Replies

Was this in the original motion to quash?? I don’t recall.

And don't think so, and I doubt it of Obama going crying to the GA SoS.

Here's the the order by the judge to deny the Obama motion.

"ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).

Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash is denied.

SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.

MORE HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

UPDATE: Judge whacks Obama in eligibility case. 'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'. A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.

MORE HERE: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/judge-rejects-obama-demand-to-quash-subpoena

UPDATE: Ga. Judge Orders President to Appear at Hearing. A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

MORE HERE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ga-judge-orders-president-hearing-15407321

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials."

The "ultra vires" was addressed to the GA SoS, not the judge. If Jablonsky had not changed in his thinking (though this new letter probably originated with Perkins-Coie sources, not Jablonsky), a forthright Jablonzky would have properly placed a (supported) statement to the judge that the ALJ didn't have jurisdiction in the Motion to Quash.

This is indeed the bum's rush at the GA SoS, hoping he'll recind his request. If that were the result, I'm sure we could safely say the process has been illegally been tampered with.

The ALJ will perfunctorily appear tomorrow just to give Obama an opportunity to appear and be responsive, but I trust he'll have spent the most time on the scenario contemplated by Jablonzky's letter of this afternoon. Hence, default judgment to Plaintiff, with no further evidence to be considered on appeal. That's probably OK with Jablonsky, as his being an officer of the court would only nature display aversion to submitting a fraudulent document.

I think it was aruanan upthread, who pointed out the flawed logic displayed by Jablonzsky as he cast aspersions both on Taitz and previous legal procedings as if they had already covered the ground of whether Obama was entirely and Constitutionally eligible to be placed on a GA ballot for president. GA SoS would really have to feel an inappropriate threat not to see through that tissue of lies.

Although Jablonsky obviously pointed his bat to the court's right field, the judge won't truly have been tangibly insulted until the non-appearance tomorrow. After all, Zero could (theoretically) have a change of heart (if he had one). Assuming the GA SoS could recind based on an awareness that what his office was doing was "ultra vires", it's conceivable the judge would have nothing left to say. However, Jablonszky's claim is ludicrous on its face. The SoS is surely empowered to vet candidate eligibility, as evidenced by many quotes on FR from GA statues to that effect.