'Birther' lawyer doesn't expect to see Obama

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.

Obama does not have a law License. He voluntarily surrendered it some time back. Why? No one knows.

We know why. A man filed a complaint against him with the Illinois bar alleging he lied on his bar application. In the complaint filed, the man pointed out that Barack admitted in his book to using illegal drugs and engaging in other felonious activity, while not mentioning it on his bar application.

I argued this stuff pretty heavily over a year ago.

18. Have you ever, either as an adult or juvenile, been cited, arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any violation of any law other than moving traffic violations. In response to question 18, it is understood the Respondent answered "no." The Respondent did not disclose his multiple drug use occurring through his time in high school and college.

On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar, did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of his involvement in illegal drug activity. If he had been caught he likely would have been charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree which is a class D felony. New York Penal Law Sec. 220.06 (McKinney).

49. Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or the revocation or suspension of your driver's license? 51. Do you have any outstanding parking violations? In response to question 49 & 51, the Respondent answered "no."

On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar, did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of his multiple civil citations or his concealment of them on his bar application.

The Respondent knew that he had incurred multiple violations. These fines exceeded the $200.00 reporting threshold for a total of $400.00. Between October 5, 1988 and January 12 1990, violations included failing to put money in meters, parking in a resident-only area, blocking a bus stop, and multiple tickets in the same day for exceeding the time limit at a meter. At this time he was living at 365 Broadway, Somerville, Massacustts, 02144.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1963&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=michelle&start=0

When is the latest they can refile that motion to quash?

I looked on the OSAH site and it said unless otherwise stated, the record is closed at the end of the evidentiary hearing.

If Obama would have the person who supposedly picked up the long-forms from the HDOH testify as a witness, present a paper certified copy of a long-form, and vouch for its chain of custody, would either Taitz or Hatfield have the opportunity to give reasons why it it not acceptable as prima facie evidence?

If so, when would they have to do that, and could they use an affidavit by a layperson in that argument? If cross-examination was required could they request a deposition of the person who signed the affidavit, or would that person have to appear in person on that day?

These are really, really critical questions, and time is running out. I have a really bad feeling about what’s going to happen in GA on Thursday. I suspect it might be something I’ve been saying I feared for the last year. I fear this is a set-up and all the attorneys have fallen for a bait-and-switch.

I’m not familiar with the rules of that court, and am not a lawyer, but I have seen hearings/trials rescheduled literally on the morning of the hearing/trial after everyone has appeared in court. That used to be more common that it is today.

Often a last minute rescheduling is because the parties are talking settlement so the judge will give them some time to work that out. No one sees a ‘settlement’ here. It is or it ain’t.

But, if witnesses have traveled for this hearing (not attorneys or parties), the judge may take their testimony and adjourn till the defendant appears, if he does. Then, again, the defendant (at least criminal) has the right to face the accuser.

http://www.osah.ga.gov/questions.html

Perhaps that is why Jablonski's motion to quash is so weak. There is no citable precedent for quashing. He knows it. The plaintiffs know it. The judge knows it. Only the FogBow folks cling to a (forlorn?) hope that Jablonski will file a motion for reconsideration, with better arguments-- but the article states that Obama's lawyers had not filed a motion for reconsideration by Monday, the day the judge requested it.

Here is what is now being noted on FogBow:

http://www.osah.ga.gov/questions.html

Quote: 4. What will happen if I do not attend the hearing?

It is important to attend the hearing. If you do not appear, your case can be decided without your input.

FogBow commentary continues:

In other words – case can be decided without input, but there is no automatic “requirement” to attend the hearing... Based on this and language and this alone, I predict no one is going to show on Thursday.

Other FogBow folks are still advocating taking the high road and hope that Jablonski will show up with a hardcopy HI-issued long form birth certificate with a raised seal.

Given what it states on the OSAH website, I am tempted to believe that Obama and his lawyer will not show up for the cases in which there are subpoenas, and that they will forfeit Georgia rather than have Obama available for cross examination under oath in civil court.

From Orly's website:

Irion’s case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations. Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfield’s complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third.

So Jablonski could show up for the first hearing with Irion, argue about the definition of NBC before Malihi, and leave before the other hearings with Hatfield and Orly.

Orly sounds like she wants to turn the court into a referendum on Obama's legitimacy as sitting president and various acts allegedly committed by Obama and Co. in the past. I am not a lawyer but that does not sound like very appropriate to me and might do more harm than good. If no one from the Obama side is there to present a BC or the WH LF BC PDF, why call witnesses to the stand to refute stuff that has not been presented by the opposing party? Hopefully someone with experience is giving Orly some good advice. If given a chance, the media would probably love to devote all their coverage to Orly getting wiped out by Mahili in court and virtually no coverage to Irion prevailing over Obama in the same court a few minutes earlier.

1. In general, any documentary evidence presented can be challenged as to authenticity. The judge is the finder of fact, and he has considerable latitude in deciding how far the parties can go down that path. I don’t know that court’s rules, but such a objection should be announced at the time the evidence is presented.

2. An affidavit is probably worthless under these conditions, easily objected to as hearsay. I would think one of the plaintiffs would have to initiate the call for deposition or in court testimony. So you’d have to get to one of the plaintiffs and offer your testimony.

Not much help, but its all I have at the moment.

Later,

The thing to remember at this stage of the game is that the action in GA is a HEARING. It is not a TRIAL. Team Obama will, IMO, hoist the digit to Judge Mahili, and so will the The HIDOH.

Quite frankly, all Judge Mahili can do about that is issue an administrative finding that might just encourage the GA officials to step up, do their job, and throw the impostor from the GA ballot. His failure to show, and HI's failure to cooperate should be enough for the GA Election Officials to go ahead and exercise their powers. In the meantime, if the Administrative Law Judge wants his subpoenas enforced, he would have to have that ordered by a superior court. Of course, they are under no compunction to do so!

This is Administrative Law, a great murky swamp If the MSM would cover the affair, why then the Magic Mulatto Marxist would lose much PR face ... but MSM coverage is unlikely.

It is only at that point, that this really would get interesting, because then Obama would have to sue GA to get back on the ballot. That is a fast-track to the SCOTUS, and as PLAINTIFF, The Mombasa MF would certainly have "standing."

Make no mistake about it, the GA boys have boxed the imPOTUS into a tough corner and are beating him like a red-headed step-child. But it is only Round 1.

Please read Lawyer Leo's brilliant Amicus brief ... and pray that Orly does, too ... before she drops off one of her patented Laurel and Hardy briefs, in which she accuses Obama of starting the Chicago Fire and the Judge of being Stalin's (if not Satan's) Right-Hand Man! Love that girl!

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.