Boop Her Nose!
Kitty Is Too Tired to Donate
How About You?
Become a Monthly Donor
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
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 ...
MMaschin: “If on the other hand, judge Malihi decides he want’s to punt on this. Then Obama’s lawyers not presenting any evidence might allow him to do so.”
As you may know, there is more than just these cases from Orly before this same judge. There is also a case concerning NBC which does not require any COLB to be entered into evidence. As a matter of fact the NBC case (being litigated by the Liberty Legal Foundation) assumes the internet birth certificate is correct and that the “document” laid claim that Obama’s father was not a US citizen.
I don’t see how the judge cannot rule on this question in some manner - the issue will be whether this challenge is debated on it’s merit or if it will be resolved based on some technical matter. If the judge rules on the issue of NBC, then that allows this matter to be appealed and perhaps it will receive it’s day in court...
“Would this also apply to citizens who had not filed for the office being voted upon and were not actively seeking the office (i.e. Sarah Palin)?”
To be honest, I’m not sure. Lisa Murkowski led a successful write-in campaign for her Alaska Senate seat, but she was not in the position of having been declared ineligible to appear on the ballot there. Hers was simply a case of not having won the party nomination; big difference, I would think.
“If just one state jams it down his throat, that’s a good start.”
If just one state jams it down his throat, I believe he’s toast. How do you explain to the electorate of the other 49 states why you couldn’t be bothered to take the simple steps necessary to legally appear on that state’s ballot?
Fixed it for ya...
"Fixed it for ya..."
When you're right, you're right. Nice one.
What really burns me is when these EFFing Obots start arguing about the amount of money Zero has spent hiding his bonifides.
"Why has he spent 2 million dollars hiding his birth certificate?"
Obot "You have no proof he has spent that much, there are other expenses included in those figures."
Me "I don't care if he has spent $1.00 hiding his papers. He asked people to have faith in him and made promises in exchange for their their most precious possession, their votes. 50+ Million American Citizens gave him that. Now he can't show them he is worthy?
He is a dishonorable piece of scum!
interesting point...
With the motion to quash the HI subpoena were there any signals that it was unnecessary because Obama would provide certified birth records? That might actually work.
Is it established that the motion(s) to quash the HI subpoena will be successful?
He is so ordered to provide those records by Monday http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834919/posts?page=147#147 Let's see if he declares war on Iran on Sunday.....
Is it established that the motion(s) to quash the HI subpoena will be successful?
No it is not established. But the Judge said "He must be qualified to be on the ballot" I take that as meaning that the judge, in his mind, does not think he is or he would have granted defendants motion to dismiss. Hence the motion to quash the subpoenas is not going to be successful IMHO, but again HI is ignoring it and then the judge will have no option but to declare a default judgement for the plaintiffs.
The way I read this is:
Obama is off the ballot unless/until evidence is presented by him that points to his eligibility.
Is that what you get?
I don’t care of Coulter and others ignore it. The horse isn’t dead in Georgia.
I don’t care if Coulter and others ignore it. The horse isn’t dead in Georgia.
Georgia denied Obama’s motion to quash the subpoenas.
See the link at 73.
That judge needs 24 hour security and not from anyone in a uniform.
What will be the distraction so he doesn’t have to appear in court?
Amazing the games these fools play with America.
Didn’t Obama say...the only have people that have something to hide...
This is a lousy pleading. It isn't clear here who got subpoenaed or for what. The implication is that she served a subpoena in Hawaii on Hawaii Dept of Public Health. It isn't apparent to me where an agency of the state of Georgia would have the power to enforce that subpoena and if correct, probably it ought to get quashed.
What you do instead is seek an order of the Georgia agency directed to the candidate telling the candidate to apply to Hawaii for a copy of whatever you want and bring it with him to the next discovery event. That has a better shot at success.
There might be some Hawaii remedy where you file the subpoena in a Hawaii Court of Record and ask the Hawaii Court to order the Hawaii department to comply. I doubt that is going to be successful either.
But I haven't studied what she is up to here and probably shouldn't comment because I don't really know what she is up against.
And if you did manage to get this kind of discovery in Georgia by some means, there is a lot of stuff you need and want from the Hawaii file besides the original doctor's certificate. So you might want to have included that in your Order.
The argument is not that he will produce certificates--the argument is that he has already done so. So you needed at some earlier point to have responded to that argument by pointing out on the record the deficiencies in the earlier documents. This pleading seems to reference that argument so I don't know how she made it--orally, or in a responsive memorandum. Probably a lot of that has already been done and argued. You can't see here what the Ad Law examiner has ruled on that if he has ruled at all.
I didn't go back and read the entire court file--not much I can do to manage what she is doing here although I think it is an important objective and she appears to have a sympathetic hearing examiner so she may have some shot to get an order and ought to do the best possible job to get the most out of whatever she is able to persuade the examiner to do.
Another interesting point here is that this lawyer who represents Zero is just some local lawyer--his comcast address infers at least that he isn't a substantial legal entity with backup to support what he is doing. This represents a decline in the kind of horsepower Zero has historically devoted to fighting this kind of action.
I would speculate that he doesn't plan to comply even if the examiner orders him to produce or determines that he doesn't get on the ballot. Instead, he intends to proceed to the courthouse with some credible legal representation and try to overturn the Ad Law examiner's decision. In that case, at least the normal legal rule is that he needs to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the order is contrary to law and the factual record before the examiner. If he then loses, he doesn't care whether he is on the Georgia ballot or not because he isn't likely to carry Georgia anyway.
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.