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.
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?
No, it didn't (smile), but I'm not holding my breath.
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.
I thought that only applied to active duty military?