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 ...
Those witnesses are agreeing to testify.
Thomas Watson and Steve Jobs were “office machine salesmen”.
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.
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.
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.
Which he can’t IFF his father was born in Kenya.
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.
Actually IFF his father or mother was not a citizen of the US.
Great word, “Quash”.
Obama, Quasher-in-Chief.
Hmm, hmm, hmm.
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
Exactly, no docs no play. GA is holding all the cards. They control who gets on the ballot.
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.
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!!!!
“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
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
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.
bump
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?
>> He calls him a ‘office machine salesman’.
Happens with ‘office machine’ COLBs.
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.
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.
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.
I was intrigued what the outcome may be.
Not much, it would seem.
No wonder concern by the voting public SO abysmally low.
“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.
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?
It surely is.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
-——have to write him in-——
Write in’s for an uncertified candidate will not be counted
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?
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.
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.
bflr
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.
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 ...
Bookmark for later and (((ping))).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
ping
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.