President Obama To Ignore Georgia Subpoena And Head To Las Vegas Jan 26th.

"Oh, and 1rb: Notwithstanding the more-far-fetched notion of flying a judge to the WH, which would appear more as a "summoning" of the judge with overtones of supplication, I concede that the Pres__ent (No ID: h/t musicman) is likely able to dispatch agents to represent him in his stead in Georgia, provided that any subpoenaed evidentiary materials are made available by same agents for inspection by the court, its agents and those the court considers germane actors in the proceedings as directed by court rules and attendant instructions by the judge."

musicman: You were mentioned in my comment; simple courtesy post. :)

Thank you for the ping Lucy :)

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

U.S. Supreme Court

No. 95-1853

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PETITIONER v. PAULA CORBIN JONES

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

[May 27, 1997]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853

First, because the claim of immunity is asserted in a federal court and relies heavily on the doctrine of separation of powers that restrains each of the three branches of the Federal Government from encroaching on the domain of the other two, see, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122 (1976), it is not necessary to consider or decide whether a comparable claim might succeed in a state tribunal. If this case were being heard in a state forum, instead of advancing a separation of powers argument, petitioner would presumably rely on federalism and comity concerns, 13 as well as the interest in protecting federal officials from possible local prejudice that underlies the authority to remove certain cases brought against federal officers from a state to afederal court, see 28 U.S.C. � 1442(a); Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 125 -126 (1989). Whether those concerns would present a more compelling case for immunity is a question that is not before us.

Second, our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place. We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so. 14

SNIP

Only three sitting Presidents have been defendants in civil litigation involving their actions prior to taking office. Complaints against Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman had been dismissed before they took office; the dismissals were affirmed after their respective inaugurations. 15 Two companion cases arising out of an automobile accident were filed against John F. Kennedyin 1960 during the Presidential campaign. 16 After taking office, he unsuccessfully argued that his status as Commander in Chief gave him a right to a stay under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U. S. C. App. ��501-525. The motion for a stay was denied by the District Court, and the matter was settled out of court. 17 Thus, none of those cases sheds any light on the constitutional issue before us.

SNIP

First, we have long held that when the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law. Perhaps the most dramatic example of such a case is our holding that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills in order to avert a national catastrophe. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Despite the serious impact of that decision on the ability of the Executive Branch to accomplish its assigned mission, and the substantial time that the President must necessarily have devoted to the matter as a result of judicial involvement, we exercised our Article III jurisdiction todecide whether his official conduct conformed to the law. Our holding was an application of the principle established in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Id., at 177.

Second, it is also settled that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances. Although Thomas Jefferson apparently thought otherwise, Chief Justice Marshall, when presiding in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, ruled that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President. United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807). 38 We unequivocally and emphatically endorsed Marshall's position when we held that President Nixon was obligated to comply with a subpoena commanding him to produce certain tape recordings of his conversations with his aides. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). As we explained, "neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Id., at 706. 39

Sitting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty. President Monroe responded to written interrogatories, see Rotunda, Presidents and Ex Presidents as Witnesses: A Brief Historical Footnote, 1975 U. Ill. L. F. 1, 5-6, President Nixon--as noted above--produced tapes in response to a subpoena duces tecum, see United States v. Nixon, President Ford complied with an order to give a deposition in a criminal trial, United States v. Fromme, 405 F. Supp. 578 (ED Cal. 1975), and President Clinton has twice given videotaped testimony in criminal proceedings, see United States v. McDougal, 934 F. Supp. 296 (ED Ark. 1996); United States v. Branscum, No., LRP-CR%96-49 (ED Ark., June 7, 1996). Moreover, sitting Presidents have also voluntarily complied with judicial requests for testimony. President Grant gave a lengthy deposition in a criminal case under such circumstances, R. Rotunda & J. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law �7.1 (2d ed. 1992), and President Carter similarly gave videotaped testimony for use at a criminal trial, ibid.

In sum, "[i]t is settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States." Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 753 -754. If the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and if it may direct

appropriate process to the President himself, it mustfollow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of his unofficial conduct. The burden on the President's time and energy that is a mere by product of such review surely cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and the occasional invalidation of his official actions. 40 We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.

The reasons for rejecting such a categorical rule apply as well to a rule that would require a stay "in all but the most exceptional cases." Brief for Petitioner i. Indeed, if the Framers of the Constitution had thought it necessary to protect the President from the burdens of private litigation, we think it far more likely that they would have adopted a categorical rule than a rule that required the President to litigate the question whether a specific case belonged in the "exceptional case" subcategory. In all events, the question whether a specific case should receive exceptional treatment is more appropriately the subject of the exercise of judicial discretion than an interpretation of the Constitution. Accordingly, we turn to the question whether the District Court's decision to stay the trial until after petitioner leaves office was an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals described the District Court's discretionary decision to stay the trial as the "functional equivalent" of a grant of temporary immunity. 72 F. 3d, at 1361, n. 9. Concluding that petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to such an immunity, the court held that it was error to grant the stay. Ibid. Although we ultimately conclude that the stay should not have been granted, we think the issue is more difficult than the opinion of the Court of Appeals suggests.

Strictly speaking the stay was not the functional equivalent of the constitutional immunity that petitioner claimed, because the District Court ordered discovery to proceed. Moreover, a stay of either the trial or discovery might be justified by considerations that do not require the recognition of any constitutional immunity. The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. See, e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). As we have explained, "[e]specially in cases of extraordinary public moment, [a plaintiff] may be required to submit to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted." Id., at 256. Although we have rejected the argument that the potential burdens on the President violate separation of powers principles, those burdens are appropriate matters for the District Court to evaluate in its management of the case. The high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive, though not justifying a rule of categorical immunity, is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery. 41

Nevertheless, we are persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to defer the trial until after the President leaves office. Such a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatever of the respondent's interest in bringing the case to trial. The complaint was filed within the statutory limitations period--albeit near the end of that period--and delaying trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.

The decision to postpone the trial was, furthermore, premature. The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need. Id., at 255. In this case, at the stage at which the District Court made its ruling, there was no way to assess whether a stay of trial after the completion of discovery would be warranted. Other than the fact that a trial may consume some of the President's time and attention, there is nothing in the record to enable a judge to assess the potential harm that may ensue from scheduling the trial promptly after discovery is concluded. We think the District Courtmay have given undue weight to the concern that a trial might generate unrelated civil actions that could conceivably hamper the President in conducting the duties of his office. If and when that should occur, the court's discretion would permit it to manage those actions in such fashion (including deferral of trial) that interference with the President's duties would not occur. But no such impingement upon the President's conduct of his office was shown here.

We add a final comment on two matters that are discussed at length in the briefs: the risk that our decision will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation, and the danger that national security concerns might prevent the President from explaining a legitimate need for a continuance.

We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious. Most frivolous and vexatious litigation is terminated at the pleading stage or on summary judgment, with little if any personal involvement by the defendant. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12, 56. Moreover, the availability of sanctions provides a significant deterrent to litigation directed at the President in his unofficial capacity for purposes of political gain or harassment. 42 History indicates that the likelihood that a significant number of such cases will be filed is remote. Although scheduling problems may arise, there is no reason to assume that the District Courts will be either unable to accommodate the President's needs or unfaithful to the tradition--especially in matters involving national security--of giving "the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities." 43 Several Presidents, including petitioner, have given testimony without jeopardizing the Nation's security. See supra, at 23. In short, we have confidence in the ability of our federal judges to deal with both of these concerns.

Granted, the Clinton VS. Jones case seems to only mention Federal Court but Obama is a candidate (private citizen) seeking something from Georgia, to be on the ballot.

Perhaps you should change your name to 1poorreader. This case is not about removing a sitting President, it’s about ballot access in the State of Georgia for a Presidential candidate.

Hopefully, this will result in his exclusion from the GA ballot due to default. I’ll take it!

I hope other states follow suit!

Ah, like a king running a kingdom.

Subpoenas are for subjects of the king, not the king.

>>...State judges are no longer in play...<<

Well, You *do* live up to your moniker, but nobody can say you didn’t warn them...

I do agree with you that a state judge will not remove Obama from office. Anyone hoping for that outcome has drastically misunderstood the situation in GA. Personally, I was hoping Obama would ignore the subpoena and give the judge the option of a default judgement against him. Obama will likely have an atty (or a platoon of attys) appear on his behalf, just like you said.

So yes, one state judge will not bring down Obama. However, if Judge Malahi excludes Obama from the GA ballot for failing to qualify either by default judgement or (even better) ruling whatever documents presented are insufficient and/or defective, it might provide an example for citizens in other states to bring a similar challenge. It remains to be seen how many, if any, will ultimately do so. I’m hoping for a rash of copy-cat challenges in numerous jusridictions from coast to coast.

Of course, the judge could also decide that the documentation presented on Obama’s behalf and/or his atty’s arguments are adequate to keep him on the ballot. Who knows at this point?

We are all holding our breath.
Cautiously optimistic but chances are it will be derailed -
* something might happen and another pro-obumo judge will replace this one; or
* this judge will declare default judgement; the SOS will determine default judgement is not good enough, obumo was already vetted by DNC, media and voters blah blah...then the challenge drags on until it is too late.

Sad but what can we do when stupid people and congress install obumo and keep him there giving all the power/money/resources he needs to ‘squash’ us?

excellent analysis

They didn’t need 85 pages of evidence and she didn’t clearly understand New Hampshire’s law and the Ballot Commission’s responsibilities, otherwise she would have pre-empted their counsel’s excuse for them. This was an election board hearing, not a criminal trial, so one needs to cut to the chase and get right to the specific and relevant details to eligibility and this board’s function.

"Perhaps the smell was from the "poppers""

Lol. LSD causes body odor. http://www.theantidrug.com/ei/detailed_signs.asp

Leo Donofrio files Amicus Brief in State of Georgia eligibility cases.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/

Do you know who was sitting president during the Bush-Gore case? Hint: neither of them.

But you were probably still learning your alphabet at the time.

“He has nothing but contempt for our laws.”

But, but, he’s a Constitutional ‘lawyer’! Right?

“...This isn’t about his removal. It’s about him being on an upcoming ballot....”

In a round-about way it is. If that jug-eared idiot fails to make it on enough ballots, it WILL lead to his removal from office. We can only hope.....and pray.