Did the judge actually require that? That’s part of my question. That’s what I was led to believe but I’m reading now that a mere subpoena from one state can’t compel the other state to produce. Did the judge say that Obama will be left off the ballot if those pieces of evidence are not presented to the court?
Just looked up the Order denying Team Obama’s Motion to Dismiss in the GA State Administrative Hearings court. He said “Defendant (BHO) ... must meet the Constitutional and statutory requirements for the office being sought.” I believe there’s a hearing on this later in the month.
At that hearing the judge can demand that a certified copy of the original BC be produced before allowing Obama’s name on the ballot. He theoretically could go further, upon receipt of what we’ve seen presented as the original BC, and say because it shows the father as “African” that he’s not, in that judge’s opinion, an NBC. I doubt he would ‘go there’ but who knows? So far all he’s done is deny the motion to dismiss; I don’t see that he’s demanded anything to establish that the candidate met the constitutional or statutory requirements.
Again, WHO issued the subpoena? And if it was Taitz, why? If this judge requires Obama to produce a certified copy of his original BC to get on the GA ballot, and Obama wants to be on the GA ballot, HE can get and produce it; no subpoena is required by anyone.
Back in the SS/FOIA case that was in the DC and HI federal courts, there was a kerfuffle because the subpoena had to be authorized and issued through the DC court, and Taitz had gone ahead and issued subpoenas from the HI court. IIRC that dragged it out until the case was dismissed in the DC court. But in general, one state doesn’t have to honor a subpoena from another state. The FOIA is unique in many ways. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know any lawyers right now who specialize in that FOIA branch of the law, so am going on layman’s memory and general understanding of what happened in that earlier suit.