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.
Kenny, do you know the answers to any of these questions? Or know any lawyers who would know the answers?
A triple seal, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be hard to rebut in Maryland. Not sure about Georgia. The only problem for BHO, if that were the scenario, would be that he committed an act to mislead a tribunal.
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,
SR
My guess is that Barry’s attorney will walk into the Thurs hearing with the motion to quash in his hand. They can probably file it with the clerk before the hearing starts. If the judge grants the motion Barry is off the hook. He does not have to appear.
IIRC the person who went to HI was Obama’s Perkns Coie personal attorney, an officer of the court, of course.
All of behavior of the lawyers in this trip to HI to get the BC and then Bauer being present and making excuses when the the WH Comm Dir. refuses to even let Obama HOLD the alleged LFBC from HI betrays “consciousness of guilt” as in being guilty of trying to pass off a forgery as an original.
If all of these White House lawyers and Obama’s personal lawyers both know the LFBC is forged they could lose their law licenses if they dared to perpetrate a “fraud on the tribunal” by placing the LFBC in evidence.
Given the colossal screw-up of failing to flatten the pdf file before putting it up on the WH server, would you, as a hugely successful lawyer, risk all for Obama and his Chicago clowns?
Now the behavior of the lawyers in NOT refiling to quash or even hinting that they are prepared to produce Obama’s LFBC in GA reinforces my suspicions that they are desperate to AVOID producing the “certified original HI-obtained LFBC” into evidence.