Posted on 01/22/2012 8:28:39 PM PST by Obama Exposer
President Obama plans to head out on a 3 day trip arriving in Las Vegas Wednesday afternoon and staying overnight well into Thursday. That afternoon he will leave for Denver and then Detroit. The president plans to promote his State of the Union address. With this action, President Obama intends to ignore a legal judicial subpoena from the state of Georgia requesting him, by name, to appear in court January 26th 2012 at 9am in Judge Michael Malihi's courtroom. Barack Obama's attempt as a candidate to be on the state ballot in Georgia has been officially legally challenged by state citizens in a official administrative hearing before a judge who was appointed by Governor Zell Miller, a democrat at the time.
It is important to know that, once you are given a subpoena or summons, you are legally required to attend the proceeding indicated on the document and serve as a witness for the case in question. Failure to comply with the court’s order can lead to severe penalties, including a warrant being issued for your arrest. In some states, you may even be fined, lose your driver’s license, or spend time in jail if do not appear at the proceeding indicated in the subpoena. As of now it appears Barack Obama will ignore the subpoena, upheld by Judge Malihi in his denial of the Presidents 'Motion to Quash', and carry on with his trip to 'Sin City' and beyond. It's also apparent that Barack Obama doesn't intend to show up in court and ensure the American people that he is indeed a natural born Citizen to be president as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
No, how about addressing your claims you stated? For the 3rd time, address the question. Again, Name any judge that a president has flown to the White House to take a deposition from him and for what occassion?
Not completely apples and oranges. You can have a grandstanding judge indicting a sitting President for warcrimes in order to create a spectacle, or you can have a grandstanding judge insisting that a sitting President appear before him about what is a purely administrative matter. In order to create a spectacle.
Oh, yah . . . you got me at Obama supporter. What a genius.
The SF crew had no legal authority to do squat over war crimes...this judge does over election issues.
The only grandstanding outside SF is your own.
Well, don’t support Obama and you won’t have that problem.
!
Thank you, ma’am.
!
!
That just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
This hearing isn’t about removing him from office.
Read up and then you might be taken seriously.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/205401-fed-officer-invokes-fifth-in-fast-and-furious-probe
Obama has so many crimes so little time in between his hideous speeches. He will slip up and it may be his name not being on any ballots.Now that is justice.
Again, I am taking an objective view. People who are emotionally-vested in their argument won’t see it. A sitting President isn’t subject to the whim of whatever State judge happens to come along. It’s why Presidents have a legal team. Anybody remember Bush v. Gore?
Is anybody taking seriously the best darn Amended Motion to Quash you had ever seen being filed and ruled on tomorrow?
Come on the Judge practically ordered one be written. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Orly’s witnesses are coming anyway. Obama’s attorney will argue against NBC and as far as the forgery claims, I don’t know what the judge does about that. It will depend on what argument the Obama attorney makes.
Then it will be the SoS job to decide what to do.
From what I am hearing now is that Obama is trying to set it up for some kind of mis-trial type appeal where he can claim he got incompetent representation by Jablonski for the ballot hearing? He could then attempt to get another judge of their liking to hold the hearing in front of?
Alternatively, you could read the comment to which I was responding.
It’s not ‘emotional’ anything. Do you think this judge lacks the authority to compel his appearance? If so, please show us the legal reasons and the constitutional reasons a sitting judge with the legal authority to preside over this case cannot use his legal authority. Do you think he can’t keep Obama off the ballot? Same as above. Please show why you believe, legally and constitutionally speaking, he cannot.
Otherwise, you are blowing smoke, trolling, and generally siding with Obama, not the law.
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.