Posted on 01/24/2012 11:14:17 AM PST by SteveH
Attorney for Georgia voter questions president's ballot eligibility
Judge Michael Malihi: Obama failed to outline legal authority for argument to quash subpoena.
An attorney for a Georgia voter questioning President Barack Obama's eligibility for the March 6 primary said the president probably won't attend a hearing on the issue Thursday, even though a subpoena compelling his appearance stands.
Van R. Irion, who represents plaintiff David Welden, acknowledged Monday that Obama likely will avoid the trial-like proceeding before Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings Deputy Chief Judge Michael M. Malihi.
[...]
"I fully expect Mr. Jablonski to refile on behalf of the president a renewed motion to quash with some citations, and I expect that would probably be granted," said Irion.
[...]
"I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a contempt order come out if in fact Mr. Obama doesn't show up and if he doesn't renew his motion to quash and get it granted," Irion said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyreportonline.com ...
I sure wouldn’t want to hold my breath waiting for him!
Obama’s lawyer will probably use the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. Clinton tried that during the Paula Jones case, claiming he’s exempt from civil suit in his role as CinC. Didn’t work.
Obama is involved in more important things.IE: Taking another joy ride to Las Vaegas in Air Force One to raise more campaign funds.
When is it too late to appeal to have the subpoena quashed? Long after all the other witnesses have bought their plane tickets to be there?
Ga judge, Michael Malihi, hmmmmm sounds Hawaiian.
Wonder if he knows something?
Yea well the doctors in Hawaii never saw him in the delivery rooms there either. He’s managed to remain a criminal unimpeded by a justice system that should hold all equally accountable before the law. But I guess the constitution doesn’t apply to him as he doesn’t seem to be a citizen anyway.
As a member of the Illinois Bar, and therefore an agent of the court, isn’t he compeled by legal ethics to appear or risk losing his license?
Von Irion is lowering expectations while Orly is raising expectations.
Obama cannot answer questions under oath because he would incriminate himself. The 5th Amendments provides for the right against self-incrimination for criminal trails. In a civil suit, the Defendant must appear and submit to examination and cross-examination, under oath.
He needs a law license like a rooster needs sox. He wouldn’t know how to find his a** in a courtroom.
Like Clinton and so many other pols, 0 was just getting his `ticket’ punched.
I think he surrendered his license a long time ago.
Laws don’t apply to dictators. FU BOB
My understanding was that he did use his law licence, twice. Once to argue the Motor Voter Law (so the elections could be manipulated) and once to force banks to make sub-prime “Community Reinvestment Act” loans (to destroy the US economy).
The two planks (of the communists’ Cloward-Piven Plan to overthrow America) which required an attorney.
Once those were done he didn’t need his law license any more.
As always, somebody correct me if I’m mistaken on this.
Neither he of Michelle have a law license. Both were lost.
No, it didn't (smile), but I'm not holding my breath.
Obama does not have a law License. He voluntarily surrendered it some time back. Why? No one knows.
Well we all know the attorneys will refile that motion to quash. I doubt Barry will ever grace the Fulton County Administrative court in person.
Both Barack and Michelle have long been disbarred. In Barack's case, he voluntarily gave up his law license to avoid a disbarment hearing. Michelle lost hers for doing some sort of dirty dealing that is still being kept quiet.
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.