Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Attorney Files Motion To Quash Subpoenas In The Georgia Access Ballot Challenge ^

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 ...

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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Goreknowshowtocheat
He will be on all 50 states ballots.


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

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!


and another attorneys view:

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


“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.


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]

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


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]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

If by some miracle of justice over legality Obama was not on the ballot in Georgia the city of Atlanta would be burned to the ground with the encouragement of the White House.

51 posted on 01/19/2012 8:28:16 AM PST by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

And we would be on our way to Canton. RIGHT?!?!?!?!

52 posted on 01/19/2012 8:41:28 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
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.

Obama/Jablonski appears to argue Internet documentation is sufficient to suffice for a prerequisite for becoming president. This, if accepted by the judge, would seem to set a damaging precedent and seem to become a very low hurdle for proving facts in evidentiary phases of procedures in Georgia, something the judge presumably might desire to take into consideration when he makes a ruling. Judge Clay Land's decision in 2009 muddies the waters a bit, but that was in federal jurisdiction. Skimming the response, I see that Rhodes v Macdonald was referred to at least twice, but once was in the introduction and the other in the main body of the argument was in regards to sanctions against Orly, not on the key issue of whether a document posted on the Internet can be used as proof in court. Jablonski seems to be aware of perhaps thin legal ice in Land's argument on evidence enough to avoid direct reference to it but still demands the same result.

If Obama's arguments were adopted by the judge (not saying it is likely but just hypothetically), then the doors would seemingly be open not just to Obama but to any potentially unqualified candidate to manufacture a photoshopped birth certificate, post it on the Internet, and claim it in court as evidence that he or she is qualified to run for president (or whatever). Obama seems intent on playing legal chicken here and he does not seem to care much what the unintended legal consequences may be, unless he is an anarchist of sorts and the prospective damages to legal precedent and procedure is actually intentional.

53 posted on 01/19/2012 10:01:35 AM PST by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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

Would this also apply to citizens who had not filed for the office being voted upon and were not actively seeking the office (i.e. Sarah Palin)?

54 posted on 01/19/2012 10:11:50 AM PST by redhead (, , , comedian...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Many of the replies seem to show a lack of understanding of a basic fundamental of the Georgia law. Even if the judge determines that Obama has not proven that he is eligible for office of President, that DOES NOT mean Obama will not still be on the Georgia ballot.

Under the law, when a challenge is made, a judge is assigned to determine if the candidate is eligible for the office he is running for. The judge is responsible for generating a report on whether or not the candidate is eligible, and sending the report to the SOS. It is the responability of the SOS to then determine if the candidate should be removed from the ballot.

The responsability lies on the SOS to make the final determination of whether or not the candidate should remain on the ballot. The judge is there to generate report to help the SOS.

My fear is that Obama's lawyers will present no evidence at the hearing. The judge will then decide he no longer needs to hear any more arguments(such as Minor v. Happersett), because he already has enough to generate his report. The judge presents a report to the SOS saying that he recommends that Obama is not eligible because the defense presented no evidence. The SOS then says he will allow Obama on the ballot because he believes the BC on is authentic.
55 posted on 01/19/2012 10:59:19 AM PST by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MMaschin

Remain on the ballot?   Isn’t that “be placed on the ballot”?

The SOS is apparently a Republican, so to conjecture influence to overturn a judge’s recommendation bears the burden of proof, IMHO. To conjecture that his decision would be based on a “belief” unfairly suggests a corruption of the process. Is there more that you “believe” that accounts for all this?


56 posted on 01/19/2012 12:28:30 PM PST by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: holden

I read elsewhere that there were at least five citizen complaints of this nature that were filed in Georgia, so if one goes the direction we’re seeing as baked into the quash, the SOS would need to be a very solid reason to overturn such judicial outcomes. Such behavior by the SOS would have more than a patina, veneer or Hint of corruption!


57 posted on 01/19/2012 12:37:40 PM PST by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: holden
I used the term "remain on ballot" vs "placed on ballot", because judge Makihi said "this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office" in his dismissal of Obama's MOD. But it's really just symantics, I think either way is accurate.

When the judge denied the MOD, I was so happy that it finally looked like a court was going to weigh in on whether or not Minor v Happersett established legal precedent on the definition of NBC. Since judge Malihi denied the MOD, I really think he will go al the way with this, and look at Minor - but I am a bit neurotic by nature.

If judge Malihi has full hearings, listens to all of the arguments, and determines that Minor is legal precedent on NBC - then I think you are completely correct, the SOS will most certainly follow the judges recommendation.

If on the other hand, judge Malihi decides he want's to punt on this. Then Obama's lawyers not presenting any evidence might allow him to do so. Judge Malihi simply declares that Obama has not proven to him that he is eligible for the office he is running for. The judge then declares he no longer needs to proceed with hearing the plaintiffs arguments (such as Minor), because they have already won.

As I've stated above, if the judge has full hearings, and makes a legal decision that Minor is legal precedent, then the SOS will follow suit and keep Obama off the ballot. IF on the other hand, the judge goes thru the 'punt' scenario, and basically defaults for the plaintiffs, AND he wants to avoid a big bru-ha-ha, then he might say something like, "I'm not going to deny a candidate from a ballot because of a default judgement - I'm going to do my job as SOS, and make a decision on my own.". He could then make a ruling that he's looked at all the evidence himself, and he's sure that Obama is eligible, and will be on the ballot.

Being a Republican in no way means that the SOS wants to rule against Obama. I don't see any politician Republican or not making such a decision - UNLESS they have some sort of backing, such as a ruling from a judge. A judge declaring Minor precedent is the only way Obama will be ruled ineligible, because then people can say their hands were tied, and they are forced by legal precedent.
58 posted on 01/19/2012 1:09:26 PM PST by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MMaschin

So how long do you think the judge will take to make up his mind after the hearings are over, especially on Minor v Happersett? I am sure he will look up and compare it to Wong Kim Ark and other cases right?

59 posted on 01/19/2012 1:34:31 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Triple

I agree but HI has already said that the GA subpoenas have no weight in HI. So why the quash now! He could of sat back and watched HI take the heat, and could even say that he “supports Hawaiian law in this regard...bla bla bla...” It makes no sense to show your hand before the other side has bet, raised, called, or folded.

60 posted on 01/19/2012 1:35:56 PM PST by GregNH (I am so ready to join a brigade of pick up trucks......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson