a story for the Media to bury, and it will cause political repercussions throughout the country.

An honest candidate could and would surrender every DOH document for inspection. This is unbelievable that an American President would choose to do this.

And something that Most Republicans and Conservatives who have been against the "birther" issue don't understand. It should not even be a QUESTION that someone running for President should PROVE that they meet the qualifications. We should not be having this debate. EVERYONE should have said "So the birthers want to see your birth certificate. That is completely reasonable and is in fact a requirement to get on ANY ballot. "

How did we get to a point where the bulk of Republicans and Conservatives are siding with Obama AGAINST showing his bonafides? What the H3ll is wrong with these people?

47 posted on 01/19/2012 7:00:11 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
How did we get to a point where the bulk of Republicans and Conservatives are siding with Obama AGAINST showing his bonafides? What the H3ll is wrong with these people?

I think it's a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Interesting now to hear the radio talkers railing about the paltry level of factual documentation released about Obama back in 2008 compared to the full on adversarial discovery the Republican candidates this year are being subjected to. It was in their best interests to cover the eligibility issue even if it did bring mocking and ridicule from the power elites. Now they're part of the coverup whether they want to be or not.

48 posted on 01/19/2012 7:31:35 AM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

I have been trying to analyze this phenomena for a long time. Back in the summer of 2008, I didn’t think the Democrats would be stupid enough to nominate Obama, but I underestimated their desperate need for “racial guilt healing.”

What surprised me is that the Republicans didn’t demand proof of eligibility from Obama in the General election, what with all the commentary for the preceding years about him being from “Kenya” and such. In retrospect, it makes sense.

At the time, none of us Primary Voters were aware that John McCain was NOT BORN IN the United States. I have personally met John McCain, and I have been aware of him as a Senator for over 20 years, and *I* did not know he was born in another Country. (Yes, on our military base, but not *IN* the United States.) Not being aware of this, the Primary voters (of which I was one, and Yes, I voted for John McCain, because everyone else sucked worse) Picked him as our nominee.

The problem was, the American people have a really weak understanding of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” and the vast bulk of them suffer from the illusion that it only means being born *IN* our country. If John McCain had tried to raise the NBC eligibility issue it would have backfired on him. The Media would have successfully argued that John McCain was less of a “natural born citizen” than was Barack, because at least Barack was born here. (They would have finessed the proof same as they did before.)

The McCain campaign, (and therefore the Entire Republican Party Election Apparatus) made a conscious decision NOT to raise the issue because they KNEW it would backfire on them politically. Not only that, the word went out to ridicule any of the rest of us that dared raise it for the same reason. (It would hurt the party’s chances of winning the Presidency, as far as the Party Apparatchiks were concerned.)

Had McCain won, their strategy would have worked out fine, but since McCain lost, they could not use the eligibility weapon which they had thrown away, and they found themselves in the position of having to double down on ignoring and discrediting anyone who raised the eligibility issue. To do otherwise would be the same as admitting they knowingly condoned a strategy which undermined our constitutional rule of law.

The facts now stand thus: They were wrong to ignore the eligibility issue in the first place, Barack Obama has never demonstrated his eligibility to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, and if this court case is successful, it may blow this whole sorry mess wide open and demonstrate that the “anti-birthers” were wrong from the very beginning.

I for one believe it will be very much in the Nation’s interest to let in some sunshine and disinfectant.


49 posted on 01/19/2012 8:02:15 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

ping


50 posted on 01/19/2012 8:18:07 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

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.

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