©Bridgette @WTPOTUS 2012
Obama’s Ballot Challenge Makes Media Headlines!
FOX News Reports on Obama’s Ballot Challenge in 2012!
Bret Baier FOX News
In Friday’s newscast, Bret Baier reported on the Farrar et.al. v Barack Obama lawsuit that challenges having Obama’s name on Georgia’s presidential primary ballot. On December 15, 2011, President Barack Obama, Defendant, moved for dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. In the last couple of days, we got great news that the Motion to Sever by the Obama Administration in Georgia’s Obama Ballot Challenge Lawsuit was denied by Judge Michael M. Malihi. The important paragraphs were the following.
6. Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.
8. Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
II. Decision Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge”
We are thrilled to see the word DENIED in a lawsuit challenged by the Obama team! Say it again, Denied, Denied, Denied. It seems to trip so easily off your lips. Louder now for the Obots: DENIED, DENIED, DENIED!
As part of this same lawsuit, Hawaii’s DOH was Issued a Subpoena For Obama’s Original Birth Certificate and the 1961 Microfiche Roll! Loretta Fuddy was commanded to appear in Atlanta on January 16 – 18, 2012. She is to produce the following:
Original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 8.08.1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 1961 until now, as well as the microfiche roll for August 1961, containing above document.
This week’s news can only get better and it has!
This sentence was attributed to the Birthers, but that word doesn’t matter in this instance. Bret said, “He [Obama] is Not a Natural Born Citizen” on national TV! Yes, the issue of NBC hit prime time! Also attributed to the infamous Birthers was that the birth certificate is believed to be a FAKE. His voice inflections were telling.
Indeed, this was a two-fer night! In fact, we should have a Birther’s “Coming Out” Parteee! For all those who want the truth, but have been afraid of the Left’s ridicule. The Alinsky tables can be turned, turned, turned.
Will we hear apologies from the likes of the adamant deniers such as O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Megan Kelly, and Glenn Beck? They all did such great investigative work on the issue, didn’t they. They had crack researchers, yes, the best in the business, we were told. How about the liars from the Left like Anderson Cooper at CNN? How will they face their audiences and tell them we really didn’t investigate, we invented the information we presented? Will some of our Congressmen and Congresswomen finally get some guts to stand for our Constitution and our nation of laws?
Will Judge Malihi be the one that puts our nation back on an even keel? Our prayers are with the judge that he remain stalwart, steadfast, and honorable. We pray that he does not cave to bribes, threats , or intimidation by the Obama thugs. He has our whole nation in his hands!
The following broadcast was transcribed from You Tube in case it is suddenly scrubbed. Thank you, Bret Baier and FOX!
#####
Bret Baier’s -
Fresh Pickings from the Grapevine.
Friday, January 6, 2012
“A state judge in Georgia has DENIED a motion by the Obama
Administration to dismiss a complaint challenging the pResident’s eligibility to be on the ballot there.
Attorney Orly Taitz filed the complaint back in November, [2010] on behalf of a Georgia resident contending President Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and, therefore, should NOT be on the March presidential primary in Georgia.
You will remember that last year the White House released the pResident’s long form birth certificate. However, Taitz, along with many others in the so-called “Birther Movement” is still not satisfied. Some in that movement call it a FAKE, others say that the real issue is that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
A hearing has now been set for January 26th. The pResident’s lawyer in Atlanta says that he is optimistic that the judge will decide in the pResident’s favor.
Transcribed by Bridgette
#######
Famous Last Words that will go down in history along with Obama!
The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.
~Barack Obama
See the You Tube Before it Disappears!
Fox News’ Bret Baier:
Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Against Obama Gets Hearing
H/T: ORYR
UPDATE: JANUARY 10, 2012:
Hear Ye, Hear Ye…
OBAMA SUBPOENAED
The Ballot Challenge posted the new Subpoena that is issued to Barack Obama. He is commanded to appear in Court and to be sworn in as a Witness. He is to produce the documents on the following list.
Any and all certified birth records, certified long form birth certificate, certified school/university registration records, certified immigration /naturalization records, certified passport records and redacted certified SS-5 applications under the names of Barack (Barry) Soetoro, Barack (Barry) Soebarkah, Barack (Barry Obama and any and all combinations of thereof and any other names used.
The Court date, time and location are January 26, at 9:00 a.m. in the Administrative Court, state of Georgia, Fulton County Justice Center Building, Atlanta Georgia.
Honorable Michael Malihi presiding.
itooktheredpill
newssleuth
Miri
reneemary1001
Bridgette
ORYR Moderator: “The person that submitted the published letter is not an Obot. In fact if we revealed the name most readers here would know who the person is.
We were asked not to publish the name for various reasons. This is not about the person that published the valid concern. Have Orly address it herself and we will happily publish her rebuttal.
The concerns are valid and not just concerns of the writer. We receive many similar complaints and concerns related to Attorney Taitz’s tactics.”
I agree. The concerns are very valid. We don’t like being misled, by ANYONE. It’s bad enough that we’ve been misled for years by Barry himself.
More from the ORYR Moderator: “The person that wrote the letter is a well known respected Constitutionalists(Birther) and not a “commie” Obot. One of the reasons the person chose to remain nameless is because of idiotic people like yourself that attack the messenger and not address the concern highlighted.
Just because something critical is said about Orly’s tactics don’t mean it is coming from an Obot.
The fact remains the subpoenas were not issued by Judge Malihi as Orly asserts and the proper procedures were not followed per OSAH rules in issuing those subpoenas.”
Discussion at Free Republic
Hawaii Issued Subpoena For Obama’s Original Birth Certificate and 1961 Microfiche Roll(Court Issued)
Dec. 12, 2012
From http://www.osah.state.ga.us/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf:
“616-1-2-.19 Subpoenas; Notices to Produce. Amended.
(1) Subpoenas may be issued which require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of objects or documents at depositions or hearings provided for by these Rules. The party on whose behalf the subpoenas are issued shall be responsible for completing and serving
the subpoenas sufficiently in advance of the hearing to secure the attendance of a witness or thedeposed testimony of the witness at the time of the hearing.
(2) Subpoenas shall be in writing and filed at least five (5) days prior to the hearing or deposition at which a witness or document is sought, shall be served upon all parties, and shall identify the witnesses whose testimony is sought or the documents or objects sought to be produced. Every subpoena shall state the title of the action.
(3) Subpoenas may be obtained from the Office of State Administrative Hearings website or from the Clerk.
(4) A subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia and by any sheriff, by a sheriff’s deputy, or by any other person not less than eighteen (18) years of age. Proof of service may be shown by certificate endorsed on a copy of the subpoena. Subpoenas may also be served by registered or certified mail, and the return receipt shall constitute prima facie proof of service.
Service upon a party may be made by serving the party’s counsel of record. Fees and mileage shall be paid to the recipient of a subpoena in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 24-10-24.
(5) Once issued, a subpoena may be quashed by the Administrative Law Judge if it appears that the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony, documents, or objects sought are irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation and presentation of its position at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced. The Administrative Law Judge may require the party issuing the subpoena to advance the reasonable cost of producing the documents or objects.
(6) Once issued and served, unless otherwise conditioned or quashed, a subpoena shall remain in effect until the close of the hearing or until the witness is excused, whichever comes first.
(7) A party may serve a notice to produce in order to compel production of documents or objects in the possession, custody, or control of another party in lieu of serving a subpoena under this Rule. Service may be perfected in accordance with paragraph (4), but no fees or mileage shall be allowed therefor. Paragraph (5) shall apply to such notices.
(8) A notice to produce shall be in writing and shall be signed by the party or by the party’s attorney seeking production of documents or objects. The notice shall be directed to the opposing party or the opposing party’s attorney. A copy of any notice to produce shall be filed with the Clerk.”
23 posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 9:26:21 PM by mrsmith
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2819553/posts
So what does it all mean? People are saying that she didn’t list the opposing attorneys’ addresses on the subpoena. My complaint is that we were led to believe the JUDGE issued these. They said Orly implied that but never said, until challenged (and even then didn’t say it directly), that SHE issued them. Others say a state administrative court doesn’t have authority outside GA. Who the heck knows? That discussion at FR doesn’t address the issue raised by ORYR. Does it? It may; I didn’t have time to read it more carefully. That’s why we need an unbiased lawyer’s opinion. (As opposed to “jabbers”.) I don’t know who or what to believe anymore, but I did notice the stamped judge’s name. Some of the ORYR commenters say that only after the judge gives permission or orders subpoenas to be issued, does the attorney create them. They say she didn’t have that permission. Who knows if it’s true? It is strange that right away, the state website took down the blank form. Why?
In a civi case an attorney can call many people as witnesses or whatever, she doesn’t neccesarily have to call anyone to testify, but she has them in court if she needs them. She may supena people in civil litigation. Only a clerk of Superior court of someone within the court system,such as a judge of the Clerk can supena in criminal litigation. I think I already said this. It’s correct.
Man fighting Obama candidacy asks black Jefferson County judge to step aside due to racial bias
Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 9:59 AM
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — A Luverne man challenging President Obama’s inclusion on Alabama election ballots asked a black judge to step down from the case due to racial bias and lack of Constitutional knowledge, while lawyers for the state Democratic Party asked the judge to dismiss the case.
The suit filed by Harold Sorenson Monday in Jefferson County Circuit Court is the second such case to come before Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee. On the same day she dismissed a suit filed by Birmingham resident Albert E. Hendershot also seeking an injunction to keep Obama’s name off Democratic ballots in the March 13 primary.
Acting as his own lawyer, Sorenson wrote his recusal motion should be granted “due to racial bias, lack of judicial discretion as well as lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.”
Sorenson also filed suit after the 2008 presidential election challenging both Obama’s and Sen. John McCain’s citizenship and qualification to be included on state ballots. A Montgomery County judge dismissed that suit in 2009, court records show.
In his current suit, Sorenson contends that Obama and the national Democratic Party perpetrated the “greatest crime ever” against the American people when he was elected president in 2008. He said he filed his current suit to protect Alabama residents from the unfettered power that political parties have to choose their political nominees.
A similar suit has been filed by a Pell City man in St. Clair County. It is part of an informal effort in several Southern states to keep Obama off their ballots, Hendershot has said. They contend Obama is not a natural-born citizen and that he is using a forged birth certificate and a fake social security number.
Judges have dismissed at least seven similar suits since 2008.
All three Alabama suits seek a court injunction to bar Mark Kennedy, the state Democratic Party chairman, from certifying Obama as an official candidate. State party officials say Obama’s citizenship is a settled matter and have called the suits frivolous.
Kennedy’s lawyers yesterday filed a motion to dismiss Sorenson’s suit, saying the courts did not have jurisdiction and the Luverne man did not show his rights had been violated in a way the courts could resolve. Barry Ragsdale, a lawyer for Kennedy, also argued that Lee already had settled the legal dispute when she dismissed Hendershot’s similar case, and that Sorenson was trying to re-litigate and the Montgomery County case he lost in 2009.
Lee has set a hearing for 9 a.m. [next] Tuesday in the Sorenson’s suit.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/man_challenging_obama_candidac.html
Oh, yeah. That’s the case where Helen was yet again “randomly” chosen to be the “decider.” Imagine the odds.
These suits aren’t at all “similar” to cases from 2008. These suits are to keep Barry off the ballot in the first place. They have legal grounding.
Note how the “reporter” tries to imply racism by mentioning “southern states.” This is all part of Barry’s plan–to incite racial animus and play the race card to gin up his base. What a crock of propaganda.
Is it racism when lawyers for black defendants throw whites off juries? Why do they do that, if not out of fear that the white person will be biased against the defendant?
Why is it racist to ask a black judge to step down in a case where the defendant (Barry) is on record accusing all such plaintiffs of being racist? This would seem to at least give the perception of a conflict of interest when the deciding judge is of the same race as the defendant.
Justice is supposed to be blind. It’s bad enough that she’s a DemocRAT, an Obama voter, and “randomly” chosen (who BELIEVES THAT?). This is a case that involves the DEMOCRAT BALLOT and she’s a democRAT. She’s probably a FRIEND of Mark Kennedy, too!
She’s probably a FRIEND of Mark Kennedy, too! I’m sure she is, sleeps in the same bed?
Alabama DemocRats
Chairman Mark Kennedy
Justice H. Mark Kennedy, a native of Greenville, Alabama received his undergraduate degree from Auburn University and his Juris Doctorate,
with honors, from Cumberland School of Law.
From 1978 to 1999, Justice Kennedy served as a Juvenile and Family Court Judge in Montgomery, Alabama, as a Circuit Judge for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit and for eleven years as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of Alabama.
http://www.aldemocrats.org/about/page/chairman_mark_kennedy
Now THAT is a great way to get on a judge’s good side not !
She only has one side – the Left side.
Alabama Democratic Party Files Opposition to Motion for Recusal of Judge Helen Shores Lee even After Judge had made biased remarks. This is the Sorenson suit.
Of course this is racism ” straight up.” according to the ethical party of the DNC.
From the Opposition to Motion for Recusal
3. …The Plaintiff’s (Sorenson) motion asserts that Your Honor should recuse herself on the grounds of “racial bias, lack of judicial discretion as well as lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.” Needless to say, the Plaintiff’s motion offers no evidence to support his baseless and unfounded allegations of bias.
4. …..”The burden is on the party seeking recusal to present evidence establishing the existence of bias or prejudice.”
6. In the present case, the Plaintiff’s unsupported assertion that your honor is “racially biased” is offensive, insulting and contemptuous of this Court. Apparently, the Plaintiff believes that Your Honor is incapable of being impartial solely on the grounds of Your Honor’s race. In reality, the Plaintiff’s motion says much more about the Plaintiff than it does about Your Honor. More importantly, the Plaintiff’s cancerous view of the impact of race on the ability of this or any court to be impartial has been repeatedly and categorically rejected by the courts. …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78104775/Sorensen-v-Alabama-Democratic-Party-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Recusal-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-1-12-2012
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/alabama-democrat-party-files-opposition-to-motion-for-recusal-even-after-judge-had-made-biased-remarks
Did they present the evidence of what she said to Al?
Well written and the writer mentioned all the correct points. She got it right! I’d like to be there! This could be historic!
Atlanta Court date set for Obama eligibility hearing. Public invited!
Patricia Walston
January 11, 2012 Snips
A hearing has been set for January 26, 2012 for the purpose of hearing the complaint of David Weldon, a citizen living in Georgia, where he questioned the Constitutionality of President Obama being allowed on the Georgia presidential ballot.
On January 3, 2012, Judge Malihi denied the request from Mr. Obama’s attorneys to dismiss the case accusing him of not being qualified to be on the ballot; and therefore, ineligible to run for President this year in Georgia. They contend that since both of his parents were not citizens, that makes him ineligible.
~
LLF (Liberty Legal Foundation) said that the Georgia court agreed with our reasoning. The court’s short opinion also clearly stated that Georgia law allows Mr. Weldon to challenge candidate Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of President.
According to LLF, “This ruling ensures that the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed on procedural grounds.”
Could this change in the court just be an opportunity to put an end to this once and for all? For sure, if the President does not win the case, it will end up in the Federal Supreme Court in Washington. But if the court finds against this petition, does that mean that the issue will be dead forever?
This case is not about President Obama’s birth certificate, or where he was born, but questions if he is a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution to be President.
The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. But addresses the question regarding the qualifications of a person running for President of the United States.
The question is: Does the Constitution say that in order to be president one must be born of parents who are both US Citizens?Is that how the Constitution [Supreme Ct decision] actually reads? Those bringing this case before the court say, “Yes” based on the court case below.
http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-use-in-atlanta/atlanta-court-date-set-for-obama-eligibility-hearing-public-invited
It’s said that if the judge had granted the motion to dismiss, then Orly might have had discovery for a re-hearing. He denied her depositions. Did he deny the motion to dismiss just to keep her from getting discovery?
I hope and pray that there’s no trick up anybody’s sleeve.
What’s the answer to the question asked: “If the court finds against this petition, does that mean the issue will be dead forever?” That’s what’s scary.
If this judge rules that he’s eligible, it’s a political question, nobody has standing, it’s not “ripe” or he has executive privilege, does that mean that we will see what happened with the birth certificate all over again? How they all lied and said he’s produced it?
Or what happened with the court cases that were dismissed for lack of standing? How they all lied (including Congress) and said that judges have already decided and he’s eligible (when all they ruled was lack of standing)?
Remember that lying CRS memo? Congress repeated it to all constituents, ad nauseum.
I hate to throw cold water, but we’ve pinned our hopes on these cases so many times, only to see them dashed when justice was denied. (Of course, none of US has suffered like LTC Lakin and his family.)
But the obots are predicting, as if they have inside knowledge, that Malihi will rule against “birthers”.
I can’t forget how they KNEW that cases like Leo’s were denied by the SCOTUS even BEFORE the results were put on the court website. Maybe even before Leo knew.
Miri | January 12, 2012 at 11:20 am | Reply
It’s said that if the judge had granted the motion to dismiss, then Orly might have had discovery for a re-hearing. He denied her depositions. Did he deny the motion to dismiss just to keep her from getting discovery?
hummm…
Anybody else see this???????
IN THE OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
Farrar, Roth, Lax, Judy, MacLeran,
Petitioner,
v.
Obama, Respondent.
Docket No.:
OSAH-1215136-60 MALIHI
SUBPOENA
TO: Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security
care of U.S. Attorney’s Office
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Str. S.W. ste 600
Atlanta GA 30303-3309
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, to appear in court on behalf of x Petitioner x Respondent to be:
x Sworn as a Witness
X Produce the Document on the Attached List:
Any and all certified immigration/naturalization, customs records for Barry/Barack Soetoro, Barry Barack Soebarkah, Barry/Barack Obama or any and all combination of above names or any other names and aliases of Barack (Barry)(Bari) Hussein(A)Obama to be provided and authenticated at trial
On January 26 2012 as directed below
and a certified copy to be forwarded within 5 days of service to the Plaintiffs’ attorney at Law Offices of Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita pkwy, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
The court date, time and location are:
DATE: Thursday, January 26, 2012
TIME: 9 am
LOCATION: Administrative Court, state of GA, Fulton County Justice Center Building, 161Pryor Str., Courtroom G-40 Atlanta, GA30303, Hon Michael Malihi presiding
You are required to attend from day to day and from time to time until the hearing is completed or you have been released by the judge.
HEREIN FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW BY AUTHORITY OF THE ASSIGNED JUDGE.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, CONTACT: PROOF OF SERVICE
Name:Orly Taitz, ESQ Attorney for Petitioners
Telephone:949-683-5411
This section must be completed by the person issuing the subpoena.
This subpoena was served on:01.12.2012
personally X by registered or certified mail by delivery to a commercial delivery company for statutory overnight delivery by:
Telephone:
*A copy of the return receipt for registered or certified mail or a copy of the receipt provided by the commercial delivery company must be attached if not personally served.
* This section must be completed by the person issues the subpoena.
She has now officially posted the subpoenas to DHS and to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services….
No, I hadn’t seen the latest ones to Homeland Security, and Immigration Services. Why not the SOS..oh, I forgot, his “right” to privacy from the Social Security office . I will get a copy to post.
So ? What do you all think the odds are ? Miri, Bridgette, you both dig well into law points, what is your feeling here ? It is looking too messy already to me. What do you see ?
I’m afraid I see a set up.
This one is at least enforceable if it’s not quashed. The subpoenas she sent to Hawaii are likely not enforceable because they were served outside of the state of Georgia (I say “likely” because there is the unlikely chance Hawaii has a reciprocal enforcement rule that is applicable). this one was served on DHS in Georgia.
Hayden, is that what the issue is with the subpoenas? I still can’t decipher what they’re saying about her subpoenas not being legit.
I haven’t looked at what’s being said in detail, but I took a quick look at the images of the subpoena sent to Hawaii DOH and the one sent to DHS. In civil suits, an attorney will fill out whatever subpoenas they want and it gets stamped by the clerk of the court and served within the state. A state doesn’t have jurisdiction outside of its borders so, generally, a subpoena is not enforceable if not served within the state. DHS has an office in Georgia so it’s enorceable as long as it conformed to all other service requirements and DHS doesnt get it quashed for being overly burdensome or something. I will pull the GA law and post it.
as an aside, criminal subpoenas are recognized under reciprocity in all states.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30273
Is this different from the one you posted before?
Yes, this is to the DHS and the one in the article update is to Obama. There are three in total that I know about. One to Obama, another to Obama’s respondent, and this one.
Oh, good! I see it now. I didn’t read closely enough. Is there a snowball’s chance in hell that they’ll show up in open court with all this stuff? And will allow it to be examined forensically, so it’s authenticated?
Or will it all be displayed IN SECRET, in the judge’s chambers? Then he will come out and declare, “all is well.”
So much for the most transparent administration in history. I, for one, will never rest until We the People SEE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS POTUS. I don’t freaking care who his parents are, where he was born, or what any judge declares.
We the People deserve to see the actual documents and deserve to know the truth. This man got himself elected based upon a narrative about his life. That FALSE narrative pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes. They argue that he was elected. NO, HE wasn’t elected. A chimera was elected. A phantom. A composite.
The person who got elected was a CHARACTER IN A FICTIONAL BOOK. We the People deserve to know the extent of the fraud perpetrated on all of us.
WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SOEBARKAH?
So now, after hiding it for over 3 years, suddenly he’s going to show us the records? I don’t believe it. Occam’s Razor says there’s a reason that they were hidden for so long. What is that “embarrassing” information? Was it worth sending a patriot to prison for 6 months? Was it worth destroying the man’s life and his family? Why now reveal it? There’s no excuse.
What’s embarrassing is that he’s ineligible. If on some off chance he’s eligible, such as his parents were who Martha Trowbridge claims, then it matters not because he got elected on false pretenses. In other words, he LIED. The biggest con job in the history of this country.
Is that what they’re going to pretend when the judge declares him eligible? That the answer must be that his parents are who Martha says, but we will have NO PROOF of it?
Miri,
Unfortunately the judge cannot rule Him inelibigle. This is only an administrative court. The judge will make a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State on whether or not BHO meets the ballot requirements. The ultimate arbiter of all of this will be the GA SoS.
Oh, you’re right! I remember that. I actually wrote about it somewhere. That the AG is a Republican. (I thought it was the attorney general. Is it the Secretary of State?) What’s your gut feeling on this? Is it good news or bad? I’m afraid they’re going to rule him ELIGIBLE.
Miri,
Although I am a man of letters, I am no lawyer. But, it seems to me that if the judge was not going to look at this seriously he would have dismissed it outright — no one would have faulted him and his decision would have been one in a long line that didn’t quite add up. So, to me, he has already taken the hardest step. The circus that is Orly notwithstanding, there are real lawyers litigating. My gut tells me this thing will not get a fair shake and will forgotten soon for another as-yet-to-be-determined battle in the courthouse. If common sense prevails, however, I can’t see a way that the Grifter can actually land on the ballot
Thanks for your input 57th. I thought that maybe if he had dismissed it outright, then Orly might have been allowed discovery for an appeal, maybe to some other entity?
My gut says the same, unfortunately, because at this point it seems there are far too many people, big shots (Congress and even SCOTUS), involved in this farce. They allowed it to go on. He got away with it. GRIFTER is the correct term. It’s CYA time and to do that, they have to cover his, too. That’s my fear. I hate to rain on the parade, but I’m SO TIRED of getting my hopes up that we will FINALLY see some justice and actually learn the truth about this man.
Why are his lawyers not moving to quash the subpoenas, for example?
What I CAN find about the judge looks promising. On the other hand, something stinks–especially the gleeful way that some obots are predicting the outcome, as if the fix is in. I will be the happiest person in the world if my suspicions are wrong and we are pleasantly surprised with Judge Malihi. He will EARN his rightful place in history if he answers for ALL OF US, in the open, nothing hidden: Who exactly is Barack Hussein Obama?
I know Miri, I’m just waiting to see the Fat Shoe drop….If they do it in secret, we’re going to have to fire up those Teapartiers again , and every farmer, everyJOe the plummer,every shop owner, everybody to March on Something,somewhere, Everywhere, hang out like the Wallstreeters in Tents till he moves out of the Whitehouse with his long tail between his skinnylegged Mackdaddy self.
6:19 pm —
“… because at this point it seems there are far too many people, big shots (Congress and even SCOTUS), involved in this farce. They allowed it to go on. He got away with it. GRIFTER is the correct term. It’s CYA time and to do that, they have to cover his, too.”
====================
Lawrence Sellin:
“In 2008, both parties permitted the election of Obama, a Constitutionally illegal President, who has forged his birth documents and his Selective Service registration. He has committed identity theft by using a Social Security Number not issued to him.
Questions about Obama ineligibility and his crimes have been intentionally suppressed by the political establishment and the media because the truth about Obama would so outrage the American people that the entire corrupt political system and its servants in the mainstream media would collapse.
…
When will Congress launch an investigation into the criminal and usurper in the Oval Office? When will senior members of the military or the federal law enforcement agencies stand by their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?
The answer is “never.” There has been a colossal failure of leadership. We have a government littered with careerists, sycophants, cowards, liars and the greedy.”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/12/obamas-ineligibility-elective-despotism-and-the-vote-of-slaves/
Wow, Gordo! That was written today? Synchronicity, right? Something in the air.
I’ve wondered the same about why we haven’t heard anything about a quash. Then again, I am not informed about the relevant deadlines and such. Seems that if they are going to quash that deadline would be upon us soon. Regarding the the Griftbots glee — they know jack and are operating as if this one will be the same as all the others. Clearly it is not, else we would not be at an actual hearing.
I would direct anyone that has 45 minutes to burn to Donofrios latest offering on Gray’s mindset when he authored the Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898. It is excellent!!! http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
It probably is excellent, as are all of Leo’s posts, but my brain has been too fuzzy lately and I’ve been too lazy lately, to read that deeply and attentively. I’m saving it for some day when I feel like concentrating.
57th, I’ve been watching for any news story about the potus being subpoenaed. Don’t you think that would be big news? Nothing. That also makes me nervous because the lamestream has a habit of reporting only once the decision has gone in Barry’s favor. They don’t want to call attention to the hearings beforehand, lest someone attend, and they don’t want to publicize the issue, lest the curious investigate the issue, or before they know how it will turn out. If it goes in his favor (and so far all have), then they can spin it for him and continue their own ridicule of “birthers”.
You bring up an excellent point. The media and the Democratic party’s strategy is to clearly marginalize even valid concerns. God-fearing people shouldn’t have to feel like they need to put on a tin foil hat to see that the US Constitution is followed as a matter of standard operating procedure. Someday Oliver Stone’s grandson will make a movie about all of this. Then I will feel partially vindicated as I roll over in my grave.
I did read it and you are right 57th..it was excellent. I learn something new every time I read Leo’s work. He has taught the nation …we have to give it to him for doing that!
Jack Minor of Greenly,Colorado has written repeatedly about this issue and supports the Right.
Georgia judge rules Obama must be eligible to appear on ballot
Jack Minor • January 12, 2012
While multiple court cases over Obama’s eligibility to be president have been dismissed without ever hearing the merits of the case a judge in Georgia has said the president must meet the constitutional demands of the office in order to appear on the ballot.
The ruling came from Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi in the Office of State Administrative Hearings.
The presidency is unique among all of the constitutionally held offices in that it requires the person holding the position to be a “natural born citizen.” Some have alleged that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not eligible.
Cont.
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12914
Speaking of document-id fraud;
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/arrests-made-in-document-fraud-case.html
Very interesting Renee.
May I let you in on a little secret. A very important lawyer from the Weather Underground lives in and has lived in Puerto Rico for a long time. And if you look into it far enough, some funny names happen…like a judge Weiner, who I think it was him that locked this lawyer lady up for a while for refusing to give some pertinent information on two cases involving some Puerto Ricans and a Weather person too.
The ruling came from Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi in the Office of State Administrative Hearings.
The presidency is unique among all of the constitutionally held offices in that it requires the person holding the position to be a “natural born citizen.” Some have alleged that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not eligible.
Seems serious.
“Some have alleged that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not eligible.”…..”
seems serious but not serious enough….because in his ruling he still avoided the issue of Natural born and instead tried to direct the conversation as to the possibility of O being born somewhere other than here. But that is not the issue of natural born. He could have been born on the steps of dc and still not be natural born.
I missed the part that Orly is running for the Senate in 2012 out of California. Her slogan: “Restore Old Glory, Vote for Orly.”
Oh boy…
I’m back, Orly’s Giant eyelashes will be her running mate. I like Orly.
Natural Born in an article again,and Orly isn’t called a birther! The writer leaves the story up in the air as to why the two men are in jail..Walter Fitzpatrick.
Obama Has Georgia on His Mind: Court Will Hear Eligibility Case
By Pat Shannan – January 13, 2012 Snips
Eight plaintiffs, including five persons being represented by California’s tenacious attorney Orly Taitz, have now joined the suit, filed last year after Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was shown to be fraudulent. However, by that time it had been made evident that even if Obama could produce real proof that he was born in Hawaii, it would not be enough under the law, because an additional “natural born” requirement making one eligible to be president of the United States is that both parents also be U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Barack Obama Sr. was never a U.S. citizen.
Further evidence has since been uncovered showing Obama has used various Social Security numbers never assigned to him and that he applied for aid as a foreign college student.
One of the plaintiffs, Carl Swensson of Atlanta, has been a part of this movement since retired naval officer Walt Fitzpatrick brought it to the headlines three years ago and has been in active support of both Fitzpatrick and Darren Huff by testifying at their various hearings. Both men are currently in jail—Fitzpatrick for contempt of court and Huff awaiting sentencing.
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=2328
Tenacious. That’s good. Accurate, too.
I found something interesting.
All I have is the few sentences that popped up containing my search terms. I was not able to read the whole brief – I got a message I have never received before for case-related material which said that my subscription did not authorize access to the brief. I tried to open a few others that were in the same search but completely unrelated. I have not done a control search of unrelated terms so I don’t know what it means and I have not yet tried to find the full brief elsewhere but here is what came up:
From a brief titled “Answering Brief of Linda Lingle, Governor, State of Hawaii Statement of the Case Appendices “”A” Through “”C” Certificate of Service” filed on behalf of the state of Hawaii In Re UPW, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Lingle et al (Intermediate Ct. App. Haw., March 13, 2009):
“…A subpoena or discovery-related order issued by an arbitrator in another state shall be served in the manner provided by law for service of subpoenas in a civil action in this State and, upon motion to the court by a party to the arbitration proceeding or the arbitrator, enforced in the manner provided by law for enforcement of subpoenas in a vcivil action in this State…
…A subpoena shall be served in the manner for service of subpoenas in a civil action and, upon motion to the court by a party to the arbitration proceeding or the arbitrator, enforced in the manner for enforcement of subpoenas in a civil action…”
Now, this refers to “arbitrators” issuing subpoenas. I read the related judicial opinions and, from my cursory read, they gave no indication of why the out-of-state subpoena issue was brought up in Lingle’s brief. It is a labor case having to do with Hawaii’s labor relations board, mandatory furlough orders by the governor and the unions objecting and from what’s available all parties appear to be in Hawaii.
Although it refers to “arbitrators,” the board and the dispute fall under Administrative Law Rules, per Hawaii’s statutes. Administrative Law. I have not found on what authority Lingle’s above statements were based…
http://interstatedeposition.com/compellingout-of-statewitness.htm
Here for anyone interested.This is not unusual to supena out of state witnesses. There are many variables as to how they are handled.
With Hawaii not being within 100 miles of any other given state, their rules may have some other stipulations as well. There are several sites that would explain this issue. This is just one I thought might help clear up the matter. I do find it strange Hayden, that you can’t get Hawaii’s entire brief ,but you can get other states. Hawaii seems so SPECIAL doesn’t it?
http://www.njlawblog.com/2006/10/articles/litigation/arbitrators-right-to-issue-a-subpoena-to-a-nonparty-outofstate-witness/
Or this one ,Hayden may give some indication as to the Lingle case you were only able to read a partial brief .
I used the SAME search terms for the state of KENTUCKY and was able to read the full text of the briefs that popped up . . . wow. . . Like I said, I have never been denied access to briefs filed by parties in a case.
http://www.smartrules.com/states/Hawaii/Hawaii-3rd-Circuit/Subpoena-4111-117-0.html
If you read down a little ways the out of state rules for Hawaii supenas are here.
aha…thanks alfy. I am swamped and civ pro is not my fav thing to deal with!looks like Hawaii has a pretty simple process – you just need to present a verified petition i.e. prove it’s a real case and the Hawaii court will then issue a subpoena to comply with the out of state subpoena. Is that what Orly is doing? I can never tell what she is actually doing.
“Where a commission to take testimony within the State has been issued from a court without the State, or where a notice has been given or any other proceeding has been taken for the purpose of taking testimony within the State, pursuant to the laws or practice of the state or jurisdiction wherein the deposition is to be used for purposes of discovery or as evidence, including the United States if it is a federal proceeding, the circuit court, in a proper case, on the presentation of a verified petition shall order the issuance of a subpoena to any witness, commanding the witness to appear before the commissioner, officer or person named or designated in the commission, notice or other paper, at a time and place specified in the subpoena, to testify in the same manner as is provided by the rules of court relating to depositions for use in [the] State. If any witness fails to obey the subpoena, or refuses to testify, or to produce a book or paper pursuant to a subpoena or to subscribe the witness’ deposition, the court issuing the subpoena, if it is determined that a contempt has been committed, may prescribe the punishment as in the case of a recalcitrant witness in a circuit court in the State, and may make such additional or other orders as would be proper if the deposition were for use in the State.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 624-27 (West)
Hawaii Judge Dismissed Attorney Taitz’s Subpoena Enforcement: Hawaii Moves Forward With Sanctions And Banning Taitz From Filing Future Cases
Friday, January 13, 2012
Attorney Orly Taitz was denied by the judge in Hawaii today regarding subpoena enforcement. The state of Hawaii will move forward in sanctioning atty. Taitz and labeling her a vexatious litigant banning her from filing future cases in Hawaii unless she motions for leave of Court first. The obfuscations continue….
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/hawaii-judge-dismissed-attorney-taitzs.html
They are now trying to label and sanction Orly “The Court should declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigator.” and have her pay all of their attorney fees. They also say they never received the subpoenas or were served the subpoenas. Yet they address them in their Memorandum?
Taitz v. Fuddy – Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement – 1/12/2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78113346/Taitz-v-Fuddy-Memorandum-in-Opposition-to-Plaintiff-s-Motion-Reciprocal-Subpoena-Enforcement-1-12-2012
Orly’s site was once again attacked and hit with a bad virus. I guess the Bots don’t want her information to be released. Go there at your own risk.
Hawaii Attorney General Seeks to Sanction and Label Orly Taitz Vexatious Litigant in Hawaii Banning Taitz from Filing Future Cases in Hawaii
Jan. 12, 2012
Hawaii Attorney General files opposition to Taitz’s motion for reciprocal subpoena enforcement and also seeks sanctions against Taitz including labeling Taitz a vexatious litigant in Hawaii which means Taitz would be prohibited from filing future lawsuits in Hawaii related to Obama’s (non-existent) records without first obtaining leave of Court.
The opposition motion also argues why the GA subpoena is not valid in the State of Hawaii, as we already raised and pointed out here. The GA subpoena per OSAH rules is only valid in GA. The Hawaii Attorney General also claims the subpoena was not properly served upon the parties involved.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/hawaii-attorney-general-seeks-to.html
Orly is just plain sloppy …It’s ridiculous. She does not follow procedural requirements. She seems to have sent a subpoena (the court says she didn’t serve the one she’s trying to enforce – haven’t looked into that, but anyway) she sent a subpoena from georgia that she got online??? she didn’t actually get the clerk to stamp her subpoena??? so it doesn’t even have authority in Georgia.
Then she expects compliance and goes to the Hawaii court for enforcement when the procedure is to go to the Hawaii court beforehand with a valid out of state subpoena, show the court it is valid, and the Hawaii court then issues it’s own subpoena to order compliance with the provisions of the out of state subpoena. In the event of non-compliance it would then be the Hawaii subpoena you would seek enforcement of.
AND there seems to be an issue of whether discovery in administrative hearings under Georgia law…the Hawaii court mentions it, I didn’t look any deeper.
She is a vexatious litigant because of her pure incompetency!!! She is completely f-ing up the merits of the case and making a mockery of the real issues involved. I don’t think she’s an undercover obot. I think she really believes in what she’s doing, she’s just not smart enough to do it!!!
I have hardly spent any time looking at this and it’s obvious she is screwing it up; her losses are not just a result of complicity with Obama. She should bankroll a competent attorney and keep herself out of court.
I guess I have a real problem when people malign Orly. She may not be the best..but how many other lawyers are doing the work? How many are lining up and suing the Marxist cabal for their criminal behavior? Name all of them…
I searched to find out how many lawyers there are in the US to give us some perspective. I can’t find up to date numbers..but according to Wiki answers..
“According to the American Bar Association, there were 1,128,729 resident and active attorneys in the United States in 2006 and 1,143,358 in 2007.”
Let’s assume that half of those are progressives and the other half are right wing extremists. That means that there are approximately +/- 57,179 licensed lawyers in the US that have done absolutely nothing regarding this Constitutional issue. Yet people want Orly to step back or step down? Who exactly is lining up to take her place and is willing to do what she has been doing?
That’s what I used to think – but it really is ridiculous the mistakes she makes. Most attorneys are working attorneys who don’t have the time or bank account to work without a paying client – she is independently wealthy. That’s why I suggested she should [quietly] pay the bills for a better attorney to handle the suits.
I agree too, I just haven’t given up on her entirely, but the whole time I’m sure I am not alone in thinking there is something not quite on the up and up sometimes with her. The fact that she is foreign and is so hyped against Obama, may boost her credit with people who want to believe she has the heart of a patriot. Why have very few lawyers not offered to help her? Is she independently wealthy? That’s a good question.
I have even questioned is her motive to lead people on this treasure hunt,only at the be lead off course.
If I remember correctly, she is a millionaire, or rather her husband is a millionaire. She’s also supposed to be a dentist, for what it’s worth
I believe that Orly’s heart is in the right place, which is why she is so passionate about this issue. Especially because of where she grew up. She recognizes a communist dictator wannabe when she sees one. Make no mistake, everything Barry does proves that he’d fit right in in Soviet Russia. Just take a gander at Putin (or don’t) running around with his pecs showing, acting the “big man”. Remind you of anybody? I do recall that Barry-coming-out-of-the-sea photo. Remember all the Mao-like symbolism from Barry’s 2008 campaign? When even some in the lamestream express discomfort with it, you know the danger. I so wish that Orly did not leap before she looks and that she would do more research before she does some of these filings. If Hayden, just reading the statutes, can see the procedural mistakes, then either Orly doesn’t understand as well as the ordinary educated citizen or she didn’t do the research or she’s relying on people to do the research who aren’t competent. Imho, it doesn’t matter, though, because Hawaii is gonna do what Hawaii is gonna do. Nothing. They’re going to throw as many roadblocks in the way as possible and they’re going to run out the clock. Don’t be surprised if, come Jan. 2013 (GOD willing) or (worst case) Jan. 2017, Barry issues pardons for all the peeps in Hawaii who helped him stonewall this topic into infinity.
I agree.
Orly is just plain sloppy. She rants in court too. Did you ever see an attorney behave this way before in a court of law ?
I agree w/ you Hayden.
thanks. I have not watched her in court – I’m gonna check it out!
It almost sounds as if Barry’s lawyers argue that NO subpoena can touch those vital records because Hawaiian laws don’t allow for it. The way I read their argument is that a subpoena only allows the records to be revealed if a court decides the person meets the conditions specified in the Hawaiian laws. That’s bull. I’m sure that if any court subpoenas those records, Hawaiian policies mean diddly squat. Ditto for Hawaiian laws. Courts can and do get sealed adoption records. Therefore, Hawaii can’t hide his vital records from a subpoena.
Fuddy
What’s in a name ?
Breaking: Atty. Orly Taitz Reports on January 13 Hearing in Hawaii
OPPOSITION BRIEF LABELS TAITZ A ” VEXATIOUS PLAINTIFF”
Jan. 13, 2012 by Sharon Rondeau Snips
A question had arisen about the subpoena from the Georgia court bearing the signature of Judge Michael Malihi as to whether or not it is valid in another state. “In each and every court, when you are in discovery, a judge will sign subpoenas, and you can use them. You subpoena whatever evidence and witnesses you need. If a witness doesn’t want to testify, then it falls to them to file a specific motion to quash. Everything was done properly; any attorney knows I have done it properly,” Taitz said.
“At the end, the judge did not say the subpoena was not valid or proper. She did not say I was ‘vexatious;’ or ‘frivolous;’ she did not say that I needed to be sanctioned. The judge never said any of that. She said, ‘First of all, Orly Taitz is right in that the case is still open; there was no final judgment. As long as the case is open, she’s entitled to file a motion.’”
“The judge stated that under Rules 45, 33 and 31, it provides for subpoenas but does not specifically state it is for ‘reciprocal subpoena enforcement,’ and that is why I’m denying your motion,’” Taitz related
~
Fuddy and Nagamine had also refused to release Obama’s records following a Hawaii-issued subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Honolulu
~
Update, January 14, 2012: A court document from yesterday’s hearing in Honolulu is posted at Taitz’s website here. Taitz also posted her own account of the hearing.
Reminder…wait until someone reports that the virus has been removed from Orly’s site to visit there.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/13/breaking-orly-taitz-reports-on-january-13-hearing-in-hawaii/
Long Arm Statiute
UPDATE
Posted on | January 13, 2012 | 17 Comments
01.13.2012 hearing docs
“today we had a hearing before judge Nishimura. She ruled that she cannot enforce the subpoena under rule 45, 33 and 31. she simply omitted mentioning other rules, which specifically give her such right. I will have to file another motion yet again.
Above is the link to the first 2 pages of the motion. You can see the stamp on the first page and you can see on the bottom of the second page, that the motion did not relied only on rule 45, but also on rules 624-24.5 and 624-27. These rules relate to subpoenas out of jurisdiction. I do not understand, how the judge could see one rule, but not the others. The video of the hearing should be available tomorrow or on Sunday, I will post it. Transcript was orderd and will be available shortly.
The deputy attorney general on the case, Jill Nagamine (her husband is a family attorney for Obama’s family, he handled his sister’s divorce from her first husband) is a personification of corruption. In any state, where there is any rule of law, she would have been in prison together with a truck load of other corrupt officials. I felt, like I was in a twilight zone. Right after I talked about Obama posting his alleged birth certificate on mugs and T-shirts, Nagamine stated that they cannot allow inspection of the original birth certificate due to concerns of privacy and order from Georgia is not sufficient and order in HI cannot be issued. I guess from now on none of you will need to produce any documents to police, to judges, to TSA. Enough to post a mediocre forgery on mugs and T-shirts. From now on, those will be considered documents. not ID but IT and I-Mug…
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
I’ll be happy when you post the actual transcript. Something is missing here.
further more (and I dont claim to understand )if in the first district court hearing that mrs Fuddy and Nagomine did not produce O.s original papers why didn’t the judge order them then to bring forth proper documentation, which was also part of the supena? This could be contempt also.The documents are part of the supena as well, and failing to have something we can see in writing in a reasonalble time prior to the court hearing , that O. papers would not be forthcoming or available was never issued prior to court to my knowledge. This all is beginning to sound mysteriously like a show of some sort.
because the Georgia subpoena has no authority in Hawaii. A Georgia state court has no jurisdiction in Hawaii. you posted some good links and it lead me to Hawaii’s statute. I posted the statute somewhere above.
She had to take the Georgia subpoena to the court in Hawaii, ask the court to issue a Hawaiin subpoena ordering testimony or production of documents in a manner compliant with the Georgia subpoena. She can’t just mail her Georgia subpoena to Fuddy and then go to a Hawaii court to enforce the Georgia subpoena. She has to get the Hawaii court to issue and then enforce its own subpoena.
I understand this Georgia issue I think, but I was refering to the original case . Thanks Haydon, I’m glad someone bothered to look at them to understand jusrisdiction matters and supenas. some of this is even tricky for lawyers. We should in no way assume that because we are talking about lawyers here that they know what they are doing in everycase. I really like to wait and see what has really taken place,because we could be missing a key piece of info, that just isn’t obvious.
Should I not click on Orly’s site that someone said wait till it’s safe to go there? I didn’t understand.
yes, civil procedure really sucks. It is tedious and time-consuming and often involves a lot of strategy, but it really just takes some attention to detail on an attorney’s part, which she has not exercised.I’m not sure what you mean by the original case. do you have a link for it?
““In each and every court, when you are in discovery, a judge will sign subpoenas, and you can use them. You subpoena whatever evidence and witnesses you need. If a witness doesn’t want to testify, then it falls to them to file a specific motion to quash. Everything was done properly; any attorney knows I have done it properly,” Taitz said.”
She is full of, parden the French, CRAP!!!!! yes, you subpoena whatever evidence and witnesses you need and it falls on them to quash IF the court issuing the subpoena has JURISDICTION!!!!!!! First year law students get JURSDICTION beat into their heads. The first thing you include in any petition, after the parties names, is the authority of a court to decide a matter i.e. JURISDICTION.
And she is completely distorting the court’s ruling. I read the order on scribd and the judge SHREDDED her and called her a vexatious litigant who is wasting the courts time and state’s money!!!!
My Bad – it was the Defense’s Opposition I read. well, they Shredded her.lol.
Again, the judge certainly has jurisdiction over the records In the state of Hawaii correct ?
yes,but right now this whole story looks like more of the same runaround,distinct parts missing,flaws in procedures,can’t tell, but this is why something doesn’t smell right. The “Vapors Papers” is what all these cases should be called. I’m waiting for the whole, always complex bunch of stuff that we’ll hear later.How and Why it didn’t work out,with always a new set of circumstances.
yes, but the issue in this particular hearing is not jurisdiction over the documents, it is the validity of a Georgia subpoena in Hawaii. Georgia does not have jurisdiction in Hawaii so a georgia state court subpoena in Hawaii carries no authority. There is a procedure to give the georgia subpoena validity in Hawaii, but Orly did not follow it.
I know Hayden. Hey when you said you were reading the defense brief but you thought you were reading the other side, do you think if you went back and looked or posted it , it would help?
Renee or anyone, A couple days ago somewhere in someones post there was a name that I noticed ‘Keswick’. I couldn’t remember where I had seen that name,but I remember now. Can anyone remember if they have come across that name when they were researching?
Alf, I will repost. Found the name across the hall.
I feel so dumb. Where is across the hall? Is that ya’lls language ,a place I am not privy to ?
alfy, go to the front page (the home page) of this blog and look on the right hand side. There’s a logo there about the WTPOTUS research blog. Click that logo and you will go to the research blog. That’s what Renee means by “across the hall.”
lol! I saw the “across the hall” reference about three times before I figured it out. Maybe if you put “Research Blog” in larger caps underneath the logo it would be easier to pick out as something other than the regular logo.
FINALLY! ‘ Across the hall’. I wish there was a chair and a pillow over there and I could converse with Renee while she does her research. You know ,maybe stare over her shoulder.Thanks Haydon. I get it now.
I keep on telling you to bring your coffee Alf and come over. Just hit the link.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/74454580-Georgia-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-Re-Obama-Pre-Trial-Order-Farrar.pdf
Not sure if this is already up. It’s the GA judge’s pre-trial order.
Hayden, do you have a law background ? I was hoping you do. What does your instinct tell you about all of this ?
I do. Well, working on it – in my last year of law school.
This is the Defendant’s opposition to Orly’s subpoena enforcement motion in Hawaii. I can’t find Orly’s motion anywhere to see what law she relied on.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78113346/Taitz-v-Fuddy-Memorandum-in-Opposition-to-Plaintiff-s-Motion-Reciprocal-Subpoena-Enforcement-1-12-2012.
The Georgia judge seems to be taking the issue seriously. IN his pretrial order he noted that it is for the candidate to affirmatively show that he is qualified (Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga 106, 538 S.E. 2d 430 (2000)) and specifically identified the issues to be determined as the authenticity of the birth certificate and social security number and the meaning of natural born citizen.
“(4)The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”
what concerns me is #8: the list of all exhibits, which are stipulated as authentic and include the birth announcements and a report from HHS stating that B.C.s alone are not reliable proof of citizenship. The exhibits are labeled P for Plaintiff’s exhibit. seems like the birth announcements are the “something more” that will be used to corroborate a Birth certificate that’s not even in evidence. It says it is a list of ALL exhibits. I think the definition of natural born citizen may be the better hope on this one.
“(8) The following is a list of all exhibits that will be tendered at the hearing. Unless noted, the parties have stipulated as to the authenticity of the exhibits listed and the exhibits listed may be admitted without further proof of authenticity. All exhibits shall be marked by counsel prior to hearing. Parties shall consolidate exhibits by elimination duplicates and use common numbering system for joint exhibits so that one set of joints exhibits is presented to the Judge. Exhibits shall be pre-marked by the parties sequentially starting with “P-1″ for the Plaintiff’s exhinits, and “D-1″ for the defendant’s exhibits. A copy of the exhibits shall be given to the opposing party no less than five (5) days before the hearing and to the Judge when first identified at the hearing.
P-1. Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Birth Certificate Fraud
Conclusions: Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity.
P-2. Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
P-3 The Honolulu Advertiser First Mention : “In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.” The identical announcement ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.
Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn’s name, weight and time of birth.””
Here is the GA statute for challenging a nominee’s qualifications:
§ 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; challenges; determination of qualifications; payment of qualifying fee subsequently returned for insufficient funds; appeals
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State
(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.
(d) In the event that a candidate pays his or her qualifying fee with a check that is subsequently returned for insufficient funds, the Secretary of State shall automatically find that such candidate has not met the qualifications for holding the office being sought, unless the bank, credit union, or other financial institution returning the check certifies in writing by an officer’s or director’s oath that the bank, credit union, or financial institution erred in returning the check.
(e) The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are:
(1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law.
Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-5 (West)
I can’t imagin a judge getting a threefer. Looks like a lot of room for error if he’s covering all these issues in this one case. Scarey. The defense can ask the judge that they show B.’s certificate in private if they want to also. And then here we’ll go again. Just thinking.
aaahhh! I gotta stop believing Orly’s headlines. The pretrial order was merely Plaintiff’s suggestion of what should occur at the hearing, not the judge’s preliminary notice for hearing prep. So, it doesn’t mean anything – scratch everything I said below. at least the judge did not grant the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. We know nothing else.
The only good thing is it has gotten to the point of an evidentiary hearing. But, there are so many ways the judge can get around it all and say he is eligible. I have a feeling Defense will just present Obama’s current passport and it will be good enough to validate a U.S. birth and citizenship and the birth cert and Hawaii won’t even be looked at. Then the only issue is natural born.
The decision can be appealed in GA superior court…
right Hayden. This is another hearing, I haven’t followed closely enough to realize. So we could be right back in the same sinking boat. I’ll cross my boney fingers.Hope Judge M. has real balls and not soggy obamaballs. I mean some constitutional balls,some humdingers. Can I say that? Excuse please.
Hayden, forgive me for being obtuse, but did plaintiff’s suggestions actually say that they would accept as authentic the “birth certificates” (in WHAT FORM? Digital?) as well as the “birth announcements”? Again, in what form? Digital? Without further authentication? That’s insane. Who is plaintiff if not Orly?
The entire point of all this is to prove that what they’ve presented so far is bogus. The documents should have been subpoenaed from HAWAII, not from the defendant. We already know as bogus what they present on the Internet and wave in front of reporters, pretending as if all of it is legit.
Plaintiff submitted as evidence and stipulated as authentic:
1) a report from Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, regarding Birth Certificate Fraud which Concluded that “Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable proof of Identity”
2) Obama Sr.’s immigration file and
3) The Hawaii birth Announcements for BHO II (does not specify the form, I assume it is a paper copy from a digital source)
So Plaintiff’s attorney (Orly) has herself entered evidence which suggests that birth certificates ALONE do not prove identity and then submitted (and stipulated the authenticity of) the newspaper announcements, specifically noting that they came from Hawaii’s DOH which received info directly from the hospital, not the public. So, she has corroborated the information claimed on Obama’s “B.C.” That is strange. There is something to be said for bringing forth evidence which may hurt your case. There are both attorney ethics rules and strategic reasons for doing so, like gaining credibility with the judge, but I see no reason why she would or should stipulate to the authenticity of the birth announcements when she purports to be trying to expose the birth certificate as a fraud. And, she used improper procedure and served a worthless subpoena on Fuddy.
I don’t get it, unless she is going to use the theory of the order of the announcements reflecting geographic location of birth, but there’s no indication of that.
Why try to be logical? So many others don’t bother.
I cannot follow the twists and turns here. It makes NO SENSE to me to offer BHO Sr.’s immigration file (unless she got it directly FROM the Dept. of State or Immigration or whomever) or those so-called birth announcements, unless she has a copy of that microfilm. If those birth announcements are real, if they really were printed contemporaneously in the papers, then you can knock me over with a feather. If they are real, then it’s likely that he is NOT the “son” born to “Mr. and Mrs.” BHO. We don’t know the NAME of that “son” and we don’t even know which “Mrs.” was the mother. He had at least three wives at the time–Kezia, Ann, and the wife in the Philippines.
In any case, without having all of the items authenticated by an expert, why would she stipulate to their authenticity? I wouldn’t. I COULDN’T.
She should subpoena the ORIGINALS. So that means, the 1961 newspaper from the Honolulu Advertiser. Believe me, newspapers keep paper copies of their publications. Unless there’s a convenient “fire”, they should still exist.
If she gets the microfilm, then she should have an expert testify that it is or is not tampered with. If all she did was print stuff out off the Internet, she can’t stipulate that any of it is real. We don’t know if ANYTHING that’s been published online is real. ALL of it could be invented, either by Obama’s people or by obots trying to punk us.
For example, I posted images on this blog of newspaper articles that I got from a library database. I THINK they’re real, but how do I know for sure? All I could testify to is their provenance. Whoever originated those documents would have to testify where they come from and how they know they’re real.
A court would want the underlying document. Not a copy. That’s basic rules of evidence, isn’t it? I recently saw the movie THE VERDICT. A Xerox copy of a document was thrown out because it was NOT the original and the original differed from the Xerox. In the story, the ORIGINAL had been tampered with and the Xerox had been taken before the change took place. My point is that the lawyer cited rules of evidence to the effect that an original should always be preferred to a copy. So Orly should submit ORIGINALS, not any copies.
To further my example, how do YOU know that I didn’t make up those news stories or photoshop them (other than that you know from experience how lame I am at photoshopping!)
Only somebody with custody of the documents, who will SWEAR under OATH under penalty of perjury, should produce them in court. I’d be satisfied if this judge or ANY judge would simply order Obama to submit to the court those supposed original certified copies that Judith Corley, his personal lawyer, got in Hawaii.
They would be caught then. Either she wouldn’t do it because they’re fake and her career and possibly her freedom would be on the line OR she would and then it would be proved that they don’t match what he put online as his real birth certificate.
Maybe Orly’s stipulation is only for the sake of argument. She’s not saying that the items are real, but saying that they’ve been presented by Obama’s people AS real, so even if she accepts them as real, for the sake of argument, she can prove that they don’t prove his identity AS that person or that he’s a natural born citizen.
If the judge gave her power to subpoena, then she should subpoena the original newspaper from the Honolulu Advertiser archives, the original birth certificate from the HDOH, the hospital medical records for Ann Dunham (deceased, so no privacy issue), the marriage record for all of Ann’s marriages, Ann’s original pre-1965 passport application, and, as Bridgette recently pointed out, the HANDWRITTEN index books from the HDOH. The “log books” that all depts. of health used to keep track of births and to record the BC#’s before the days of computers. That’s for starters.
yes, she is stipulating the authenticity in this hearing – not like she has authenticated the original document, think of it as an undisputed statement of fact, both sides say it happened, so it did. Like you said, for argument’s sake. I don’t get it. A preemptory strike on the info Defendant will present and argue? I guess, but what is she using to refute it?
Good point on the lack names in the announcements, but Orly says “the future president” so the announcements are now for the purposes of this hearing about BHO II.
At this point, I can’t even guess what she’s planning. If she stipulates the announcements are real and refer to the “future president”, then she’s stipulating something that NOBODY knows is true, at this point. For what purpose? Only if her intent is to argue he’s not NATURAL born citizen on account of his father being Kenyan.
Pre-trial evidence released in GA: Obama using stolen SSN; passport & birth certificate show Indonesia birth; his selective service is a forgery; e-verify fails; Trial just moved up to TOMORROW, Hawaii officials in transit .
by davidl Posted January 11, 2012
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/pre-trial-evidence-released-in-ga-obama-using-stolen-ssn-passport-birth-certificate-show-indones/question-2389441/
i saw that too, but it’s nothing new. It’s just the suggested pretrial order submitted by Plaintiff, Orly.
From orly
In response to obama operatives, claiming that trial on January 26 is not a trial, please see the pretrial order from the judge and explain, why is the judge issuing pretrial order, if there is no trial
Posted on | January 15, 2012 | 10 Comments
Farrar Pretrial order
Clarification:
there are all kinds of rumors being spread by Obama operatives, claiming to be our supporters. Some are saying that there is no trial, please see this and other orders from judge Malihi, clearly indicating that there is a pretrial order and trial on January 26, 2012, 9am.
Additionally, same operatives are saying that I need to get an additional permission from the judge for subpoenas. These people are either ignorant or intentionally trying to mislead the public.
The trial is in 9 days, we are in discovery, no additional permissions are necessary.
do you have the link for the pretrial order from JUDGE MALIHI that she is referring to?
And it’s not a “trial” it is a hearing in front of an administrative law judge who will submit his opinion to the secretary of state, who will make the final decision on whether the required qualifications have been met.
That’s right. If I heard pretrial, that’s a hearing basically, but this matter could all be over at that point. Either I’m getting mixed information,some heresay and some legit. something is already starting to sound weird. The judge may be the only competent one in this whole bunch. I’m not holding my breath for this.
video of the subpoena hearing in Hawaii. Orly and Nagamine. Orly reads from her laptop the whole time and talks about herself in the third person. she says “it’s axiomatic that states enforce other state’s subpoenas” ummm….no, it’s not. and she quotes the georgia subpoena statute in detail but completely leaves out the part about how they can be served anywhere in Georgia. Nagamine says that first thing. Orly messed up.
this is simple procedural stuff – you just have to read the laws of the jurisdiction your case is in and of the jurisdiction where the witnesses and documents are in and know whether your case is in state or federal court.
The Georgia court is not a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii. simple.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/video-orly-taitz-vs-jill-nagamine.html
For one this is why the Supreme court or Federal court shoud have taken this up , listened to some of this in the first place.. This is really a federal matter if the evidence (what clear evidence I don’t know) is there to prove any of these offenses. Soc. Sec. Fraud is a federal offense, as is fraudulent registration for the draft as is blah blah blah…… There would be no question of any jurisdictional matters .
yep. if she were in a federal court in georgia, there’s no problem. And yes we are talking about federal offenses for the fraudulent docs, but the ballot qualification questions are governed by the states. for this particular angle you have to go to state courts.
an essential part of state sovereignty in our republic is that every state runs its own election process. so you have to go to the state by whatever process they proscribe, like a complaint to the secretary of state. The state laws govern the process and have control of who gets on the ballot. Makes sense when most elections are for positions within the state and nominees are residents of the state. The only one which is not is the prez/v.p. obviously.
Flustercuck.
I would put it this way Haydon, voter fraud can be taken up at the state level,or even the local level but it is a federal offense, just to make a weird comparison…..taking mail from someones mailbox or mailbox destruction is a federal offense,can be started at the local level, but it’s statutorially a federal offense.
http://soundpolitics.com/The%20Federal%20Crime%20of%20Election%20Fraud.pdf
I haven’t read this, I just hunted for a quick post, I may learn a thing or two once I read this. I’m busy painting this morning . I hope this tells us something.
yes, but my point is the complaint is not voter fraud (though that is underlying) it is simply whether the candidate is qualified to be on the state ballot. so, it is the province of the state court and that particular issue cannot be removed to a federal court for any reason.
If the complaint is for voter fraud under the federal statute that would be a criminal proceeding, so it would be some government entity that would have to file, but it could be filed in a federal court and would eliminate the jurisdiction issues with the subpoenas.
(Disclaimer: this was off the top of my head)
I think Arpaio is the answer.
How and why are the AMERICAN PEOPLE allowing this to happen and what can WE do to STOP it? This is horrible! THE FIX IS IN! We should be demanding paper auditable ballots!
Renee, this is a company we should be investigating as to WHO is behind it!
FOREIGN COMPANY BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM
Snip……………….
These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.
With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.
SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.
SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.
http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
Really ?
NO proof…how special is that ?
TPTB: Same big contributors to both parties’ presidential candidates
This is a very good article. The charts are great and very informative.
Why was the University of California Obama’s top donor, giving $1,648,685?
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/tptb-same-big-contributors-to-both-parties-presidential-candidates/
The birth announcements. Payments back and forth for services rendered. Grants. Stimulus. Etc. Tit for tat.
Harvard. STANFORD. Columbia. Are the parents who pay tuition at these institutions on board with these donations? Hmmm.
Corporations being seen as “people” by the SCOTUS is bad, but institutions of so-called “higher learning” can be “people” and use money that (I’d think) should go to education to support communism? Just askin’.
Hayden and other legal eagles: Did you see this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/75913036/Farrar-v-Obama-Def-s-Pretrial-Submission
Barry’s lawyer stipulates that “Barack Obama” was born in Hawaii and “Barack Obama” is NOT a naturalized citizen of the US. Barry’s lawyer is not producing any exhibits, so no certified 3-D LFCOLB, although they supposedly have two. Barry produces one witness: Michael Berlon (whoever that is). Although not included in the SCRIBD document (that I can see), it APPEARS that Barry’s lawyer disputes all of the exhibits as “hearsay”.
In this case http://alt.cimedia.com/ajc/pdf/polinsider/gross.pdf
Judge Malihi said the burden of proof is on the candidate to prove eligibility.
What say greater legal minds than mine? Is Barry in trouble or am I hoping too much?
I would have to look at all the statuts they cite, but initial reaction is it’s pretty weak. Basically, they’re arguing that the state of georgia has no control over who goes on a primary ballot and Georgia does not have to verify that the candidate is qualified. I don’t think Georgia will agree with that.
As far as the stipulations, those are basically profferred statements of undisputed fact – one of the issues is whether he is a natural born citizen, so it wouldn’t be one of the statements of undisputed fact. everyone knows its at issue and the sides will never agree.
But isn’t it disputed that he was born in Hawaii and isn’t naturalized, given that the BC is bogus and Orly apparently wants to try to prove that it is? Seems to me that the point is that nobody knows yet who he is, who his parents are, where he was born, what his nationality was at 22 or whatever age he needed to be to choose.
well, yes, but I’m just saying his attorney’s are trying to make it a stipulation or undisputed fact that he was born in Hawaii and is not naturalized (the inference being he is a citizen by birth and trying to skirt around the difference between native and natural born).that way they don’t have to prove it and show th original docs. they are trying to divert the issue.
I assume orly is not going to stipulate to either.
Well, it’s confusing to people like me who don’t know much about the law. All I can do is rely on common sense. As well as what I glean from Perry Mason, Law and Order, and other legal shows, which may not even be true.
So when they stipulate that “Barack Obama” was born in Hawaii and not naturalized, they’re hoping that Orly will agree to that, so then for purposes of this hearing, neither will be in dispute and all will act AS IF it’s true?
If his lawyer makes such a stipulation, MUST it be true?
Because a lawyer makes a stipulation, can anything happen to the lawyer if it’s NOT true?
I’m asking how much stock we can put in what the lawyer told the court. Is it more likely than not that both statements are true, at least about “Barack Obama”, whoever he is, and barring the lawyer later arguing that he THOUGHT he was telling the truth, based upon what his client told him?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74445528/David-Farrar-v-Barack-Obama-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-Pre-Trial-Order-12-9-2011
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75229593/Georgia-Orly-Taitz-Draft-of-Pre-Trial-Order-Farrar-Et-Al-v-Obama-Et-Al
If these are the links that y’all have been reading from, forgive me for reposting. I didn’t see the links and so didn’t know where information was coming from. These supposedly lay out the cases. I’m still reading them myself. In the Orly document, she lists the exhibits which Barry’s lawyer calls hearsay. So let me get this straight, Obama puts out a “birth certificate” but when a lawyer prints it and introduces it as stipulated evidence in a court, Obama’s lawyer calls it hearsay? So, why not ask Hawaii to send the original for the court to examine? Why not present the certified copy that Barry says he has?
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2012/01/the-birther-bill-is-baaack.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29
An AZ state representative is introducing another bill to ensure that only qualified individuals get on ballots. What a birther! What a card! Who the heck believes we should pass laws to enforce the Constitution? Sheesh. Next thing you know, they’ll be asking voters to prove they’re eligible to vote and EVEN to prove, via photo ID, that they ARE the person registered to vote. How unfair!
“Seel’s solution is to simplify the bill so that a candidate would only be required to sign, under penalty of perjury, an affidavit swearing that he or she meets the qualifications for the office, including their citizenship. If citizens were to question whether the candidate was qualified, Seel’s bill would state that the citizen would have standing to file suit against the candidate.
“It’s simply making sure the citizenry is equipped to enforce their Constitution,” Seel said, noting that lawsuits in other states have been thrown out for a lack of standing.”
Ok. So who would argue with that? Makes sense to me. How about you? But wait! The person who wrote the story concluded that Rep. Seel is “too stupid for words.”
Barack Obama filed a motion asking judge Malihi to quash my subpoenas. I am working on opposition to Obama’s motion
January 18, 2012
Motion to Quash Subpoenas
Attached you will find a motion to quash subpoenas on behalf of President Obama. The motion is directed at subpoenas directed to the President and all of the other subpoenas being sent on behalf of the plaintiff in the Farrar case.
Thank you.
Michael Jablonski
Farrar v Obama motion to quash subpoenas
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-v-Obama-motion-to-quash-subpoenas.pdf
From Motion to Quash
President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for re-election, moves for an order quashing a subpoena which, if enforced, requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States for an administrative hearing in Fulton County, Georgia, starting on January 26 and continuing through the pendency of the hearing. Such a subpoena is, on its face, unreasonable. The documents sought by plaintiffs have received an extraordinary degree of publication and availability. President Obama released documents provided to him by the State of Hawaii evidencing his birth.
If you want to read more BS…it is in this Quash document! IT IS A MUST READ!
Interestingly, they attack Orly, of course, but also mention that the voters elected Obama and Cheney counted the electoral votes, and didn’t object.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the State of Georgia, hold the Constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates. The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.
The testimony and documents sought are neither relevant nor material, nor are they necessary for the presentation of plaintiff’s case as outlined in the pretrial order.”
They’re most certainly relevant. Georgia law says he must prove his eligibility or he can’t be on the ballot.
His apparently-unfamiliar-with-the-Constitutional-issue-at-hand lawyer says that Barry already proved his “citizenship.” BEEP!!!! The issue is NATURAL BORN citizenship, asshat. Unbelievable. After calling the “documents” hearsay, he claims they’re real and Orly has them already, so no need to have them again. What does he mean by, “Numerous individuals, including plaintiff’s attorney, petitioned Hawaii to obtain exemplars of the birth record provided by the State.”
Uh, yes they did. AND THEY DIDN’T GET THEM, DID THEY? Why? BECAUSE BARRY’S LAWYERS PREVENTED THEM FROM BEING PRODUCED!
God grant Judge Malihi the wisdom to protect the Constitution and the interests of the residents of Georgia and We the People of the United States of America.
Don’t they worry that he might have to interrupt a vacation or an important game of golf or basketball? The DOCUMENTS are not available and NEVER HAVE BEEN. In fact, they are HEARSAY, as his own lawyers state. Unbelievable. I wonder what Dr. Con thinks now? He recently stated that Jablonski ought to submit a birth certificate. Earth to Dr. Con: THERE IS NONE to submit. Why else are they making up such specious arguments, trying to quash? Judge Malihi has already ruled in another case that a CANDIDATE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO DEMONSTRATE ELIGIBILITY. Why should Obama be any different from the next candidate? He shouldn’t. He’s stonewalled too long already. Why is that, obots? Riddle us this: WHY WON’T HE SHOW THE DOCUMENT THAT JUDITH CORLEY HAS, THAT OBAMA SAYS SHE HAS, THAT YOU ALL BELIEVE WILL PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY?
After arguing since July 2008 that the COLB is real, NOW Obama’s lawyer calls it “hearsay”. EXACTAMENTE! WHY we need to SEE 3-D certified, verifiable paper document. I want to see those original log books, too. Huh, Bridgette?
It’s unreasonable to expect a man to spend a hour, no more, showing the judge his original certified long-form birth certificate? That’s all it will take. Less than an hour, actually. It’s real. It will prove he’s eligible, right? So what’s the problem?
Barry just spent 17 days in Hawaii. He can’t spare a day or two, at most, bothering to prove his eligibility to We the People, his employers? Why, then, does he deserve to be on the ballot? He’s too busy to bother to correctly apply, according to the Constitution that he’s sworn to defend?
He’s got a campaign speech to make that day! If he can take time out for vacations and campaign speeches ..he can show up in court!
He has nothing to show! He has no VERIFIABLE document! Let them handcuff him right there and then!
If he can send Judith Corley to Hawaii to get the records, then he can send her to Georgia to submit them, under oath, to the judge. Barry can stay on the golf course or campaign trail or wherever. Time for A judge to force this man to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Everyone must read the Motion to Quash…
“… and Cheney counted the electoral votes, and didn’t object.”
which just goes to prove he is complicit.
and guess what was happening while Cheney was counting the votes?
Patrick Fitzgerald was holding a news conference about Blago’s charges and arrest. He failed to mention that barky wanted Jarret to be handed the seat, et al
Open Thread, so, a refresher:
http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/07/15/blagojevich-trial-reveals-shady-obama-chicago-connections.
if barky had a Hawaiian BC that supported the facts in his fairy tales, it would be under glass in a common place where people would be charged $10. for the “honor” to view it.
that its not on public display with a fee assessed proves to me that he doesn’t have a birth certificate to back up his claims.
and it bears repeating. barky. is. not. a. full. blooded. American. and. therefore. ineligible. to. be. the. President of the United States. or. Commander in Chief. its so easy, natural pertains to life; nature.
see 11.a
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural
whatcha hiding? busted.
Yes, his lawyer stipulated that “Barack Obama” was born in Hawaii (where, WHEN, how, to whom?) AND that he’s not a “naturalized” citizen. So what is he? A stateless person? What can we derive from this? Is the potus “Barack Obama”? Is the potus still a British subject, an Indonesian citizen, or a Kenyan citizen? If he’s not naturalized, then what document did he submit, if any, to get his first US passport when he became a Senator?
Whatcha hiding? BUSTED!!!!!!
he posted on his website!
bwahahahahahahhaha
How many of you have thought about maybe O. was born in Hawaii, but was born before statehood?
Yes, we have covered that point multiple times and covered it in depth. It doesn’t matter. He still can’t prove he is an NBC unless he disavows BHO Sr. as being his father, and states i.e., that Malcolm is his father, and he was born in NY. Then he is still a complete fraud. According to his attorney, his BC proves the issue that he is a citizen, but he doesn’t say he is an NBC. The attorney says he was elected so that should be enough proof.
If anybody’s interested, Trowbridge threw out another of her “Bari, please come out and you’ll be a hero” articles. On MLK Day. I don’t know if anybody linked it yet, but it’s interesting that she still continues to provide no evidence of anything. And there is that odd sympathetic tone to her stories. While Fred Newman does, in a strange way, look like Barry (and also, in early photos, like SAD with the thick hair and bushy brows), where’s the beef? As Bridgette says, it doesn’t matter. Either he’s BHO Sr’s son, so not a NBC OR he’s Malcolm’s and Jo Ann’s son (or anybody else’s), so he’s a liar, a fraud, AND a forger.
Alfy, did you know that is why BHO came to Hawaii to study, because Hawaii was not yet a state. He for some reason could not be granted a visa to enter the “States”, so he had no choice but to go to HI to study, because HI was not yet a state at the time he came over from Kenya. HI was his only point of entry on how he could enter.
I have the information posted on the research thread.
Just say’n…..you may have already know all that?
And ditto, to what Bridgette said
Believe me I know about the brittish subject father deal. I just ask a question.
However I hadn’t given much thought to him going to school in Hawaii for that reason( not being a state yet). However ,if I am not mistaken Obama went to Hawaii via New York. That is where he came into the states. He didn’t fly straight to Hawaii.
Certainly the whole thing with O. claiming outwardly his father was a Kenyan has been the conundrum all along.Why would he continue to do this,when it’s likely he isn’t even his real father? That’s a bizillion dollar question.
Granny Sarah (wasn’t it?) was quoted once as saying that BHO Sr. first came to the US to work at an oil company. Then he went to Hawaii for school. So, like Lolo, it would put him in the US before they admit that he was here. And then there was that contempaneous news article from Hawaii, when he was leaving for Harvard, that said he left Kenya 7 years before. So where was he in the meantime?
Leza, you reminded me that I recently saw a story that I’d saved about SAD and it said she went to Hawaii in 1959. They’ve always been squishy about when she really graduated from HS and showed up in Hawaii. If I have time, I’ll find it again and link it.
We thought about it and discussed it loooooong ago at TD’s, and since, here.
God grant Judge Malihi the wisdom to protect the Constitution and the interests of the residents of Georgia and We the People of the United States of America.
Lord, hear our prayer.
Amen!
Why, oh, why didn’t Barry’s lawyer Jablonski stipulate that
BARRY IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA?
He didn’t stipulate that, did he? Nope. Just that Barack Obama (whoever he is) was born in Hawaii and is NOT a naturalized citizen.
The issue is: Is the man known as potus a natural born citizen of the USA?
So why didn’t his lawyer stipulate to the only fact that is relevant? He didn’t. Why not? Because Jablonski values his career that he worked so long and hard to earn?
Why not just say, under oath, Mr. Jablonski, that your client is a natural born citizen of the USA and thus eligible for the position he occupies?
Statement in the Motion to quash:
President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.
yeah, and was sworn in on January 21, 2009 behind close doors.
further, the defendant invented an agency named the Office of the President-Elect and usurped the Office of a sitting President without taking an oath.
a military officer and member of his transition team later killed 13 People screaming allah akabar and is patiently awaiting the public to forget about it as it was merely an incident of workplace violence.
Was he mad at his boss? Can he now file an Employment Practices lawsuit?
Orly Taitz Issued a Subpoena to Sheriff Arpaio for Georgia Eligibility Case!
seriously? she must read this blog! I just said in a comment yesterday on this subpoena issue that Arpaio has the answers!
Obama argues against appearing at eligibility hearing
‘Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates’
Jan. 19, 2012
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
~
The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of “natural born citizen,” does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/
NEW GA COURT FILINGS!
Attorney Hatfield Seeks Obama’s Records Through Notice to Produce
Jan. 19, 2012
New activity in the Swensson-Powell v Obama primary ballot access challenge in Georgia.
Mark Hatfield, Esq., submitted two new Court filings today and the Honorable Judge Malihi released an Order related to one of the court filings. Attorney Hatfield filed a ‘Notice to Produce’ seeking many of Barack Obama’s records.
Please see all 3 court documents at this link:
http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
Swensson Powell v Obama Notice to Produce – Georgia Ballot Access Challenge
This one tells Obama to bring all the documents in any of his names to the court including passports, birth Certificate that was sent to him by Fuddy, college records, financial aid information, etc. It is so fun to read! Quite a list!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78807773/Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Notice-to-Produce-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-1-19-2012
I typed out the list from the Notice to Produce.
Barack Obama is to bring to court on Jan. 26, the “following items to be used as evidence by the Plaintiffs in the above-style case.”
a. One (1) of the two (2) original certified copies of Defendant Barack Obama’s (“long form”) Certificate of Live Birth as referenced in the four (4) Pages of Exhibit A attached. [Exhibit A includes - Letter from Judith L. Corley that requests waiver for birth certificate from Loretta Fuddy, Letters from Loretta, Letter to Loretta from Obama and Letter to Obama from Loretta J. Fuddy DOH.]
b. All medical, religious, administrative, or other records of or relating to Defendant Barack Obama’s birth
c. Any and all United States Passports, passport applications,
and passport-related records for Defendant Barack Obama;
d. Any and all passports, passport applications, and passport-related records for Defendant Barack Obama from any country, nation, or sovereignty;
e. Any and all college and university admission information, both undergraduate and postgraduate, for Defendant Barack Obama,
including, but not limited to admission applications; letters of
recommendations, school transcripts; financial aid applications;
scholarship applications; and any and all correspondence awarding admission, financial aid, scholarships, or the like;
f. Any and all applications and accompanying materials submitted by or for Defendant Barack Obama to the State Bar of Illinois, the State Supreme Court of Illinois, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and any other similar entity regulating the admission to the practice of law;
g. Any and all other documents, materials, and papers having any relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship,
denizenship, and national origin of Defendant Barack Obama;
h. Any and all documents, materials, and papers having any
relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship, denizenship, and national origin of Defendant’s father, Barack Obama, Sr.
i. All correspondence between Defendant Barack Obama and
any other person, firm, political party, or entity discussing
Defendant’s status vel non as a natural born Citizen pursuant to
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
Defendant will note that the preceding items are requested hereby, whether they pertain to Defendant under his name Barack Obama or any other name, including but not limited to Barack Hussein Obama II; Barry Soetoro; Barry Soebarkah; Barry Obama, or the like.
http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Swensson-PowellvObama,NoticetoProduce,GeorgiaBallotAccessChallenge.pdf
Good one. I still wonder why Duncan Sunahara’s lawyer didn’t ask for the same waiver that Barry got. Anything going on with his case?
Here it comes folks. produce all yur documents. He’ll take em into his chambers and come out with” Well, it looks like everything is legit and in order” case closed. No, I hope not and it sure has potential. I just hope this doesn’t get sciped like everything else, otherwise this is an issue that’s going to turn up DEaD>
I would imagine that any in camera session would include all plaintiff’s attorneys. Then, like the unethical progressives who support Bradley Manning, Anonymous, and Assange, nobody can complain when a court clerk just happens to leak the truth.
Motion for Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge
9. The foregoing cited authorities place the entire burden of proof upon Defendant Obama “to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office.” See Haynes v Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000). Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell are not required, and should not be required, “to disprove anything regarding [Defendant Obama's] eligibility to run for office….” Id.
10. The rules set forth in the preceding paragraph reflect the
holding of the Georgia Supreme Court in the cited action.
However, Plaintiffs submit that these rules make sense in the
context of the instant actions, where not one shred of evidence of Defendant Obama’s eligibility, as a “natural born Citizen,” to hold the Office of the President of the United States is before this Court or has been presented to the Georgia Secretary of State.
Apparently, the sole document which initiated Defendant’s attempt to be placed on the Georgia ballot is the November 1, 2011 letter from Georgia Democratic Party Chair Mike Berlon to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp (a copy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). Oddly enough, however, defense counsel seems, according to a statement he made in a motion to quash in one of the parallel cases to the instant cases 1, to somehow be contending that the fact that Defendant Obama currently occupies the presidency is, in itself, evidence of Defendant Obama’s constitutional eligibility to that office. On the contrary, “there is [no] presumption, at least not a conclusive presumption, that a person named or appointed to an office…was eligible and qualified to hold the office. Such qualification or eligibility depends upon facts which, when challenged and drawn in question in a proper judicial proceeding, is a judicial question to be determined by the courts.” Malone v Minchew, 170 Ga. 687, 690-691, 153 S.E. 773 (1930).
http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Swensson-
PowellvObama,MotionforDeterminationofPlacementofBurdenofProof,GeorgiaBallotAccessChallenge.pdf
Give me a break, I am so tired of that ” he’s eligible because he’s there. This means he legit. Yeah, there’s a rattlesnake in the house. I want to know how it got in,make sure it was poisonous and was for sure a Rattlesnake only after I removed him from my house. I ain’t waiting to find out after he’s bit somebody.
And removing a rattlesnake is a very tedious operation. “Oh no ,we don’t let poisous snakes in our house. Are you sure that’s a rattlesnake,if he’s in my house, then he can’t be a poisonous snake. OK so how do I check? Well he’s got all the markings of one and that yellow belly. But the sign on my door says it’s poisonous snake proof so he’s OK. he’s harmless. Ouch, Ouch! Guess I should have gotten my trusty venoumous snake guide out and checked to verify. OOOH, that’s not good.
Breaking: Georgia Judge Denies Obama’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE WILL PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY
by Sharon Rondeau
Judge Michael Malihi has denied a Motion to Quash Subpoenas submitted by Barack Hussein Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski
(Jan. 20, 2012) — 11:45 a.m., ET – Atty. Orly Taitz informed The Post & Email moments ago that Georgia Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi has denied Obama counsel’s request to quash subpoenas requesting original documentation of Obama’s birth, aliases and social security number.
Taitz will be posting the order from the judge on her website.
This is a developing story.
Wow………….I pray that the American people finally get to know the TRUTH!
ohhhhh……wow..
Whooo Hoooo! Crossing fingers and toes! Finally, do we really have a Judge? Did the judge really decide that Obama IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW?
This has passport photos of Stanley Ann Dunham that I had not seen before. You might want to add them to you photos file if they are not already there.
Ann Dunham passport file, sent to Chris Strunk
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=30522
This is the passport file. There are 4 photos of Ann. Four? Sr. moment..have we seen all four before? Checking our photo file. We have them, but it is a combination photo of all four together.
These photos look doctored in the Strunk file. They are large enough to see. Look at the one photo where one side of her face is blurred. Another they added something to the eyes to make them larger.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ann-Dunham-passport-file-sent-to-Chris-Strunk.pdf
It always amazes me that:
1. Lolo’s DOB can change on these forms. Was he born in ’35 or ’36. We saw the same thing with Barack, Srs. immigration papers.
2. Were Stanley and Lolo married on 3-5-64 or 3-15-65? How do you get these dates wrong?
3. Stanley’s father’s DOB is 1-23-18 on one form and 3-23-18 on another.
Exactly. Nothing is real. Everything is fungible. That’s how it is in your family, too, isn’t it?
I mean, Grandpa’s date of birth just jumps all over the place, depending upon whom you ask.
In fact, sometimes Mom died in 1970 and other times, it’s 1995! And they can’t even decide on a cause of death. Might be uterine cancer. Might be ovarian cancer. Still, having serious SYMPTOMS and being opened up to have an appendix removed, the physicians as well as all the nurses and attendants at the surgery, completely missed seeing that far-gone cancer.
Lolo and Ann married before her divorce from BHO Sr. was final. That’s the way I read those so-called real documents.
Neither husband knows when he was born. SAD doesn’t remember her own anniversaries.
It is truly amazing. You’d think ALL those biographers would pin it down. Wouldn’t you? Ask for some proof?
Bridgette, we discussed this somewhat on the Administrator’s Thread, on account of the fact that the East-West Center had SADOS’s PASSPORT photo to put on their 50th anniversary celebratory publication BEFORE the passport was released to Strunk. We also discussed it here: http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/top-fourteen-signatures-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama-soetoro-doe/comment-page-1/#comment-59626 with Dr. P. and in relation to the bogus SADOS signatures on those documents.
Taitz Files Opposition to Obama Motion to Quash Subpoena
January 20
Opposition to Barack Obama’s Motion to Quash Subpoena
3. Defendant states that he “made document available to the
general public by placing it on his web site”. Since when is an
image posted on line, on a website, represents a document,
admissible in a court of law or anywhere else for that matter?
When U.S. citizens are applying for their passports or drivers
licenses, do they tell the clerk at the counter to look on their
website at something they drew two days ago and posted
yesterday? One can post a laundry list on a website and call it a
birth certificate. To get a job as a janitor at the White House or anywhere else for that matter you need to show actual
documents.
Unfortunately, in most states in the nation and in the federal
government there is a loop hole, whereby individuals running for
high offices such as Senator or President can get into such office without ever showing any documents. It is an honor system, it was presumed, that one would not dare to run for such a high office without possessing necessary documents. However, as was
shown in exhibits provided with the First Amended Complaint,
there is evidence of fraud and forgery in Mr. Obama’s
identification records, such as his alleged long form birth
certificate and Social Security number, which necessitates the
need for subpoena for a certified long form birth certificate to be produced by Mr. Obama as well as the original to be produced by the Director of Health of Hawaii Loretta Fuddy.
4. Mr. Obama was properly served with the subpoena in the state
of Georgia, through his attorney Mr. Michael Jablonski, located at 260 Brighton road , N..E. Atlanta, GA 30309. Unless the city of Atlanta recently seceded from the state of Georgia, Mr. Obama
was served in the state of Georgia, subpoena is procedurally valid and Mr. Obama needs to comply, appear at trial and produce the documents requested.
5. Mr. Obama availed himself to the jurisdiction of the state of
Georgia and this court by virtue of submitting his candidacy for
presidency. Being a candidate is time consuming. Mr. Obama
recently embarked on a campaign bus tour across Mid West and
he is flying around the country attending multiple fundraisers in
order to build a cash war chest for the general election.
Campaigning consists of not only meeting with large donors and
seeking donations, but also of proving that one is eligible for the position and has proper identification papers, particularly since no one saw the original documents and an alleged copy is deemed to be a forgery. It is reasonable to seek subpoena for Mr. Obama to appear at trial and provide identification papers. Most of the arguments in this motion are redundant and were brought in Defendant’s motion to dismiss. It was denied. Defendant is under jurisdiction of the court and agreed to service of process in the state of Georgia through his attorney, who is located in Georgia. Service of subpoena was proper and valid.
6.6. Rules of the administrative court of GA state:
616-1-2-19
(1)Subpoenas may be issued which require the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of objects at
depositions or hearings provided by these Rules…
616-1-2-19
(5) A subpoena may be quashed by Administrative law Judge if it
appears that the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive or that
the objects sought are irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative and
unnecessary to a party’s preparation and presentation of its
position or that basic fairness dictates that subpoena should not
be enforced… (Emphasis added) Ga. Comp. R and regulations
616-1-2-.19(5)
Subpoena, served on Mr. Obama through his attorney is attached
as Exhibit 1.
It requests any and all certified birth records, certified long form birth certificate, certified school/university registration records, certified immigration/naturalization records, certified passport records and redacted certified SS-5 application under the names Barack(Barry) Soetoro, Barrack (Barry) Soebarkah and Barack (Barry) Obama and any and all combination of thereof and any other names used.
First, let’s look at the names. Plaintiffs provided the court with recently released passport records of Barack Obama’s mother,
Ann Dunham (Obama) Soetoro (Exhibit 2). In her passport records Barack Obama was listed under the last name Soebarkah. In south Asia it is common to create blended names.
Apparently his mother and Indonesian step father blended his first name Barack and his step father’s last name and created a
blended last name, Soebarkah. In his school registration #203
from Assissi School in Jakarta Indonesia he is listed under the
last name Soetoro. Nobody ever saw any identification documents
of Barack Obama, and we do not even know if Barack Obama is
his legal name. It is not unreasonable, irrelevant, immaterial,
cumulative, unfair or oppressive to seek to see identification
papers to ascertain, if there is a legal entity Barack Obama, to
ascertain, whether a man, who seeks to be on the ballot is Barack
Obama.
b. The issue of Obama’s eligibility was never adjudicated on the
merits. As eligibility questions were raised and polls were showing that some 70% of voters doubted his eligibility, in April of 2011 Mr. Obama posted on the internet, what he claimed to be a copy of his long form birth certificate. Affidavits by Felicito Papa (Exhibit 4), Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey attested to the fact, that according to their experience in the field of Adobe Illustrator, Typesetting and scanning, what was posted on the Internet, was not a copy of a document, but a forgery, created by cutting and pasting parts of different documents and filling in the blanks with computer graphics. Mr. Obama and White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler refused to present for examination the certified copy allegedly obtained in Hawaii. Director of Health of Hawaii refused to produce for examination the original document and nobody even knows whether the alleged 1961 original aged document even exists. If it existed, there was no reason to create a computer generated forgery. As such it is reasonable to seek from the defendant Mr. Obama to provide a valid certified copy of the long form birth certificate and to subpoena from the state of Hawaii the original document for examination. Moreover, Mr. Obama has posted his alleged birth certificate on mugs and
T-shirts; he taunted the plaintiffs and their attorney. After he
posted his alleged long form birth certificate on line, on mugs and T-shirts, he cannot claim privacy, department of Health cannot claim privacy, it is not unreasonable, unfair, cumulative,
oppressive, immaterial, or unnecessary to subpoena production
of a certified copy of the long form birth certificate in lieu of the alleged copy made public and in light of the reports of the alleged copy being a forgery.c.c. Considering the fact that in his Indonesian school records, Mr. Obama is listed as an Indonesian National, it is reasonable to subpoena his Immigration/Naturalization records and passport records. If indeed he came back from Indonesia as an Indonesian national and had to go through immigration/naturalization proceedings, he would be a naturalized citizen, not natural born and would not qualify for the position of the U.S. President, as the U.S. President is supposed to be Natural born. Similarly, it is reasonable to subpoena his school registration records, as those would reflect his legal name and citizenship. As such, immigration records, passport records and school registration records are not immaterial, unnecessary, cumulative, oppressive, unfair, unreasonable or irrelevant to be requested in the subpoena.
d. Lastly, as Mr. Obama published his tax records, he did not
flatten the PDF file. His full Social Security number became
available to the public, which was a Connecticut Social Security
number, even though Mr. Obama was never a resident of CT and
the number was never assigned to Barack Obama according to
E-Verify and SSNVS. Individuals, who are natural born citizens,
have no problem obtaining a valid Social Security number from
the state, where they reside. Lack of a valid Social Security
number is evidence of identity fraud. As such, subpoena of a
redacted SS-5 is not immaterial, irrelevant, oppressive,
cumulative, unreasonable, irrelevant, unnecessary or unfair.
Based on all of the above, all the documents requested in the
subpoena were properly requested and there are no grounds to
quash the subpoena, seeking production of the above documents.
~
An old axiom states, if you don’t like the message, kill the
messenger. The defense engaged in attacking the Plaintiffs’ counsel. This motion is not about the Plaintiffs’ counsel. This
motion is about the subpoena. Were the documents properly requested in the subpoena? The defense was supposed to address each document requested and show with specificity, why there is legal basis to quash this particular document. Defendant failed to do so, as the documents requested were relevant, material, reasonable, necessary, not cumulative, not oppressive and do not violate the notion of fairness. Gratuitous attack on Plaintiffs’ counsel, bringing unrelated cases and irrelevant matters in the motion to quash was unethical and sanctionable.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Opposition-to-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoena.pdf
Let us pray that the solo sung at the Apollo Theater is a swan song and we will shortly see Obama announce he’s not running for reelection. However, then we will be faced with you know who and what. A complicit person is no better than the original fraudster, especially one who played “Let’s Make a Deal” to keep her trap shut.
The Dems are screwed if the Grifter can’t get on the ballot. I could be wrong, but I’m not sure they have the legal standing, or the time, to put anyone else on the ballot at this point. As far as I know, the clock has already struck midnight. Anyone else know about this??
Good question. I don’t know their process.
May the Democratic dominoes fall where they may!