I believe the issue in the GA case is that of Natural born Citizen in which Obama’s birth certificate is not an issue unless it could show that Obama Sr. was not really his fatherand that his real was a US citizen. I could be wrong.
From what I read at http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/williams/120104 it seems to me that the GA SOS is required to make sure that the candidate is eligible for the position being sought. So that would involve having legal proof of meeting all the eligibility requirements - age, residency, and natural born status which would involve both birth place and parentage.
I saw a document with Malihi’s signature on it, requiring Obama to appear and present all his birth records, social security records, passport records, and selective service records, and for the HDOH to provide the original birth certificate as well as the microfilm roll in which Obama’s BC is filmed. I assumed that it was something ordered by Malihi. But when I was at ObamaReleaseYourRecords trying to understand exactly what happened in HI on Friday, it pointed out that Orly had copied her subpoena/request onto a blank form signed by Malihi.
So my question is whether Malihi actually ordered Obama to appear and for he and the HDOH to produce those documents so that the GA SOS could determine whether Obama’s name could be placed on the ballot. If so, is a judge’s order different than a subpoena? Does the HDOH have to obey Malihi’s order, if it was indeed an order?
From further reading at http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/ it seems that Malihi had originally lumped 3 lawsuits into one but the lawyer who is arguing the NBC issue asked for the cases to be separated so that his case doesn’t have to be connected to Orly Taitz. The judge agreed to sever the cases so each will stand separately.
On Jan 26 he’s supposed to first hear arguments on the NBC case, followed by the case presented by Mark Hatfield (not sure what the basis for that case is), and finally hearing the arguments by Taitz.
I wonder if these cases would be appealable to the federal courts.
Yup, methinks the issue is that by all evidence provided by the would-be candidate he has proven he is ineligible due to British-subject parentage, and so the task is to persuade a judge to rule against ballot inclusion.
People have been so blinded by the drive to find some obscure proof of underhanded deception that they fail to notice the official disqualification presented front-and-center.
For personal reasons I find such a conclusion distasteful, but nonetheless find this reasoning compelling and correct.