Posted on 12/12/2011 6:16:37 PM PST by Red Steel
Farrar, Roth, Lax, Judy, MacLaren v. Obama, Kemp, GA Democratic Party: Loretta Fuddy(Hawaii DOH) Served Subpoena Signed By Judge Michael Mailhi For Obama's Original Birth Certificate and 1961 Microfiche Roll - SUBPOENA HERE
Don’t leave out or forget all the traitors that have their hands up Zero’s rectum.
Looks like it’s not much of a subpoena.
From http://www.osah.state.ga.us/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf:
“616-1-2-.19 Subpoenas; Notices to Produce. Amended.
(1) Subpoenas may be issued which require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
production of objects or documents at depositions or hearings provided for by these Rules. The
party on whose behalf the subpoenas are issued shall be responsible for completing and serving
the subpoenas sufficiently in advance of the hearing to secure the attendance of a witness or the
deposed testimony of the witness at the time of the hearing.
(2) Subpoenas shall be in writing and filed at least five (5) days prior to the hearing or
deposition at which a witness or document is sought, shall be served upon all parties, and shall
identify the witnesses whose testimony is sought or the documents or objects sought to be
produced. Every subpoena shall state the title of the action.
(3) Subpoenas may be obtained from the Office of State Administrative Hearings website or
from the Clerk.
(4) A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia and by any sheriff, by a sheriff’s
deputy, or by any other person not less than eighteen (18) years of age. Proof of service may be
shown by certificate endorsed on a copy of the subpoena. Subpoenas may also be served by
registered or certified mail, and the return receipt shall constitute prima facie proof of service.
Service upon a party may be made by serving the party’s counsel of record. Fees and mileage
shall be paid to the recipient of a subpoena in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 24-10-24.
(5) Once issued, a subpoena may be quashed by the Administrative Law Judge if it appears that
the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony, documents, or objects sought
are irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation and
presentation of its position at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should
not be enforced. The Administrative Law Judge may require the party issuing the subpoena to
advance the reasonable cost of producing the documents or objects.
(6) Once issued and served, unless otherwise conditioned or quashed, a subpoena shall remain
in effect until the close of the hearing or until the witness is excused, whichever comes first.
(7) A party may serve a notice to produce in order to compel production of documents or
objects in the possession, custody, or control of another party in lieu of serving a subpoena under
this Rule. Service may be perfected in accordance with paragraph (4), but no fees or mileage
shall be allowed therefor. Paragraph (5) shall apply to such notices.
(8) A notice to produce shall be in writing and shall be signed by the party or by the party’s
attorney seeking production of documents or objects. The notice shall be directed to the
opposing party or the opposing party’s attorney. A copy of any notice to produce shall be filed
with the Clerk.”
The HI authorities will just ignore it.
You need to have more than one judge verify. What if the left found a judge who would say they they saw it and it was legit. Who would check the judge? It could be a set up. This is why the entire thing should be public, and subject to document examiners.
Doesn’t matter what Zero’s minions do or whether subpoena is quashed as long as GA simply makes the presentation of the docs the deciding factor of whether he appears on the ballot. If so there are no jurisdictional issues. Produce the docs or do not appear on the ballot.
You might like to know that Obama cannot produce the “real” birth certificate. He supposedly produced one a few months ago but you would find it interesting to know that they verified the typewriter impressions and found a number of them to be fabricated (the letters did not match throughout the document).
Funny thing is that my birth certificate from August 1961 (same month he was supposedly born) is flawless and correct because I was born in San Francisco to a military family and the typewriter impressions match.
So...if Obama thinks that he can get reelected in 2012 that would be interesting. It would also be the right thing for him to do to release his college transcripts, his prior passports (which will likely show his last name as Soetoro), and provide an explanation as to why he is using a social security number from someone in Connecticut when he never lived there.
They may be welcome to do it. However if The Beloved Leader suddenly becomes "undocumented" his name will be simply removed from the ballot, and not a word more needs to be said. The burden of proof is on him this time. The concerned citizens challenged the candidate, and the candidate failed to deliver.
This also means that Hawaii is the only place that can provide such a proof. Anything that the suspect candidate produces is itself suspect. They need an uninvolved party who has the documents, and Hawaii is the only place where such a document may exist (outside of Kenya :-)
Call me cynical, but do you suppose some Democrats would push this to get Obama off the ticket and replace him with Hillary?
Correct. GA courts do not have jurisdiction over HI officials. As much as I have cheered for Taiz in the past this seems foolish.
Just don’t have enough info on this matter: who’s suing and why. Apparently, it’s an administrative agency, so may be (probably is) connected with some individuals challenging O’s being on the GA ballot.
But, I don’t think GA adopted a law requiring birth certificates, so don’t know what their ‘standing’ would be or what law would require one be produced, much less from another state. Maybe more info will be forthcoming that would make it understandable.
ping...
But GA courts do have jurisdiction over GA voting ballots, and may require HI natives wishing to appear thereon make proof of HI orign appear.
I checked on the requirement here in Virginia and, IIRC, all we require is an affidavit saying the candidate is eligible!
It means that, assuming this is not quashed, when the very same LFBC that BHO produced back in April is submitted to a US court the Birthers will all say “Huh, I guess we were wrong this past four years. He really was born in Hawaii.”
Then the Birthers will all insist that they had really known this all along but had been distracted by BHO’s effort to cover up his father's lack of citizenship by showing documents that he had to know they would think were forged (the Hawaii GOP were in on this, colluding to produce correct documentation knowing they'd fool everybody). His grandmother knew that the US had stripped BHO of his US citizenship as required by Indonesian law once he went to an Indonesian school. So actually BHO had to be smuggled back into the US by Catholic Charities [citation needed]. That's why he had to take a break from his Presidential campaign and murder her before it got out that she obtained a Connecticut SSN from a guy born in 1890 to help cover-up BHO's loss of NBC status despite a Hawaiian birth (I've read that the Presidency was banned to Hawaiians by the State Department in 1981).
Anyway, now that his parentage is proven in a court of law everyone ought to know that he's not an NBC because that's what they were taught in school before all the civics texts that stated this were destroyed by the CIA (who Obama worked for as a KGB double agent) and that the GOP and the USSC are a bunch of traitors for not enforcing what Vattel wrote into the Constitution in 1798.
That's what it means.
The HI Records Dept will just do what they did last time which is quote HI state law saying they cannot release the birth certificate to anyone except the individual named on the BC. In other words they will just say no.
Think it’s the same in every state. The Chmn of each party’s national convention signs an affidavit setting out the candidate and his/her Constitutional eligibility, however much that may be disputed by others. Then a copy is filed in all 50, and territories. A few states made noise about further ID for the candidates, but don’t think any laws were ever enacted.
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.