It surely is.
Posted on 01/18/2012 7:11:00 PM PST by Obama Exposer
Obama's motion to quash:
"The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. O.C.G.A. § 50-2-20. Since the sovereignty of the State does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect. Thus, OSAH rules specify that subpoenas must be served within the State of Georgia. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5) (“A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia….”)."
"Plaintiff‟s attorney violates two rules of practice with these subpoenas. First, they must be served within the State of Georgia. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5) (“A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia….”). The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. OCGA 50-2-20. The attempted use of these subpoenas to obtain documents from Hawaii and State of Washington is improper. Subpoenas issued by Georgia courts do not have extraterritorial power. Hughes v. State, 228 Ga. 593, 187 S.E.2d 135 (1972)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
bump
So, if this suit goes through, does it mean that O’s name will not appear on any presidential ballots in Georgia, and that his supporters in GA will either have to write him in or vote for someone else?
>> He calls him a ‘office machine salesman’.
Happens with ‘office machine’ COLBs.
Yes they are nervous over at the Fogbow. One poster, Loren (who is a attorney) wrote this in a response to a poster named Curious Blue:
Curious Blue wrote:
[4. Only Presidential Electors and Congress can determine eligibility and they have already done so as to Obama in 2008, so documents & testimony are irrelevant (and the ALJ has no jurisdiction or power to decide eligibility).
I still think that it is likely that Jablonski will show up to court and argue point #4, along with asking the court to take judicial notice of the docs related to the birth certificate posted on the Whitehouse.gov web site. He may also have a COLB in his brief case just to be safe.... but he’s better off if he can get the legal ruling from the get go.]
Lorens response:
I still think that would be a terrible strategy, not because I think it’s wrong, but because the judge is clearly not inclined to agree with it. He denied the Motion to Dismiss without even waiting for the plaintiffs to respond, and it seems foolhardy to hope that the judge would suddenly change his mind AT the hearing.
And I haven’t said it before, but I think it’s also risky to put too much stock in judicial notice. Georgia has a judicial notice statute: OCGA 21-1-4. It covers things like state borders, laws and statutes, and “all similar matters of public knowledge.”
Things that have been specifically held to be NOT covered under judicial notice: street locations, county of an incorporated city, the meaning of a yellow curb under traffic law, criminal convictions, etc. Under the list of things that HAVE been allowed judicial notice, the closest I see are things that would be categorized under common knowledge: customary department store hours, normal periods of gestation, physical laws, the definition of moonshine.
In fact, there appears to be a test: “whether the fact is one of common, everyday knowledge that all persons of average intelligence are presumed to know, and whether it is certain and indisputable.” Based on this, I think it’d be awfully iffy to get judicial notice on the birthplace of the defendant, and I’m increasingly doubtful that there could be judicial notice of a DOCUMENT, particularly a document on the internet.
If only it were that simple. If the WH manages to win a limitation argument, as they are trying to do, to get a judgement that Georgia's thresholds somehow violate Federal law or procedure, then it gets kicked out of Georgia and heard on the federal level.
This Georgia judge seems disinclined to acknowledge any limitations to State jurisdiction in this matter. So it seems the groundwork is being laid by the WH for a Federal appeal against losing on the State level.
Under Hawaii state law, disclosures are supposed to be made by the DOH upon orders from courts of competent jurisdiction. Generally such courts would be facilitating issues concerning divorces and adoptions, so it seems like it should be very typical for subpoenas to be issued from other states and for Hawaii to comply with those subpoenas. This is the general idea behind the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is that states cooperate with each other on such legal matters. That Obama’s lawyers would try to quash routine subpoenas is very incriminating.
I was intrigued what the outcome may be.
Not much, it would seem.
No wonder concern by the voting public SO abysmally low.
“This Georgia judge seems disinclined to acknowledge any limitations to State jurisdiction in this matter. So it seems the groundwork is being laid by the WH for a Federal appeal against losing on the State level.”
To get on the Georgia ballot one must prove eligibility for the office which one is running, period.
Federal law doesn’t have jurisdiction. That was the whole point of going to the Supreme Court in 2000 over changing election rules/practices in the middle of an election. The Republicans said, “No, you cannot do it.” Democrats said, “Yes, we can.” SCOTUS said it isn’t a Federal issue - it belongs in the Florida Supreme Court.
Obama’s lawyers may just commit a fatal error trying to take this into a Federal Court.
Reading this exchange, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama supporters KNOW that something is irregular around the circumstances of Obama’s birth certificate. This is funny/ strange, because judging from all the jokes they crack about the “birthers,” one would have thought that they think the birthers’ claims are total bogus and paranoia. And now it appears that they are worried. Hmm... I wonder why?
It surely is.
If the court finds that he is ineligible to be the GA ballot, in other words he is not a NBC, then people can write is name in but it they will not count those votes.
“If the court finds that he is ineligible to be the GA ballot, in other words he is not a NBC, then people can write is name in but it they will not count those votes.”
Correct. Not eligible to be on the ballot means just that. Write-in ballots with his name would be discarded in that case.
It's now obvious that he prefers losing Georgia over opening up the Hawaii records. That tells us he's not qualified.
Indonesian citizen by adoption. Kenyan citizen when the adoption was annulled by his Daddy.
In my lifetime, I never thought a US president could hide the circumstance of his birth and citizenship.
Ford and Clinton both let the truth out. They were adopted. Not a big deal. We the people have an absolute right to know who it is that governs us. This SOB feels otherwise.
The arrogant communist bastard can't be allowed to get away with this again. If just one state jams it down his throat, that's a good start.
-——have to write him in-——
Write in’s for an uncertified candidate will not be counted
Why move to quash?...to prevent HI from producing documents directly to the court, and not through Obama.
Do the HI copies match obama’s copies?
I am caught driving without a license in GA.
They impound my car. The Judge gives me a week to come back with a PA license. I come back and tell him he's not entitled to see it, and I intend to drive in his state without one.
Any real document in Hawaii will not match what Obama has thus far produced. We know that the long form is a fabrication. So they will not cooperate because they can't cooperate without getting caught.
So risking the loss of one or more states is a preferable option for them.
An honest candidate could and would surrender every DOH document for inspection. This is unbelievable that an American President would choose to do this.
bflr
Good post. A poster over at Sean Hannity forums commented this:
Interesting, the WH is attempting to quash subpoenas that are not directed at them. But to Hawaii - since the WH will not provide simple documents apparently. So the WH is not attempting to intervene in a transaction that they are not party to.
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.