Main Menu

Judge to Obama: See you on Thursday

In what came as a big surprise to me, Judge Michael Malihi has denied  a motion from Barack Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski to quash a subpoena demanding that the President appear in Court in January 26th to give testimony and provide documents in the Georgia ballot access / eligibility cases collectively referred to as Farrar v. Obama.

In what can be seen only as a major setback to anti-Birther gloating, the Judge rejected Jablonski’s argument that Obama had already released all the relevant documents, saying that Jablonski had provided no legal authority for quashing the subpoena. Jablonski seemed particularly vulnerable when he argued that a Georgia state subpoena had to be served in Georgia. A subpoena can be served on an attorney and Obama’s attorney Jablonski is in Georgia. Much of the rest of Jablonski’s motion is a personal attack on Orly Taitz and of dubious legal merit.

While it is widely held that US Presidents cannot be arrested or indicted while still in office, they are not immune from civil action. One may recall that President Bill Clinton was compelled to give a deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit while he was President. (It would certainly make a lot more sense for Obama to give a deposition than to travel to Atlanta with all the collateral disruption inevitable from any Presidential visit.)

Some have jumped to criticize Mr. Jablonski for an inadequate defense. (I feel a definite leaping urge myself.) Indeed, one could read the Judge’s order as a blueprint for how Jablonski should have written his motion. Still, it’s is hard for this commentator to imagine President Obama in a courtroom in Atlanta next week and I think that Jablonski will submit a better argument and eventually prevail. After all, what can Barack Obama testify about where he was born that wouldn’t be hearsay?

I just want to point out that neither I, nor other anti-Birther writers I have seen so far, has offered a word of criticism directed at Judge Malihi. Our view of judges is based on the merits, not on whether their decisions make it easier  for Obama.

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Order on Motion to Quash Subpoenas, Georgia Ballot Challenge

, ,

270 Responses to Judge to Obama: See you on Thursday

  1. avatar
    Lord Basil January 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    [This comment was inappropriately posted on an article on another topic, showing a total disrespect for this online community, and causing me extra work cleaning up after him. I’ll move this to where it belongs (before it would have belonged on the Open Thread). If such abuse persists, I will remove free posting privileges for Lord Basil. Doc]

    HAH! The real news is that the Kenyan Marxist homosexual has been compelled to testify in the Georgia eligibility hearing.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78876832/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge

    Prepare for the Kenyan Marxist homosexual perp walk.

    ROTFLMAO!!!

  2. avatar
    Scientist January 20, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    Lord Basil: ROTFLMAO!!!

    I’ve always wondered about this expression. Can one really laugh one’s ass off? Probably the hardest I’ve ever laughed was when I saw “Spamalot!”, but my ass is still firmly attached.

  3. avatar
    Majority Will January 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Scientist: I’ve always wondered about this expression. Can one really laugh one’s ass off?Probably the hardest I’ve ever laughed was when I saw “Spamalot!”, but my ass is still firmly attached.

    If someone is dumb enough to roll around on a floor of running chainsaws, surgical instruments and broken glass, a birther is certainly a likely candidate for losing his or her ass while laughing about it.

    And our American Capitalist heterosexual President is kind and wise enough to understand the need for health care for even the dumbest bricks in our society.

  4. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Lord Basil, confused about his mythical person and President Obama, believes that President Obama will testify Even Dean Haskins at the Birther Summit knows what will happen. Jablonski will file an amended motion to quash the subpoena and provide the Judge, on the Judge’s request, with relevant citations as to why the President should not have to appear. This will be followed by an introduction of a certified birth certificate which will place the burden of proof on Orly. Orly’s unsupported accusations will fail as there is just no supporting substantive legal evidence.

    Be prepared for some birther tears.

  5. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    Predicto: Oh, that looks real. *snicker*

    Oh, it’s surely real. But that’s because Jablonski’s motion was poorly written and the Judge pointed out what he needs to do for the Judge to reconsider his motion which is to file an amended motion to quash and point out legal citations as to why the President should not be forced to testify.
    That should not be too hard and once Jablonski provides the Judge with the necessary citations, the Judge can rule based on the arguments rather than sua sponte raise the arguments as to why the subpoena should be quashed.

    It’s going to be quite a circus this thursday but the likelihood of President Obama showing up in court and testify are close to nil. Even if he were to attend, they would immediately introduce the COLB and the issue will have been settled.

  6. avatar
    Scientist January 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    A state court cannot compel a sitting President to do anything, certainly not force him to fly to Atlanta and appear. Even federal courts really can’t do that. When Clinton was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case he could have refused and there was nothing the judge could have done, except rule against him. Besides, what can the President say about his own birth- “I remember when we came out of the hospital there were ukeleles playing”? There is nothing relevant that he could testify about.

  7. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    Scientist: A state court cannot compel a sitting President to do anything, certainly not force him to fly to Atlanta and appear.

    Then file the appropriate rules, arguments, cite case-law, arguments. Jablonski has done nothing to give the Judge a reason to deny the subpoena.

  8. avatar
    Scientist January 20, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    I’m sure he will. But even if the judge were to grant a subpoena, it would be unenforceable. What will he do-send Georgia State Troopers to the White House?

  9. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    Scientist: I’m sure he will. But even if the judge were to grant a subpoena, it would be unenforceable. What will he do-send Georgia State Troopers to the White House?

    That’s a pretty poor argument. Under GA law, the Judge could hold President Obama in contempt and the publicity would hardly be relevant. In addition, the Judge may rule against the President, further complicating matters in Georgia. Not a very good game plan.

  10. avatar
    Scientist January 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    NBC: That’s a pretty poor argument. Under GA law, the Judge could hold President Obama in contempt and the publicity would hardly be relevant. In addition, the Judge may rule against the President, further complicating matters in Georgia. Not a very good game plan.

    As I pointed out in the other thread, this is a primary in a nomination race that Obama is the only contestant in. So he will be the nominee. And the Democratic nominee is automatically on the general election ballot.

    The politics is another issue., but Obama will be on the ballot in all 50 states no matter what.

  11. avatar
    Norbrook January 20, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    I think in the long run this bodes ill for the birther cases, since it seems that Judge Maliki is going to insist on properly quoted case law and references to actual laws and rules of procedure. A lot of the criticism I’ve seen directed at Mr. Jablonski is that he seems to be taking this far too lightly, and isn’t hammering down hard right off the bat. I think this denial will serve as a lesson to him that he needs to bring his “A game” to the court.

  12. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Norbrook: I think in the long run this bodes ill for the birther cases, since it seems that Judge Maliki is going to insist on properly quoted case law and references to actual laws and rules of procedure

    Malihi… But yes, the Judge is dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s.

  13. avatar
    Predicto January 20, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    Lord Basil: HAH! The real news is that the Kenyan Marxist homosexual has been compelled to testify in the Georgia eligibility hearing.http://www.scribd.com/doc/78876832/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas-Georgia-Ballot-ChallengePrepare for the Kenyan Marxist homosexual perp walk.ROTFLMAO!!!

    Oh, that looks real. *snicker*

    Looks like someone is pulling a scam on the birthers. On our Internet! How can that be?

  14. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Predicto: Looks like someone is pulling a scam on the birthers. On our Internet! How can that be?

    It is real. Sorry my friend but the Judge did indicate that there is likely a good reason to quash the motion but the Attorney did not really raise any reasons.

  15. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 20, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Well, this is an OMG moment. But I would not be to hasty to clam victory yet. Judge Malihi did not say Jablonski cannot resubmit. If he is smart, then there will be a resubmission in a few days.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    Don’t count your chickens before they’re sworn.

    Lord Basil: HAH! The real news is that the Kenyan Marxist homosexual has been compelled to testify in the Georgia eligibility hearing.

  17. avatar
    gorefan January 20, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    Jablonski is going to have a busy weekend, Judge Malihi also required him to respond by Monday on Hatfield’s Notice to Produce.

  18. avatar
    jayhg January 20, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    Yep, they’re dancing a jig over at free republic, calling this judge the best judge in the whole wide world, just before they call him a muslim loving traitor when President Obama is not compelled to come and the judge rules that he’s just fine for the Georgia ballot after all……..

  19. avatar
    Sean January 20, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    I’m curious. What documentation is missing and what would Obama’s presence in the courtroom accomplish legally?

  20. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 20, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    A subpena is not the same as an order compelling appearance. Jablonsi’s error was probably not in the paperwork he submitted, but to move to quash at all — he should have handled it the way they do in Hawaii — send Orly a letter saying that Obama would not be appearing — and put the burden on Orly to move to compel.

  21. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    gorefan: Jablonski is going to have a busy weekend, Judge Malihi also required him to respond by Monday on Hatfield’s Notice to Produce.

    Motion to produce
    Motion to determine burden of proof
    Amended Motion to quash subpoena

    And then motion to object to petition for rogatory

    And of course he will have to write “I shall not have associates file motions” 500 times…

  22. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Sean: I’m curious. What documentation is missing and what would Obama’s presence in the courtroom accomplish legally?

    Nothing. Exactly what Jablonski will have to argue more forcefully.

  23. avatar
    y_p_w January 20, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    Expelliarmus: A subpena is not the same as an order compelling appearance. Jablonsi’s error was probably not in the paperwork he submitted, but to move to quash at all — he should have handled it the way they do in Hawaii — send Orly a letter saying that Obama would not be appearing — and put the burden on Orly to move to compel.

    Yeah – but at least he got to state on the record that Orly has gone batty filing wacked out subpoenas all around the country where they can’t be enforced. Of course the judge didn’t respond to those accusations because Jablonski isn’t representing any of those people/offices, but it was interesting to see that on the record.

    Apparently the only thing Jablonski can respond to is the subpoena for his client to show up at the hearing, which I’m guessing he could have easily cited any number of different reasons for the judge to quash the subpoena. For some reason he’s not tipping his hand.

    I fully expect that he’s ready to spring a Hawaii COLB for the Prez, and there is no way Judge Malihi is going to deny that into evidence and certify that it is genuine.

  24. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    Let’s step back: The plaintiffs all have objected to Obama being certified as a Candidate for the primary elections as he has to show that he is constitutionally eligible. Assuming for the moment that this is also a requirement for the primary elections, and depending on who has the burden of proof, either party will have to make its case. It would be most expedient for Jablonski to introduce a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate or alternatively have the chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia testify to Obama’s eligibility. The COLB would establish prima facie evidence and Orly’s ‘experts’ have never seen the original certified copies so they can not testify to its accuracy. Of course, they do not even meet the standard for an ‘expert witness’. So Orly will have to accept the birth certificate while making unfounded accusations about fraud. Other issues such as the SSN will not even be heard as they are irrelevant to the eligibility. So Orly would be out. Then Hatfield will get his chance to argue the ‘two parent’ hypothesis but would be unable to present any substantive legal arguments. If he raises Minor v Happersett, the mere fact of quoting dicta which explicitly does not address the case, and ignoring US v WKA would quickly resolve the case as well.

    Of course they will all appeal but fail to overcome the necessary standard. The SOS may then accept the findings or reach his own determination. Again, the courts may be involved to resolve these issues but there is no doubt that President Obama will be on the 2012 General Ballot.

    And there is nothing the plaintiffs really can do here to overcome the prima facie nature. They can argue their poorly founded accusations of fraud, etc but that amounts to nothing legally relevant, just musings that lack in any relevance.

    It’s a non-issue but it will waste a lot of tax-payers’ money. In the end, the ruling may very well put to rest any future foolishness by the birthers but that is mostly wishful thinking.

  25. avatar
    JPotter January 20, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    Scientist: As I pointed out in the other thread, this is a primary in a nomination race that Obama is the only contestant in.So he will be the nominee.And the Democratic nominee is automatically on the general election ballot.

    The politics is another issue., but Obama will be on the ballot in all 50 states no matter what.

    I see anti-birthers state this a lot. However, if Obama is somehow held to be ineligible (which I believe is only possible if the burden of proof is placed on him, and then his representation blows it by neglect) for a primary, then why would he subsequently appear automatically in the general? The general election is not a national election, but a day of simultaneous state elections. If he were blocked from a primary, I assume there would be an appeal, and/or a re-fight over the general election, which is to my understanding, a completely separate event. Parties have nat’l conventions, and then report their nominees back to the states for placement on ballots. The states are not compelled by an outside power to place someone on the ballot, or are they? The voters vote for a slate of electors, pledged to vote for a party’s candidate. Could a state say, “No that guys isn’t eligible; no elector from this state is allowed to vote for an ineligible candidate?”

    I dunno, it goes in circles. Anyway, have seen a lot of posters taking this point for granted. No discussion of it. You know what they say about assumptions! 😉 So i’ll be the dumb one and ask the question. Are we, can we, be sure these primary challenges are ultimately meaningless?

  26. avatar
    y_p_w January 20, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    NBC: And there is nothing the plaintiffs really can do here to overcome the prima facie nature. They can argue their poorly founded accusations of fraud, etc but that amounts to nothing legally relevant, just musings that lack in any relevance.

    Just thinking aloud, but what if it were a case where we know there may be some well documented birth certification fraud? That hasn’t been the case with Hawaii save the hundred year old case of Sun-Yat Sen, and that was a long delayed filing rather than a certificate filed within a week of birth.

    Just imagine we’re talking someone with a registered Texas midwife birth or someone born in Puerto Rico (setting aside the whole “natural born citizen” in a territory debate). Now that might get interesting because we know the “prima facie” nature of those particular documents has been questioned before due to real documented rampant fraud, and not just the crazy rantings of birthers.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    I just want to say that I have been very impressed by the quality of the decisions by all of the judges whose work on these eligibility cases I have read. I feel good about the judiciary right now. I should note that I haven’t read anything on this topic from the current US Supreme Court.

    NBC: Malihi… But yes, the Judge is dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    One of Orly’s exhibits is the Inspector General’s report on vital records fraud.

    http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf

    I’ve mentioned it a few times. Fraud in Hawaii, though, was not on her list of exhibits nor anything I know a modern example of.

    y_p_w: Just thinking aloud, but what if it were a case where we know there may be some well documented birth certification fraud?

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    There is precedent for a state doing just that. Eldridge Cleaver, the nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party inn 1968, was denied a place in the general election in several states, including Hawaii. Because Cleaver was too young and therefore ineligible, the Supreme Court of Hawaii upheld the state’s right to exclude him. To my knowledge the case was not appealed in federal court. There are other examples of the exclusion of obviously ineligible candidates.

    JPotter: Could a state say, “No that guys isn’t eligible; no elector from this state is allowed to vote for an ineligible candidate?”

  30. avatar
    JPotter January 20, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I just want to say that I have been very impressed by the quality of the decisions by all of the judges whose work on these eligibility cases I have read

    Second that, Doc! No matter how ridiculous the cases appear, they must be taken seriously. Automatically dismissing suits like these would be a step toward fundamentalism, groupthink, tyranny of “common sense”.

    That, and establishing precedents may help to head off a repeat of this silliness. And my be helpful if there ever is a case of an ineligible president.

    Sometimes crazy turns out to be brilliant. Not this time, but sometimes.

  31. avatar
    G January 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    Great summary and recap of what is going on here. Much appreciated, thanks.

    NBC: Let’s step back: The plaintiffs all have objected to Obama being certified as a Candidate for the primary elections as he has to show that he is constitutionally eligible. Assuming for the moment that this is also a requirement for the primary elections, and depending on who has the burden of proof, either party will have to make its case. It would be most expedient for Jablonski to introduce a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate or alternatively have the chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia testify to Obama’s eligibility. The COLB would establish prima facie evidence and Orly’s experts’ have never seen the original certified copies so they can not testify to its accuracy. Of course, they do not even meet the standard for an expert witness’. So Orly will have to accept the birth certificate while making unfounded accusations about fraud. Other issues such as the SSN will not even be heard as they are irrelevant to the eligibility. So Orly would be out. Then Hatfield will get his chance to argue the two parent’ hypothesis but would be unable to present any substantive legal arguments. If he raises Minor v Happersett, the mere fact of quoting dicta which explicitly does not address the case, and ignoring US v WKA would quickly resolve the case as well.Of course they will all appeal but fail to overcome the necessary standard. The SOS may then accept the findings or reach his own determination. Again, the courts may be involved to resolve these issues but there is no doubt that President Obama will be on the 2012 General Ballot.And there is nothing the plaintiffs really can do here to overcome the prima facie nature. They can argue their poorly founded accusations of fraud, etc but that amounts to nothing legally relevant, just musings that lack in any relevance. It’s a non-issue but it will waste a lot of tax-payers’ money. In the end, the ruling may very well put to rest any future foolishness by the birthers but that is mostly wishful thinking.

  32. avatar
    aarrgghh January 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    now that the blind squirrel and worst lawyer in the known universe has been handed a nut that she thinks reads “you too just might be a winner …”, expect orly to triple down on every cargo cult ritual she thinks helped drop it at her feet. as hard as it might be to believe that the queen bee could get any more obnoxious, the intoxicating aroma of hard-won ultimate vindication putting new nitrous in her tank and will send her into new dimensions of arrogance and malpractice. she won’t let this go. orly will drag this out ’til the end of time.

  33. avatar
    Norbrook January 20, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    JPotter: I see anti-birthers state this a lot. However, if Obama is somehow held to be ineligible (which I believe is only possible if the burden of proof is placed on him, and then his representation blows it by neglect) for a primary, then why would he subsequently appear automatically in the general? The general election is not a national election, but a day of simultaneous state elections. If he were blocked from a primary, I assume there would be an appeal, and/or a re-fight over the general election, which is to my understanding, a completely separate event. Parties have nat’l conventions, and then report their nominees back to the states for placement on ballots. The states are not compelled by an outside power to place someone on the ballot, or are they? The voters vote for a slate of electors, pledged to vote for a party’s candidate.Could a state say, “No that guys isn’t eligible; no elector from this state is allowed to vote for an ineligible candidate?”

    A primary is separate from the general election. In the primary, the state political party is selecting nominees. In the general election, there’s a certification from the national political party, and at worst, the mess would (and probably will) start up again. In Georgia’s case, besides doubting that the birthers will succeed in this, they’d at most prevent the ballot from being filed in time for the primary, but subsequent legal challenges would have settled the issue by the time the general rolled around.

  34. avatar
    Dave January 20, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Here’s Dean Haskins take on this: Has Orly Actually Won!!! Won!!! Won???.

    A comment by NBC earlier in this thread was I think referring to this. Haskins presents the remarkably reality-based view that Jablonski will file an amended motion to quash, which will be granted, and even if it isn’t, Obama won’t show up on Thursday.

    Haskins does close with the hope that the other two ballot challenges that will be heard on Thursday will produce results.

  35. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 20, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

    Good evening, gentlemen. I realize that amongst you illustrious commentators my contribution necessarily pales. However, I feel it my solemn duty to once again respectfully request that you find it in your hearts to support Mr. Obama next week, come what may.

  36. avatar
    y_p_w January 20, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

    JPotter: Second that, Doc! No matter how ridiculous the cases appear, they must be taken seriously. Automatically dismissing suits like these would be a step toward fundamentalism, groupthink, tyranny of “common sense”. That, and establishing precedents may help to head off a repeat of this silliness. And my be helpful if there ever is a case of an ineligible president.Sometimes crazy turns out to be brilliant. Not this time, but sometimes.

    I remember preparing the paperwork for a pro se civil matter once. I was going through the proper procedures (I used a Nolo Press book, which the clerk said was a superb resource). I read that no matter how badly the paperwork was formed or filed, if there was no response in time then it resulted in a default judgement. One could even get details wrong, have exhibits that didn’t reflect what was entered on the standard form, and as long as the other party didn’t reply in time, it was over for them with almost no recourse.

    I certainly think that the judge in this case may be laughing his ass off at the amateurishness that Orly is presenting before the court. However, he seems to be very professional about the fact that once she sent the subpoena to his office, then Jablonski was responsible for doing everything correctly in order to get the motion to quash granted. I read the denial of the motion to quash, and it certainly read like he was saying “I know you probably have a case to quash, but I can’t do your work for you.” I’m guessing that Judge Malihi and Jablonski have probably met in court before, and he’s probably thinking “you can do better than that.”

  37. avatar
    Thrifty January 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    Scientist: I’ve always wondered about this expression.Can one really laugh one’s ass off?Probably the hardest I’ve ever laughed was when I saw “Spamalot!”, but my ass is still firmly attached.

    Yes, and as an Assless American since reading a particularly hilarious Ziggy comic in 1997, I take offense at your insensitive remarks.

  38. avatar
    JPotter January 20, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

    Norbrook: A primary is separate from the general election.In the primary, the state political party is selecting nominees.In the general election, there’s a certification from the national political party, and at worst, the mess would (and probably will) start up again.In Georgia’s case, besides doubting that the birthers will succeed in this, they’d at most prevent the ballot from being filed in time for the primary, but subsequent legal challenges would have settled the issue by the time the general rolled around.

    Well, dang, Norbrook, I had just crafted a masterful, witty response, in which I explained the birther’s chance of success = unlikely10% … a sum that works out to 0.000063 0.0000063% ….but then my browser ate it. Here I go again.

    The 3 unlikelihoods, which would be a cumulative sequence, were:

    1. Burden of proof shifted entirely to Obama.
    2. Defense team fails / refuses to respond.
    3. Judge awards an opinion that—rather than the birther having proved Obama ineligible!—Obama failed to prove eligibility.
    3.1. Georgia SoS, in order to avoid the heat of making a decision, enforces opinion out of indignation or on procedural grounds.

    Note that this whole sequence, the only possible way for the birthers to previal that I can see, is classic conspiracist’s thinking in action. They cannot *prove* that Obama is ineligible, with logical, documented refutations of the evidence he has of his eligibility. What they can do, is ask unreasonable question that don’t need answering, in an attempt to force the other side to prove the birthers wrong, when in fact, it is the birthers place to be proving Obama wrong. We see it play out here with troll after troll.

    This is precisely why the birther case has no chance. Obama and his party have stated that he is eligible. It’s up to the challengers to prove him ineligible, or at least make a convincing case that his eligibility is in question. There is no possibility of a “default” win for the birthers, because their entire case is crap, and even if Obama’s team doesn’t show, the judge will toss it. It will come down to “Take our word for it, he’s ineligible.”

    If anyone can tell me how the birthers win even if a defense is not presented, I’d like to hear it.

    My point about the primaries was that they are separate … as Norbrook has pointed out, and Doc’s anecdote weighed in. These challenges aren’t exactly meaningless. And that states don’t automatically place a national party’s candidate on the ballot. No matter which way this primary stuff goes, it’ll be refought. However, a good solid, precedent set now will hopefully curtail this crap. At least make other challenges exercises in rinse and repeat, if not halp them disappear entirely.

  39. avatar
    Chris January 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    I thought that Obama’s first task in court would be to establish/prove that his (legal) name is B.H. Obama. There seems to be evidence that his name in Indonesia was different and that there are no records of him changing it back to B.H. Obama upon returning to the USA.

    Other tasks of this nature will also be on the agenda, so it will be a busy day for BHO.

    Regarding the subpoena to appear in court, here is a tip:

    Clinton v. Jones – 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0520_0681_ZS.html

    “The court explained that the President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens, that no case had been found in which an official was granted immunity from suit for his unofficial acts, and that the rationale for official immunity
    is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue. The court also rejected the argument that, unless immunity is available, the threat of judicial interference with the Executive Branch would violate separation of powers.

    Held:

    1. This Court need not address two important constitutional issues not encompassed within the questions presented by the certiorari petition: (1) whether a claim comparable to petitioner’s assertion of immunity might succeed in a state tribunal, and (2) whether a court may compel the President’s attendance at any specific time or place. Pp. 7-9.

    2. Deferral of this litigation until petitioner’s Presidency ends is not constitutionally required. Pp. 7-28.

    etc etc etc

  40. avatar
    Joey January 21, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    Saipan Annie:
    Good evening, gentlemen. I realize that amongst you illustrious commentators my contribution necessarily pales. However, I feel it my solemn duty to once again respectfully request that you find it in your hearts to support Mr. Obama next week, come what may.

    Nah, I prefer to support the rule of law over any particular politician of any political ideology and then let the chips fall where they may. Mr. Obama is a grown up with a Harvard Law School degree. He can take care of himself.

  41. avatar
    G January 21, 2012 at 12:20 am #

    Nope. Sorry, but you simply have too big of a misunderstanding of what this hearing process will entail.

    There are simply no official records of BHO ever legally changing his name to anything else – period. The name he uses today is the same as what is on his birth record and every official government document that has come to light and mentioning him.

    The Indonesian school form (which also notes his birthplace as Hawaii, BTW) is simply not evidence of anything, as having his step-father fill that out doesn’t require any validation at all. Simply put – it is not evidence of anything.

    Nor are the SSN garbage, etc. relevant.

    Sorry, but this hearing is simply about meeting the basic GA requirements of vetting that a candidate is eligible to be on their ballot. Only topics directly relevant to answering that question will be addressed in this hearing and not meaningless side-tangents with no real evidence to support them.

    Simply put, DNC confirmation of meeting any application requirements (including fees, signatures, etc) and any signed statement attesting to being aware of and meeting the qualifications for the office should fully suffice to address the actual jurisdictional issues before the hearing. If further evidence is sought, the COLB can be presented and that pretty much closes the door on these cases right there.

    None of the other birtherism mythology hoo-hah that you Birthers wish to bring into this are relevant at all and are simply outside of the bounds of what this hearing is really about.

    Sorry, the court won’t turn into some crazy fishing expedition for you guys. Nor will Obama be there to testify. Won’t happen.

    Chris: I thought that Obama’s first task in court would be to establish/prove that his (legal) name is B.H. Obama. There seems to be evidence that his name in Indonesia was different and that there are no records of him changing it back to B.H. Obama upon returning to the USA.
    Other tasks of this nature will also be on the agenda, so it will be a busy day for BHO.

  42. avatar
    G January 21, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    Agreed! Well said.

    Joey: Nah, I prefer to support the rule of law over any particular politician of any political ideology and then let the chips fall where they may. Mr. Obama is a grown up with a Harvard Law School degree. He can take care of himself.

  43. avatar
    Chris January 21, 2012 at 12:25 am #

    G:
    Nope.Sorry, but you simply have too big of a misunderstanding of what this hearing process will entail.

    There are simply no official records of BHO ever legally changing his name to anything else – period.The name he uses today is the same as what is on his birth record and every official government document that has come to light and mentioning him.

    The Indonesian school form (which also notes his birthplace as Hawaii, BTW) is simply not evidence of anything, as having his step-father fill that out doesn’t require any validation at all.Simply put – it is not evidence of anything.

    Nor are the SSN garbage, etc. relevant.

    Sorry, but this hearing is simply about meeting the basic GA requirements of vetting that a candidate is eligible to be on their ballot.Only topics directly relevant to answering that question will be addressed in this hearing and not meaningless side-tangents with no real evidence to support them.

    Simply put, DNC confirmation of meeting any application requirements (including fees, signatures, etc) and any signed statement attesting to being aware of and meeting the qualifications for the office should fully suffice to address the actual jurisdictional issues before the hearing.If further evidence is sought, the COLB can be presented and that pretty much closes the door on these cases right there.

    None of the other birtherism mythology hoo-hah that you Birthers wish to bring into this are relevant at all and are simply outside of the bounds of what this hearing is really about.

    Sorry, the court won’t turn into some crazy fishing expedition for you guys.Nor will Obama be there to testify.Won’t happen.

    I guess will have to wait and see.

    I recall that a large number of comments on this blog predicted that the motion to quash — the way it was written — will be accepted.

    Let’s wait and see.

  44. avatar
    JPotter January 21, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Chris: I recall that a large number of comments on this blog predicted that the motion to quash — the way it was written — will be accepted.

    Odd …. I don’t recall any discussion of it at all …. but it could be just me. Didn’t even hear of a motion to quash until today!

  45. avatar
    Thrifty January 21, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    NBC:
    Lord Basil, confused about his mythical person and President Obama, believes that President Obama will testify Even Dean Haskins at the Birther Summit knows what will happen. Jablonski will file an amended motion to quash the subpoena and provide the Judge, on the Judge’s request, with relevant citations as to why the President should not have to appear. This will be followed by an introduction of a certified birth certificate which will place the burden of proof on Orly. Orly’s unsupported accusations will fail as there is just no supporting substantive legal evidence.

    Be prepared for some birther tears.

    So that’s what competent lawyers do after making an honest mistake. But ask yourself, WWOD? What would Orly do?

  46. avatar
    JPotter January 21, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Norbrook I had just composed a brilliant reply, explaining that the birther’s chance of success = unlikely10% … a sum that works out to 0.000063 0.0000063% ….but then my browser ate it. Here I go again.

    The 3.1 unlikelihoods, which would be a cumulative sequence, are:

    1. Burden of proof shifted entirely to Obama.
    2. Defense team fails / refuses to respond.
    3. Judge awards an opinion that—rather than the birther having proved Obama ineligible!—Obama failed to prove eligibility.
    3.1. State SoS, in order to avoid the heat of making a decision, enforces opinion out of indignation or on procedural grounds.

    Note that this whole sequence, the only possible way for the birthers to prevail that I can see, is classic denialism in action. They cannot *prove* that Obama is ineligible, with logical, documented refutations of the evidence he has of his eligibility. What they can do, is ask unreasonable question that don’t need answering, in an attempt to force the other side to prove the birthers wrong, when in fact, it is the birthers place to be proving Obama wrong. We see it play out here with troll after troll.

    This is precisely why the birther case has no chance. Obama and his party have stated that he is eligible. It’s up to the challengers to prove him ineligible, or at least make a convincing case that his eligibility is in question. There is no possibility of a “default” win for the birthers, because their entire case is crap, and even if Obama’s team doesn’t show, the judge will toss it. It will come down to “Take our word for it, he’s ineligible.”

    If anyone can tell me how the birthers win even if a defense is not presented, I’d like to hear it.

    My point about the primaries was that they are separate … as Norbrook has pointed out, and Doc’s anecdote weighed in. These challenges aren’t exactly meaningless. And that states don’t automatically place a national party’s candidate on the ballot. No matter which way this primary stuff goes, it’ll be refought. However, a good solid, precedent set now will hopefully curtail this crap. At least make other challenges exercises in rinse and repeat, if not halp them disappear entirely.

  47. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 21, 2012 at 12:42 am #

    Chris:
    I thought that Obama’s first task in court would be to establish/prove that his (legal) name isB.H. Obama. There seems to be evidence that his name in Indonesia was different and that there are no records of him changing it back to B.H. Obama upon returning to the USA.

    Nope. The Georgia law requires him only to establish eligibility, which is (1) natural born citizenship (citizen from birth), (2) age 35 or older, and (3) a minimum of 14 years residence in the United States. Nothing about name.

    The lovely thing about the COLB is that it serves as proof of two of the necessary eligibility requirements. it also provides prima facie evidence of his name. The burden to disprove any of these falls on Orly, and she has to come up with some pretty powerful evidence that affirmatively — not by innuendo — rebuts the presumption accorded to the facts stated on the vital record.

    Different evidence carries different weight. One the one hand is a certified vital record. The State of Hawaii in certifying it is attesting to facts. On the other hand, the only evidence of any other name is an unauthenticated and inadmissible foreign school record that bears no certification at all. One is virtually irrefutable, the statement of the State of Hawaii, admissible under the rules of evidence because it does not fall within the definition of hearsay, and entitled to a lot of weight as to credibility. The other is an out-of-court declaration by any unknown person, in fact, hearsay with hearsay, and has no objective indicia of reliability; it is entitled to almost no weight as evidence.

  48. avatar
    Chris January 21, 2012 at 12:44 am #

    Hers is the DOC’s opening statement:

    In what came as a big surprise to me, Judge Michael Malihi has denied a motion from Barack Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski to quash a subpoena demanding that the President appear in Court in January 26th to give testimony and provide documents in the Georgia ballot access / eligibility cases collectively referred to as Farrar v. Obama.

    Should we expect a big surprise on January 26? Who knows? Let’s wait and see.

    JPotter: In what came as a big surprise to me, Judge Michael Malihi has denied a motion from Barack Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski to quash a subpoena demanding that the President appear in Court in January 26th to give testimony and provide documents in the Georgia ballot access / eligibility cases collectively referred to as Farrar v. Obama.

  49. avatar
    JPotter January 21, 2012 at 12:49 am #

    Chris: Hers is the DOC’s opening statement:

    …. and that is “a large number of comments”? LOL! Just admit when busted, it’s easier.

    … and why are you attributing Doc’s writing to me? That’s a definite insult to Doc.

  50. avatar
    Chris January 21, 2012 at 12:56 am #

    What should B.H. Obama do, when asked in court (under oath) : (1) what is your legal name? (2) Do you have other legal names?

    His answers (under oath) may surface as evidence in other future hearing/trials, so there are strong incentives for him to tell the truth.

    Let’s wait and see.

  51. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    JPotter: Odd …. I don’t recall any discussion of it at all …. but it could be just me. Didn’t even hear of a motion to quash until today!

    I recall what was discussed was that Jablonski was such an experienced and qualified attorney that there was no way that he wouldn’t write up a motion to quash that wasn’t rock solid with cites of law and precedent where the judge couldn’t possibly deny it. Instead he went all Orly, complaining about all the poorly served subpoenas that Orly filed that he seemed to forget to cite some sort of reason why his particular subpoena should be quashed. I guess he said all the stuff that we would have liked him to state, but he forgot that he wasn’t dealing with the faithful, but rather with the judge.

    As some stated, even if the subpoena isn’t quashed, there’s no way that the judge would compel either. As someone said, it’s beyond his pay grade. I sincerely doubt he has the power to impound Air Force One. I’d just like to see Orly try to get him to compel President Obama to show up, because then Judge Malihi will probably tell Orly that she’s got to do better.

  52. avatar
    Chris January 21, 2012 at 1:01 am #

    JPotter:

    Sorry for attributing the quote to you. I am new on this blog and I have difficulties with the editor.

    DOC’s quote is just an example. It is not a compilation of all the relevant comments on this blog regarding the “surprise”.

    We should expect many more surprises before the 2012 elections, in this and other courts.

  53. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 1:46 am #

    Chris: What should B.H. Obama do, when asked in court (under oath) : (1) what is your legal name? (2) Do you have other legal names?

    Barack Hussein Obama

    Other legal names? In what sense legal names? Aliases? Like Barry? And what relevance does this have for his eligibility?

  54. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 1:52 am #

    Chris: There seems to be evidence that his name in Indonesia was different and that there are no records of him changing it back to B.H. Obama upon returning to the USA.

    There is a school record which allegedly shows him as Barry Soetoro iirc. Are you suggesting that this was an official name change? By whom? Or was it to be expected that his parents may use his father’s last name when registering? I find the question of little relevance.

    When the question is asked, I am sure, if Barack is even going to attend, that the question would be objected to as irrelevant. This is not a fishing expedition for foolish claims. But let me indulge you. Do you have any evidence that President Obama changed his legal name in the United States? Even if he ‘adopted’ the name of Barry Soetoro, that is unlikely to have been a legal name change, but rather one of convenience as it would be easier for him to attend school. It is not even clear who entered the name in the record, perhaps the record keeper assumed that he had taken his step-father’s last name.

    Do you really believe that there will be an opportunity to ask these meaningless questions? They have NO relevance to the eligibility issue and there will be no discovery.

  55. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 1:56 am #

    I recall that a large number of comments on this blog predicted that the motion to quash — the way it was written — will be accepted.

    There were quite a few at the Fogbow who lamented the poor quality of the motion. Even the Judge had to hint at the lack of references to support the lawyer’s claims, although he did hint that there could be such references found.

    So 1) the subpoena gets quashed 2) the subpoena does not get quashed. The lawyer will introduce the certified birth certificate and that’s the end of it.

    There will be no ‘big surprises’ but I do understand there are big hopes. Remember that the President has shown himself to be natural born. All it takes is to have the judge take judicial notice.

  56. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:01 am #

    Chris: We should expect many more surprises before the 2012 elections, in this and other courts.

    Sure, many more will try, like the 90 or so in the previous election cycle. There is no reason to believe that they will be more successful as the President by any credible source is a natural born citizen.
    But that will not stop the birther from its foolish quest. The ruling in this case may very well be the downfall of future attempts.
    In California, a new challenge is already running up against the precedent by Keyes v Bowen. In Indiana, there is the Court in Ankeny v Daniels which ruled that a child born on soil to two alien parents is a natural born citizen.

    Bring it on I’d say. I can’t wait for the entertainment.

  57. avatar
    Chris January 21, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Regarding B.H Obama’s names, do you remember his name on the application form that his mother submitted for renewal of her passport?

    In any case, consider a third question:

    (3) what name(s) have you used on your application for College loans?

    Apparently Mike Huckabee knows something that we don’t know:

    During a Fox News appearance this evening, Mike Huckabee suggested that Mitt Romney, who has come under fire for refusing to immediately release his tax returns, respond by challenging President Obama to release his college application materials in order to “show whether he got any loans as a foreign student.”

    Speaking on The O’Reilly Factor, Huckabee said of Romney, “Let him make this challenge: ‘I’ll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and the copy of his admission records to show whether he got any loans as a foreign student. When he releases that, talk to me about my tax returns.'”

    See the full report and the video at
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201200016

  58. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:08 am #

    I recall what was discussed was that Jablonski was such an experienced and qualified attorney that there was no way that he wouldn’t write up a motion to quash that wasn’t rock solid with cites of law and precedent where the judge couldn’t possibly deny it.

    So far both his motions were quite poorly argued as they lacked in supporting case law, rulings. The motion to dismiss was by many on the Fogbow seen as quite substandard. The Judge in this case was kind enough to hint that the lawyer gets his act together and file an amended motion with some references, arguments that would allow the Judge to quash the subpoena.
    Under Georgia law there are quite a few possibilities and I am sure the lawyer is doing his homework this time.

    He will have his homework laid out for him 😉

  59. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:14 am #

    Chris: Regarding B.H Obama’s names, do you remember his name on the application form that his mother submitted for renewal of her passport?

    I am not sure if I have seen his name on the form. There was an annotation Soebarkah but it’s hard to determine what this means. It’s not a first/last name.

    (3) what name(s) have you used on your application for College loans?

    Another silly rumor with no facts. Again, the Judge is not going to allow such foolish ideas to be introduced without some legal foundation.

    Simple… None of these amount to anything but minor mysteries and without any real evidence (and Orly has been lectured on what such should look like), the Judge will just ignore. Nothing has any relevance to his eligibility so again, why do you believe a Judge would allow such questioning to proceed? It’s irrelevant. Simple.

  60. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 2:19 am #

    NBC: Barack Hussein Obama

    Correction: Barack Hussein Obama II.

    You think that maybe someone claims that nothing he signed is valid because he doesn’t use his full name including the II part? I guess then most Presidents would have issues, including Bill Clinton. Now he had actually had a different legal name, as well as a period where he used his later name unofficially.

  61. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:19 am #

    Let me remind Chris that the issue at hand is quite simple: Is President Obama constitutionally eligible? The plaintiffs have made their ‘arguments’. Many of the arguments have no relevance to the eligibility. There are two ‘hypotheses’: 1) President Obama was not born on US soil 2) President Obama was born on US soil but under a novel interpretation, he is still not eligible.

    Once the birth certificate is introduced, the remaining issue will be 2) and the Judge will reject the argument as lacking in legal merits. As to all the other Orly ‘accusations’, this is not the place to have them heard, as they have no relevance to President Obama’s eligibility. When there is substantive evidence that suggests that he committed SSN fraud then the Courts will investigate when an Attorney General brings an indictment. So far the claims however amount to nothing of substance. The Judge is not going to allow an issue which should be resolved in criminal court if ever, to be argued. If Orly has any evidence that fraud was committed, she can petition the AG and if he refuses, well… Most likely that is because there is just no foundation for the accusations.

    Sorry to disappoint you Chris.

  62. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:22 am #

    y_p_w: Correction: Barack Hussein Obama II.

    I stand corrected. But really, there is no evidence that the President ever changed his name legally, certainly not in the US. At best there is a school record in Indonesia that shows his name to be Barry Soetoro. That’s it. So far it is neither admissible in the Court nor does it show that President Obama changed his name. Surely Chris and others understand that legal evidence is more than pointing to a minor ‘mystery’ that can be explained in so many different ways. The plaintiffs would have to do much better.

  63. avatar
    Chris January 21, 2012 at 2:32 am #

    Let me remind NBC that the Judge and lawyers must establish the exact identity of the person claiming that he is legally called H.B. Obama (or whatever).

    I have no idea what the Judge and lawyers will do about this on January 26.

    Since you know, NBC, you’ll not be surprised.

    I, and possibly some other visitors to this blog, are not that fortunate!

    Be happy!

  64. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:43 am #

    Chris: Let me remind NBC that the Judge and lawyers must establish the exact identity of the person claiming that he is legally called H.B. Obama (or whatever).

    That’s simple. Provide the passport that Orly has subpoena’ed. Any fantasies about Obama’s names is then irrelevant. I am not sure about many things the Judge may do but I do realize that a Judge would never be this foolish to allow the issue to get into issues for which there exist no foundation in legal evidence.
    Once the burden of proof returns to the plaintiffs they have to make a legal case based on legal evidence. They have none.

  65. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:46 am #

    Now I could imagine that the plaintiffs will introduce into evidence the admission by Obama that his father is Jor-El and that he was born on Krypton.
    But then again, there is as much evidence for that as there is for so many of the musings by birthers. If the birthers have any evidence to rebut the prima facie nature of the passport and birth certificate then let them present it. But it is clear that they have none.

  66. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 2:50 am #

    Chris:
    Let me remind NBC that the Judge and lawyersmust establish the exact identity of the person claiming that he islegally called H.B. Obama (or whatever).

    I have no idea what the Judge and lawyers will do about this on January 26.

    Since you know, NBC, you’ll not be surprised.

    I,and possibly some other visitors to this blog,are not that fortunate!

    Be happy!

    I’d be surprised it they don’t stipulate that he is Barack Hussein Obama II. That’s going to be a non-issue. If they try that on the judge, I think he’ll absolutely go off on any attorney claiming it’s some sort of impostor in the White House.

    Orly might try all sorts of things (SS records, school transcripts, supposed other names, accusations of a “criminal enterprise” from the State of Hawaii) where the judge is going to tell her they’re irrelevant (and I’m sure the defense will object), but my understanding is that the other parties will start off with the assumption that Obama was born in Hawaii and are going to try and advance the two-parent requirement to be a natural-born citizen for Presidential eligibility.

  67. avatar
    Whatever4 January 21, 2012 at 2:55 am #

    Chris:
    Regarding B.H Obama’s names, do you remember his name on the application form that his mother submitted for renewal of her passport?

    In any case, consider a third question:

    (3) what name(s) have you used on your application for College loans?

    Apparently Mike Huckabee knows something that we don’t know:

    See the full report and the video at
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201200016

    Here’s the file containing the passport application you asked about. It’s on the 4th page. The word Soebarkah appears under the child’s name, it’s all crossed out. There’s not much one could infer from that. Maybe it means “Exclude” in Indonesian. Maybe it’s the clerk’s name. Maybe it’s a nickname. It has little meaning on its own.
    http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/35161730-Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

    Huckabee doesn’t know anything beyond the long-debunked April Fool’s letter from the Americans for Freedom of Information, a non-existent group. The problem with the claim that Obama received foreign student aid is that there is no reason for him to have done so. People who claim Obama attended as a foreign student to get student aid haven’t mentioned what student aid that would have been.

    Foreign undergraduates don’t get US student aid. Fulbrights are for graduates students and above. Indonesia wouldn’t have given aid to a student without requiring extensive applications, transcripts (from a Hawaiian school?) and a usually a contract to return to the country for a specified number of years. It would be much easier for Obama to get regular student aid as a US citizen. He was a graduate of an elite school, he was one of only a tiny number of black students in that school, his mother’s finances and non-supporting father meant very little if any family contribution (grandparents contributions aren’t counted in the application), and he had a more-diverse-than-normal background (absent father, 4 years spent in another country, good writing skills for his essays, basketball team) and probably looked pretty good to the selection committee. No reason at all to register as a foreign student.

  68. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    y_p_w: Orly might try all sorts of things (SS records, school transcripts, supposed other names, accusations of a “criminal enterprise” from the State of Hawaii) where the judge is going to tell her they’re irrelevant (and I’m sure the defense will object), but my understanding is that the other parties will start off with the assumption that Obama was born in Hawaii and are going to try and advance the two-parent requirement to be a natural-born citizen for Presidential eligibility.

    So who is getting first dibs, Jablonski, Orly or Hatfield? Orly’s musings can be laid to rest quickly with a birth certificate. Hatfield may then propose his somewhat novel claims about two citizen parents but fail to undermine the eligibility of the candidate.

  69. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 3:01 am #

    Whatever4: Here’s the file containing the passport application you asked about. It’s on the 4th page. The word Soebarkah appears under the child’s name, it’s all crossed out.

    It is likely that Obama got his own passport at that time and he was no longer on his mother’s passport. After all, Dunham may have understood that Obama may have to be able to travel alone.
    Again, it does not amount to much of anything

  70. avatar
    Lupin January 21, 2012 at 3:01 am #

    This crazy yankee-bashing Frenchman believes you’re treating your Presidents too much like a royal family already (not just Obama, you understand), so in the principle I think it would be a breath of fresh air to see him appear properly before a court; although in this specific case, I do think it’s a waste of everybody’s time.

  71. avatar
    Chris January 21, 2012 at 3:07 am #

    Folks: I have to go to work. I’ll come back on January 27 to resume the chat.

    It is a pity that you’ll not be surprised!

    Cheers, Chris

  72. avatar
    Whatever4 January 21, 2012 at 3:24 am #

    Chris:
    Let me remind NBC that the Judge and lawyersmust establish the exact identity of the person claiming that he islegally called H.B. Obama (or whatever).

    I have no idea what the Judge and lawyers will do about this on January 26.

    Since you know, NBC, you’ll not be surprised.

    I,and possibly some other visitors to this blog,are not that fortunate!

    Be happy!

    The usual proof of identity would be a passport or driver’s license. Fortunately President Obama has several legal passports (including a black diplomatic passport) that show he was born in Hawaii and attests that he has proved his identity to the legal satisfaction of the US Department of State. At that point, it would be up to the Plaintiff to provide evidence to the contrary. Apart from the ramblings of a few switched-baby conspiracy theorists, there’s no real chance of impeaching that.

    Use of another name at some point in his life wouldn’t matter unless someone can produce evidence of a formal legal name change from the name at birth. Nothing like that has ever shown up. The school record doesn’t count. It’s not unusual for a child to go by a stepfather’s name without legally changing it. It’s not even unusual for Presidents to have done so. Leslie Lynch King, Jr was known as Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr from 1916 to 1935, when he finally legally changed it. William Jefferson Blythe III was known as William Jefferson Clinton from age 4-15, when he finally legally changed it. Barack Hussein Obama II was known as Barry Soetoro from ages 6-10, when his mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. He was Barry Obama when he went to school in Hawaii. Since the marriage didn’t work out, the name was never legally changed. This is far from unusual. (Also the meme that Obama lied on his bar application because he didn’t list Barry Soetoro is nonsense — the application calls for other names the applicant has practiced law under, not childhood names. It’s primarily so clients can find a married woman who once practiced under a maiden name, or an attorney who adopted a different form of name to avoid confusion with another person.)

    And H.B. Obama? Who on earth is that?

  73. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    Or more likely, the application was for a renewal and Dunham had added Obama as an amendment but he was already on the passport to be renewed and thus the section was struck out.

  74. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2012 at 3:30 am #

    Chris: It is a pity that you’ll not be surprised!

    Surprised by what? An unlikely scenario that goes against common sense as well as court proceedings?

  75. avatar
    SluggoJD January 21, 2012 at 4:19 am #

    Chris:
    What should B.H. Obama do, when asked in court (under oath) : (1) what is your legal name? (2) Do you have other legal names?

    Hisanswers (under oath) may surface as evidence in other future hearing/trials, so there are strong incentives for him to tell the truth.

    Let’s wait and see.

    Feel free to “wait and see” and don’t forget to hold your breath the entire time.

  76. avatar
    G January 21, 2012 at 4:38 am #

    Fair enough!

    Chris: I guess will have to wait and see.

  77. avatar
    G January 21, 2012 at 4:47 am #

    See you then! Hopefully, we’ll have an idea of how court went by the 27th. It may take some days for any decision to come out or be written up. …We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

    Chris: Folks: I have to go to work. I’ll come back on January 27 to resume the chat.It is a pity that you’ll not be surprised!Cheers, Chris

  78. avatar
    Majority Will January 21, 2012 at 4:59 am #

    NBC: Surprised by what? An unlikely scenario that goes against common sense as well as court proceedings?

    I will be genuinely surprised by any birther’s sincere admission of error with regards to the President’s eligibility.

    Any . . . day . . . now.

  79. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 6:35 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Nope.The Georgia law requires him only to establish eligibility, which is (1) natural born citizenship (citizen from birth), (2) age 35 or older, and (3) a minimum of 14 years residence in the United States.Nothing about name.

    I actually quoted part pf your comment to draw your attention to a question I have. Does Attorney Jablonsky have to file a Leave to Amend Motion to Quash petition or just he just refile the motion? Would opposing counsel then have time to respond?

  80. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 6:36 am #

    “does he just” not “just he just”

  81. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    Does Attorney Jablonsky have to file a Leave to Amend Motion to Quash petition or just he just refile the motion? Would opposing counsel then have time to respond?

    Refiling the motion would lead to the same result, he needs to file an amended motion to quash. Opposing counsel will have the chance to respond.

  82. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    JPotter: I see anti-birthers state this a lot. However, if Obama is somehow held to be ineligible (which I believe is only possible if the burden of proof is placed on him, and then his representation blows it by neglect) for a primary, then why would he subsequently appear automatically in the general?

    I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there are ballot-qualified parties (Democratic and Republican) and non-ballot-qualified parties (all others). The distinction is based on how many votes they got in the previous election. Ballot-qualified parties certify their nominee from their national convention and they are automatiically placed on the general election ballot. Hence, the letters from Nancy Pelosi certifying Obama that the birthers have much discussed. Non-ballot-qualified parties must get their candidate on the ballot by petition, which can be opposed. The distinction is one of the reasons third parties and independents have such a difficult time,

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is precedent for a state doing just that. Eldridge Cleaver, the nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party inn 1968, was denied a place in the general election in several states, including Hawaii. Because Cleaver was too young and therefore ineligible, the Supreme Court of Hawaii upheld the state’s right to exclude him. To my knowledge the case was not appealed in federal court. There are other examples of the exclusion of obviously ineligible candidates.

    Peace and Freedom was not a ballot-qualified party.

  83. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    nbc: Refiling the motion would lead to the same result, he needs to file an amended motion to quash. Opposing counsel will have the chance to respond.

    Does it matter that the order did not say “denied with leave to amend?” If you don’t have to request permission to amend, why is it given in the denial of other motions?

  84. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 7:08 am #

    Lupin: This crazy yankee-bashing Frenchman believes you’re treating your Presidents too much like a royal family already (not just Obama, you understand), so in the principle I think it would be a breath of fresh air to see him appear properly before a court; although in this specific case, I do think it’s a waste of everybody’s time.

    But your former President, Jacques Chirac. was immune from being tried on charges of corruption dating from his time as Mayor of Paris until after he left office. The charges were well documented (as evidenced by his recent conviction), yet they had to wait until he was out of office.

  85. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 7:13 am #

    I guess what my question boils down to is does the judge have to consider the refiled motion when it is not based on new facts/law (although technically is based on a new legal argument because there was no legal argument) and there doesn’t appear to be a good reason for not doing so the first time? I would guess he would consider it, but procedurally, Jablonsky did not following the dictates of the statute set forth in the judge’s denial.

  86. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 7:15 am #

    I am still not feeling up to par so I will check back in later.

  87. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    A few points on foreign students:

    1. Regardless of citizenship, someone living in the US who graduated from a US high school would not be considered a foreign student for college admission.
    2. Foreign students are not given a break vs US students. They are probably more academically qualified on average than US high school grads. There is thus no advantage for a dual national living in the US to pretend he is a foreign student. Quite the opposite.
    3. There are no federal grants for foreign undergraduates. They generally either come from well-off families or are supported by their home governnment. There may be a few private scholarships, but these are difficult to get.
    4. Federal student loans are only available to US citiizens and permanent residents. I have filled out the financial aid forms for my children and know this for a fact. President Obama had federal student loans. We know this because a couple of years ago some people at the record center in Iowa were arrested for looking at his records without authorization. I believe that some have pled guilty. They could not have looked at his records if he did not have federal student loans.

  88. avatar
    marshman January 21, 2012 at 7:30 am #

    If Obama has nothing to hide he should just release the info. This is why us birthers think he is a fraud. When are you non birthers going to wake up? Do you love Obama this much? All politicians (dem or repub)should be truthful with the american people.

  89. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 7:32 am #

    Scientist: 2. Foreign students are not given a break vs US students.

    In some States Foreign Students cannot receive ‘in-state’ tuition rates.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    I had the same initial reaction as you, but I checked and found that it is indeed real. If it were a birther fake, one would expect it to have some telltale birther jingoist language in it. That’s lacking.

    Predicto: Oh, that looks real. *snicker*

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    No, he wouldn’t need to prove that. Several US Presidents have run under something other than their legal name. That shouldn’t be an issue before the court.

    Thanks for the link to the decision in the Clinton case.

    Chris: I thought that Obama’s first task in court would be to establish/prove that his (legal) name is B.H. Obama.

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    Funny, I don’t recall a single comment whatever about the Motion to Quash. In fact I didn’t even know that there was a motion to quash before Lord Hah Hah posted the denial. Perhaps you were reading another web site.

    Chris: I recall that a large number of comments on this blog predicted that the motion to quash — the way it was written — will be accepted.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    Well, Orly would do the same thing Jablonski will probably do, file a motion to reconsider or another motion asking for the same result.

    Thrifty: So that’s what competent lawyers do after making an honest mistake. But ask yourself, WWOD? What would Orly do?

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    If Orly were a class act, I think she should have stipulated the residency requirement had been met in the pre-trial order.

    GeorgetownJD: The lovely thing about the COLB is that it serves as proof of two of the necessary eligibility requirements

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Just to clarify any confusion. I didn’t know that there was a motion to quash until Lord Har Har posted the judge’s order denying the motion. That is, I hadn’t seen the motion to quash before I learned of its denial.

    Based on what I know of the law (and I am not a lawyer), and previous comments I read elsewhere that the judge had previously indicated that Obama didn’t have to appear, I would not have thought that a valid subpoena could be served.

    I would be surprised if the subpoena isn’t quashed in the future upon a better-reasoned argument to do so.

    However, I never saw the motion to quash until after it was denied, and so I never expressed any opinion on how the judge would rule on it.

    Chris: DOC’s quote is just an example. It is not a compilation of all the relevant comments on this blog regarding the “surprise”.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    In the original news report where the Indonesian school form appeared, school officials are quoted as saying that it was common practice to list the father’s surname and religion on school forms. As for “Barry,” that’s an obvious nickname that the President used in his youth both in Indonesia and in the US. William Jefferson Clinton and James Earl Carter even ran for president with their nicknames (Bill and Jimmy).

    NBC: At best there is a school record in Indonesia that shows his name to be Barry Soetoro.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    You don’t need a hall pass.

    Chris: Folks: I have to go to work. I’ll come back on January 27 to resume the chat.

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    He already released his birth certificate, TWICE!! What do you want, kindergarten transcripts?

    marshman: If Obama has nothing to hide he should just release the info

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    I should mention that the title of this article is written for shock value. The judge never ordered Obama to appear in court.

  100. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    Concerning the fact the judge did not order a motion to compel, it is my understanding (that may be incorrect) that such an order would occur if the judge’s dismissal of the motion to quash stands and President Obama does not show up. A subpoena (if deemed proper in all respects) is a command to appear. When the party/witness does not show up, then further action must be taken to compel the party/witness to appear. Everything, though, is going to play out before us with the first part of the action being the refiling of the motion.

  101. avatar
    Sef January 21, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    charo:
    Concerning the fact the judge did not order a motion to compel, it is my understanding (that may be incorrect) that such an order would occur if the judge’s dismissal of the motion to quash stands and President Obama does not show up.A subpoena (if deemed proper in all respects) is a command to appear. When the party/witness does not show up, then further action must be taken to compel the party/witness to appear.Everything, though, is going to play out before us with the first part of the action being the refiling of the motion.

    And just how would he go about doing that? Send the Georgia Militia to D.C.? That’s a good way to thin the birther herd.

  102. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 21, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Whatever4: Here’s the file containing the passport application you asked about. It’s on the 4th page. The word Soebarkah appears under the child’s name, it’s all crossed out. There’s not much one coulf infer from that. Maybe it means “Exclude” in Indonesian. Maybe it’s the clerk’s name. Maybe it’s a nickname. It has little meaning on its own.

    As I said elsewhere, a woman, knowing I was Belgian, once approached me in Kiev after leaving the Belgian embassy, showed me one of the documents she had received and pointed out the place in a row and column position where a name had been struck out. She asked me whether it was important and might cause her any problem in Belgian.

    I told her not to worry – they probably copied something from the wrong column or row on their computer. She replied that [the name] looked a bit foreign, German; perhaps it was the clerk’s name? I took a better look and that is when I realized it was my name!

    All sorts of explanations. Perhaps some guy Subarkah-Soebarkah wrote a letter asking to not forget to put the boy’s name on the document — they did that but belatedly realized it had to be done differently.

    Subarkah is also a place in Western Java, near Bandung (oh, who was born in Bandung again). Perhaps someone living Subarkah wrote the accompanying letter.

    Rather than a hint that Barack was called Subarkah, it could be a tip that the Soetoros once lived in Subarkah.

    Or the office who prepares these things makes up its documents according to country of destination and they mixed up completely. A complete mixup (like my personal experience) is perhaps even more plausible than the clerks not knowing Obama needed his own passport.

  103. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 21, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    Sorry for all the tyops in that piece above. Apart from a total lack of commas, it almost looks like Taitz English. Still not fully awake, I am afraid…

  104. avatar
    Thrifty January 21, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    marshman:
    If Obama has nothing to hide he should just release the info. This is why us birthers think he is a fraud. When are you non birthers going to wake up?Do you love Obama this much?All politicians (dem or repub)should be truthful with the american people.

    Some anti-birthers on this blog are Republicans who have openly expressed their distaste for President Obama and his policies, but nonetheless are sane enough to admit that he won the 2008 election fair and square and was born in the USA.

  105. avatar
    Thrifty January 21, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No, he wouldn’t need to prove that. Several US Presidents have run under something other than their legal name. That shouldn’t be an issue before the court.

    Isn’t Mitt Romney doing that right now?

  106. avatar
    Bob January 21, 2012 at 10:56 am #

    Gingrich’s last name when he was born was “MacPherson.” Was it ever legally changed?

  107. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    FIFY.

    Paul Pieniezny: Sorry for all the tyops in that piece above. Apart from a total lack of commas, it almost looks like Taitz English. Still not fully awake, I am afraid…

  108. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    Sef: And just how would he go about doing that? Send the Georgia Militia to D.C.? That’s a good way to thin the birther herd.

    I agree with Scientist on this. Clinton submitted to the Jones’ deposition, but had he not, I don’t see how he would have been made to comply. Same here.

  109. avatar
    Lupin January 21, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    Scientist: But your former President, Jacques Chirac. was immune from being tried on charges of corruption dating from his time as Mayor of Paris until after he left office. The charges were well documented (as evidenced by his recent conviction), yet they had to wait until he was out of office.

    Quite right, but he did eventually appear before a Court. I think the same will befall Sarkozy who seems to have been involved in some unsavory business as well. Time will tell, of course.

  110. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    The Jones case actually hurts the case to support the motion to quash:

    In the Court’s opinion in Clinton v. Jones, Stevens had written, “…it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.”

    OTOH, it could be argued the Orly’s history shows that it is likely to occupy a substantial
    amount of time.

  111. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    charo: I agree with Scientist on this. Clinton submitted to the Jones’ deposition, but had he not, I don’t see how he would have been made to comply. Same here.

    You agree with me? Mark this day on the calendar (just kidding).

    Wouldn’t it be generally true that the parties in a lawsuit are not obligated to testify? If you and I have an accident and I decide not to tell my side of the story, I don’t have to. Of course by my doing so, the judge will likely believe your story and rule against me, but that is my right, no?

    Regarding the President, arranging the security for a Presidential visit is a very complex thing. When the President visited here last year they were preparing for at least a week before, co-ordinating between the Secret Service, the State Police and local cops. So if the judge ruled on Monday, I don’t see how the President could go to Atlanta on Thursday. I suppose they could do a video link.

    More importantly, what could he testify to? He can’t testify to where he was born, which is really the only legally relevant matter. All the dual citizenship, 2 parent stuff is a legal matter that the judge has to rule on based on arguments, not witness testimony as to facts.

  112. avatar
    Northland10 January 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    marshman:
    If Obama has nothing to hide he should just release the info. This is why us birthers think he is a fraud. When are you non birthers going to wake up?Do you love Obama this much?All politicians (dem or repub)should be truthful with the american people.

    No, birthers make up stuff and then demand he release information to prove otherwise. When Obama ignores your made up stuff or does not release what does not exist in the first place, you claim he is hiding something and is a fraud. Even when he has produced various papers, the birthers go, now show us more papers…

    You birthers think his is a fraud because you will except nothing else.

  113. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    Rather than a hint that Barack was called Subarkah, it could be a tip that the Soetoros once lived in Subarkah.

    I noticed that the handwriting on that page of the application is different than on the first page of the application. I’d think someone else wrote that down before it was erased.

    Which reminds me that back then you had to have an original government form. Might have even been on special watermarked paper with a serial number in some cases. If you didn’t have another form, you’d probably just cross out a mistake. These days you can download PDFs and sometimes even fill them out in the PDF with a PDF viewer before printing. The State Dept passport application these days includes an optional online process where one can enter all the information (name, addresses, family information, etc) on a secure webpage. The final result is a generated PDF that automatically downloads and is printed along with a matrix code (as opposed to a barcode) that points the State Dept to the file in their computer system. When it gets received by the State Dept, they have all the information and probably don’t have to worry about typos with manual entry. Very cool.

  114. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    Sorry – not erased but crossed out.

  115. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    Lupin: Quite right, but he did eventually appear before a Court. I think the same will befall Sarkozy who seems to have been involved in some unsavory business as well. Time will tell, of course.

    “Mediapart avait l’intention de citer une trentaine de témoins lors du procès, dont le chef de l’État, Nicolas Sarkozy, qui toutefois ne peut être contraint témoigner.”

    French Wikipedia on the Woerth-Bettencourt affair.

    If that is the affair you’re alluding to, I have a few problems: obviously, if this affair turns out to be true, Sarkozy is not the only one involved, and while the courts are going after Woerth, there are indications (eg the triple Watergate at Le Monde, Le Point and Mediapart) that besides Sarkozy, other politicians and highly -placed figures in the police and judiciary may be involved.

    If they stay out of sight because of executive priviledge for Sarkozy, except for poor Mr Woerth, where is the justice in that? And what if one these guys gets elected instead of Sarkozy?

    The other problem of course being that under US law, the evidence that started the affair is probably inadmissible.

  116. avatar
    Dr. Bob January 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    NBC:
    In the end, the ruling may very well put to rest any future foolishness by the birthers but that is mostly wishful thinking.

    I’m afraid that IS wishful thinking. After all of this so far, I don’t have much faith in ANYTHING stopping their foolishness.

  117. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    Bob:
    Gingrich’s last name when he was born was “MacPherson.”Was it ever legally changed?

    He was legally adopted, so I’d think he’s got a revised birth certificate that legally changed his name.

  118. avatar
    Majority Will January 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

    Bob:
    Gingrich’s last name when he was born was “MacPherson.”Was it ever legally changed?

    But slimy salamanders are hatched and not born.

    Have any birthers demanded to see his documentation?

  119. avatar
    Wile January 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I should mention that the title of this article is written for shock value. The judge never ordered Obama to appear in court.

    Yeah, but that’s not what a lot of people are reading today…

    “”A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.””

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

    Does AP just hire any yahoo looking for a job these days?

  120. avatar
    Sef January 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

    charo: I agree with Scientist on this.Clinton submitted to the Jones’ deposition, but had he not, I don’t see how he would have been made to comply.Same here.

    Clinton v Jones was a Federal case. This is a state case.

  121. avatar
    Wile January 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    Scientist: …
    Wouldn’t it be generally true that the parties in a lawsuit are not obligated to testify?If you and I have an accident and I decide not to tell my side of the story, I don’t have to.Of course by my doing so, the judge will likely believe your story and rule against me, but that is my right, no?…

    Civil versus criminal…

    “”In a criminal case, the suspect or defendant has the right to remain silent during questioning by police and prosecuting attorneys. In a criminal case, the defendant may choose to refuse to be a witness, and the jury may infer nothing from the defendant’s choice not to testify. However, in a civil case, the defendant must be available and cooperative for depositions and testimony as a witness in the trial. In fact, the defendant in a civil case in Federal court must voluntarily provide his/her opponent with a copy of documents “in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings.” [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B)] Further, the defendant in a civil case must voluntarily provide names of people who are “likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings.” [FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)] In other words, the defendant in a civil case must help his/her opponent collect evidence that will defeat the defendant. And, at trial, if a party invokes their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, then the judge will instruct the jury that they may make an adverse inference against the party who refused to testify. “”

    http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor333333

  122. avatar
    gorefan January 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    Scientist: Wouldn’t it be generally true that the parties in a lawsuit are not obligated to testify?

    OJ was required to give a deposition and to testify in the civil case after his murder trial.

  123. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    Sef: Clinton v Jones was a Federal case. This is a state case.

    The question was whether a sitting President would be burdened by having to sit for a deposition; it doesn’t matter whether it is a state or federal case for that proposition. Does it make sense that a sitting president is not burdened in a federal case for a deposition, but he is burdened by having to appear in a state case.

  124. avatar
    Sef January 21, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    charo: The question was whether a sitting President would be burdened by having to sit for a deposition; it doesn’t matter whether it is a state or federal case for that proposition.Does it make sense that a sitting president is not burdened in a federal case for a deposition, but he is burdened by having to appear in a state case.

    I was referring to the fact that since President Obama is a Federal official this can be kicked to a Federal Court. (Even though Orly is attempting to sue President Obama as a private individual, there is no time between noon 1/20/09 and noon 1/20/13 where he is not President) Has there been any case where a sitting President has been required to testify in a state case? And if so has there been a later ruling saying this is not required?

  125. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    Sef: Has there been any case where a sitting President has been required to testify in a state case?

    Has there been any case in which a sitting President has been accused of crimes against We The People?

  126. avatar
    katahdin January 21, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Has there been any case in which a sitting President has been accused of crimes against We The People?

    Nixon leaps to mind. He was involved in a plot to commit a burglary.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Clinton was accused of perjury.

    Saipan Annie: Has there been any case in which a sitting President has been accused of crimes against We The People?

  128. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    katahdin: Nixon leaps to mind. He was involved in a plot to commit a burglary.

    Yes.

    Mr. Obama has endured much suffering that has never reached the public eye. We must now begin to see him as a human person, not a case.

  129. avatar
    Bernard January 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    The subpoena that has been posted on the net by birthers shows that the judge wants Obama to show up with a boatload of documents, some of which don’t exist (e.g., naturalization papers), some of which he probably doesn’t possess (at least not anymore) (e.g., his school records), some of which he cannot legally obtain (e.g., other people’s Soc.Sec. records), etc. And, of course, about the only thing that matters to his eligibility for President is just his birth certificate.

    Is the subpoena really that expansive?? or have the birthers been bluffing on the internet?
    I would expect such a subpoena to be trimmed back dramatically by the same or a higher court.

  130. avatar
    John Reilly January 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    I’ll toss in my two cents. The Georgia Democratic Party will asak the Judge to take judicial notice that the electoral college, House, Senate, and the Chief Justice, all found the President to be qualifoed in 2008/2009. Nothing has happened since then to disqualify him. He’s lived here another4 years, and there are no reports that he has immigrated to another country.

    As to the President’s testimony, I understand that a party (and the President appears to be a party here) can be ordered to testify. If he does not, the remedy is to default him, or, in this case, to deny the party’s application to have the President run in the primary. That, of course, will be a victory for the Birthers, who will feel emboldened, and will hurt the President. However, ultimately this birther nonsense will only hurt the Republican Party’s chances in November. People like Gingrich and Romney will be forced to take a position, and they will botch it. Gingrich has already expressed a silly position on the President’s background.

    As to Bill Clinton, he foolishly contested Ms. Jones’ charges for years, dragging it out. He was then ordered to testify. Had he simply said at the outset that he was too busy and conceded liability to Ms. Jones, the chances she could prove damages were slim to non-existent. Her suit turned up all sorts of stuff that turned people off (this is the “is the country going in the right direction question?”) and led to the election of George Bush. And President Clinton had smart lawyers, too.

    The argument has tro be made from Judge Carter’s opinion, that we simply can’t force Presidential candidates to litigate this issue in 50 or 51 or 57 different jurisdictions over and over again.

    And for Ms. Annie and Chris, why don’t you cite to a copy (PDF with layers is fine with me) of Mr. Romney’s birth certificate and Speaker Gingrich’s adoption papers. If they have nothing to hide. Or are you only concerned about African-Americans?

  131. avatar
    Judge Mental January 21, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Though they may or may not already be covered in other ongoing threads that I haven’t read yet, there are a couple of things I haven’t seen mentioned in this thread about the motion to quash and which probably rightly belong in here.

    1. Apart from all the other reasons given Judge Malihi had little choice but to deny a motion to quash a subpoena that he had never seen and which Jablonski did not attach to his motion.

    2. The first steps towards a motion to compel were already taken and submitted by Orly late of Friday.

  132. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    gorefan: OJ was required to give a deposition and to testify in the civil case after his murder trial.

    Was he REQUIRED to or did he do so in the hopes (misplaced) of winning the case or lessening the eventaul damages?

    Saipan Annie: Has there been any case in which a sitting President has been accused of crimes against We The People?

    He’s not accused of any crime. The worst that can happen in this case is he could be excluded from the primary ballot in one state. It isn’t clear that would even exclude him from the general election ballot in that state (which he isn’t expecting to win anyway).

    Saipan Annie: Mr. Obama has endured much suffering that has never reached the public eye.

    He’s a White Sox fan, not a Cubs fan.

  133. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    John Reilly:

    And for Ms. Annie …. are you only concerned about African-Americans?

    You demonstrate your ignorance, sir. Far better that you restrained your impulse to add your ungrounded ad hominem attack against me. I speak FOR Mr. Obama, not against him.

  134. avatar
    Sef January 21, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    Scientist: He’s a White Sox fan, not a Cubs fan.

    The trials and tribulations of living in a city where one can make a choice between/among teams.

  135. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    Saipan Annie: You demonstrate your ignorance, sir

    Instead of getting all huffy, why don’t you try answering a few questions:

    Where is Romney’s birth certificate?
    Is he a resident of the Cayman Islands or does only his money live there?
    Where is Newt’s birth certificate? Congratulations to him on releasing one year of tax returns and on paying his fair share. Obama has released back to 2004.

  136. avatar
    Bob Weber January 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    Scientist: I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there are ballot-qualified parties (Democratic and Republican) and non-ballot-qualified parties (all others).The distinction is based on how many votes they got in the previous election.Ballot-qualified parties certify their nominee from their national convention and they are automatiically placed on the general election ballot.Hence, the letters from Nancy Pelosi certifying Obama that the birthers have much discussed.Non-ballot-qualified parties must get their candidate on the ballot by petition, which can be opposed.The distinction is one of the reasons third parties and independents have such a difficult time,

    Peace and Freedom was not a ballot-qualified party.

    In 1968, the P&F party was a ballot-qualified party in California. California Sec. of State Frank Jordan took notice of the fact that Eldridge Cleaver was too young to be eligible for POTUS, and refused to place him on the ballot. Cleaver and the P&F party sued to have him placed on the ballot regardless, and lost.

  137. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    Scientist: Instead of getting all huffy, why don’t you try answering a few questions:

    Where is Romney’s birth certificate?
    Is he a resident of the Cayman Islands or does only his money live there?
    Where is Newt’s birth certificate? Congratulations to him on releasing one year of tax returns and on paying his fair share. Obama has released back to 2004.

    When have I said or suggested that they not demonstrate their eligibility for United States President?

    As for huffy, the knee-jerk ‘racist’ shout-out is deplorable. After witnessing it for four years, I have earned the right to be ‘huffy’.

  138. avatar
    Sef January 21, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Scientist: I am not a lawyer

    As has been evidenced quite eloquently since 2008 not being a member of the IANAL set has not been shown to produce winning courtroom arguments.

  139. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    Saipan Annie: When have I said or suggested that they not demonstrate their eligibility for United States President?

    At what point should they do so? By the way, you realize that none of the occupants of the office actually did so until Obama. And he has done so. None of the others running have. Suppose none of them do? Will you vote for Obama? Stay home?

  140. avatar
    misha January 21, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    Thrifty: Isn’t Mitt Romney doing that right now?

    Yes. His legal first name is Willard:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html

  141. avatar
    misha January 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Bob: Gingrich’s last name when he was born was “MacPherson.”

    Trivia: The MacPherson strut, developed by Earle S. MacPherson of General Motors in 1947, is the most widely used front suspension system, especially in cars of European origin. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-suspension4.htm

    “European origin” Uh, oh.

  142. avatar
    misha January 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Saipan Annie:

    Completely OT, but I thought I should mention my wife is from Kaohsiung: 高雄

  143. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Scientist: At what point should they do so?

    Eligibility should be clearly demonstrated at the time of campaign announcement; verified by each Secretary Of State, and then confirmed by Congress as directed in The Constitution.

    Fair enough?

  144. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Has there been any case in which a sitting President has been accused of crimes against We The People?

    Even this case will not involve an accusation of crimes against ‘We The People’. Such accusations do meet the ‘standing requirement’. Remember that contrary to the somewhat foolish notions of some of the plaintiffs, this case is purely about a simple question: Does President Obama meet the Constitutional requirements of the Office and can a State Court in Georgia define what is meant by Natural Born Citizen?

    Anything else will be ignored by the Court.

  145. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    Saipan Annie: However, I feel it my solemn duty to once again respectfully request that you find it in your hearts to support Mr. Obama next week, come what may.

    I hope that the birthers will find the same in their heart, when they find out that the Court has found our President to be eligible 🙂

    After all, by any reasonable standard, he is of course a Natural Born citizen.

  146. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Eligibility should be clearly demonstrated at the time of campaign announcement; verified by each Secretary Of State, and then confirmed by Congress as directed in The Constitution.

    The second requirement is a foolish one as it means that any SOS could deny eligibility. Eligibility of our President is clearly not a State issue.

    But let’s see: President Obama has clearly established his eligibility through his release of his birth certificate (both the COLB and the Long Form), at least one Court has ruled that a child born on US soil to foreign parent(s) is a natural born citizen, following the legal precedent in US v Wong Kim Ark and of course, Congress has confirmed the eligibility of our President.

    And yet…

  147. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Bob Weber: In 1968, the P&F party was a ballot-qualified party in California. California Sec. of State Frank Jordan took notice of the fact that Eldridge Cleaver was too young to be eligible for POTUS, and refused to place him on the ballot.Cleaver and the P&F party sued to have him placed on the ballot regardless, and lost.

    If the SOS is aware of clear evidence that there is an eligibility problem such as age or naturalization status, the SOS may choose to not allow the candidate on the Ballot. The present and past California actions against Bowen (Keyes v Bowen and the recent filing by Barnett et al) forgot to observe that the statute places no obligations on the SOS when it comes to eligibility questions.

  148. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    nbc: I hope that the birthers will find the same in their heart, when they find out that the Court has found our President to be eligible

    After all, by any reasonable standard, he is of course a Natural Born citizen.

    While of course there are some who will not wish him well no matter what – as it goes with all political figures – a fair determination of eligibility will satisfy most of those who question it.

    Keep in mind, however, that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound.

  149. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    nbc:

    But let’s see: President Obama has clearly established his eligibility through his release of his birth certificate (both the COLB and the Long Form)

    Then it should be a ‘breeze’ to produce the birth certificate – in palpable paper form – shouldn’t it?

    Not a digital or xeroxed facsimile thereof.

  150. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Bernard:
    The subpoena that has been posted on the net by birthers shows that the judge wants Obama to show up with a boatload of documents, some of which don’t exist (e.g., naturalization papers), some of which he probably doesn’t possess (at least not anymore) (e.g., his school records), some of which he cannot legally obtain (e.g., other people’s Soc.Sec. records), etc.And, of course, about the only thing that matters to his eligibility for President is just his birth certificate.

    Is the subpoena really that expansive?? or have the birthers been bluffing on the internet?
    I would expect such a subpoena to be trimmed back dramatically by the same or a higher court.

    The judge doesn’t want anything. Most subpoenas given to attorneys are signed but otherwise blank. It’s up to the lawyers to fill them out. Everything in the final subpoenas was requested by Orly.

    Also – the blank form is back online:

    http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/subpoenas/subpoena.doc

    Apparently it is a Word format file.

    Nobody really has to quash the requests for naturalization papers, SSN records, etc. None of those were properly served. They were either sent out of state or they were otherwise unenforceable. My understanding is that a state court can’t compel a federal official to produce federal records or show up in court.

    As far as I can tell, the only properly served subpoena filed in this Orly orgy of paperwork was the one sent to Jablonski to his Georgia office. It’s not that the judge can compel President Obama to do any of that stuff in the subpoena, but that his motion to quash the subpoena didn’t get to the point of why it should be quashed. Some apparently think it might be part of some master plan, while others thing maybe he got lazy and thought that the judge would do his work for him.

  151. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    nbc: The second requirement is a foolish one as it means that any SOS could deny eligibility. Eligibility of our President is clearly not a State issue.

    But let’s see: President Obama has clearly established his eligibility through his release of his birth certificate (both the COLB and the Long Form), at least one Court has ruled that a child born on US soil to foreign parent(s) is a natural born citizen, following the legal precedent in US v Wong Kim Ark and of course, Congress has confirmed the eligibility of our President.

    And yet…

    While I think that many birthers are living in some sort of world where they only insist on proof for those they don’t like, I personally don’t think that the documents and photos shown online are or should be legally admissible in a court of law. Neither should any of the crank scanned “documents” purporting Obama to have been born in Kenya.

    I think it was a huge mistake by Jablonski to point to the White House PDF in his motion to quash. That shouldn’t be admissible in court. I believe it’s a true representation (as are the photos that Guthrie took after the WH press conference of April 27), but I’m only a juror in the court of public opinion. They need a physical document for the judge. Georgia’s rules of evidence are clear. An “exemplified” (I had to look it up – it means “attested”) complete with seal of the government office is considered as good evidence as the original for something like a original birth certificate, which is protected by every state’s laws.

  152. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    Bernard:
    Is the subpoena really that expansive?? or have the birthers been bluffing on the internet?
    I would expect such a subpoena to be trimmed back dramatically by the same or a higher court.

    You can ask for almost anything you want in a subpoena. It doesn’t even have to be relevant, which is the case with many of the things Orly has asked for.

    She could have theoretically properly served a subpoena on any person or business in Georgia. Since this is Atlanta, she could have served Oakland Cemetery in Atlanta and request that they produce Margaret Mitchell’s remains. I fully expect that they have lawyers who would have easily had it quashed, but Jablonski didn’t seem to want to make it easy on himself when he didn’t cite any law, rule, or precedent that would indicate the request was invalid.

  153. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Eligibility should be clearly demonstrated at the time of campaign announcement;

    Of the candidates running in 2012, only Obama has done so. So, you will vote for him or for one of those who failed to meet your criteria?

  154. avatar
    Majority Will January 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    Scientist: Of the candidates running in 2012, only Obama has done so.So, you will vote for him or for one of those who failed to meet your criteria?

    Evidently, that question is not covered in the 2012 Birther Concern Troll Handbook.

  155. avatar
    Judge Mental January 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    y_p_w: You can ask for almost anything you want in a subpoena. It doesn’t even have to be relevant, which is the case with many of the things Orly has asked for.She could have theoretically properly served a subpoena on any person or business in Georgia. Since this is Atlanta, she could have served Oakland Cemetery in Atlanta and request that they produce Margaret Mitchell’s remains. I fully expect that they have lawyers who would have easily had it quashed, but Jablonski didn’t seem to want to make it easy on himself when he didn’t cite any law, rule, or precedent that would indicate the request was invalid.

    ………nor did he even attach a copy of the subpoena that he was asking to have quashed, a subpoena which the judge had never seen and may still not yet have seen. Never going to happen with or without citations. We couldn’t make this script up for Hollywood, they’d reject it as too far fetched!

  156. avatar
    Judge Mental January 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

    Sorry I meant to say a subpoena that the judge didn’t see for the first time until Orly submitted a copy with her reply to the motion to quash.

  157. avatar
    Majority Will January 21, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

    Saipan Annie: While of course there are some who will not wish him well no matter what – as it goes with all political figures – a fair determination of eligibility will satisfy most of those who question it.

    Keep in mind, however, that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound.

    Do you think nbc and Scientist are ridiculing you?

    Is everyone who disagrees with you an “Obot”?

    Did you read the article on this site about to travel to Pakistan or is your mentor Apuzzo’s opinion the final word?

    (excerpt) The truth is that it was neither impossible nor difficult for Americans to visit Pakistan in 1981 according to a contemporary New York Times article and a followup article written by an American, Barbara Crossette, who visited there:

    … It is possible to cross from India to Pakistan by train from Amritsar and Delhi, but border procedures can be long and complicated. A road crossing at Wagah is also open for a few daylight hours. Check schedules, and allow several extra hours for border formalities.

    Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports. Transportation within Lahore is plentiful, with taxis, scooter rickshaws and horse-drawn tongas (especially in the old city) readily available.”

    (source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obama-traveled-to-pakistan-on-an-indonesian-passport/)

    [ From: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5267232555874216576

    SaipanAnnie said…

    . . . several commenters raged on about your position on Obama’s trip to Pakistan – something about you getting the facts wrong and refusing to acknowledge this.

    I find these statements inconsistent with the man I know from this blog.

    Do you care to enlighten me?

    January 12, 2012 12:11 PM

    SaipanAnnie said…
    I have a question.

    What with the Obots do, if their main weapon, ridicule, was no longer accessible?

    Goodness, they’d be scrambling!

    January 12, 2012 2:25 PM]

    Is that your way of ridiculing “Obots” in return?

    I know you’re extra careful about what you post.

  158. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    Saipan Annie: While of course there are some who will not wish him well no matter what – as it goes with all political figures – a fair determination of eligibility will satisfy most of those who question it.

    Well, there has been a fair determination of eligibility. It’s just that the birthers will never accept this. What is one to do?

    Keep in mind, however, that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound.

    Of course, people object to Obama’s policies but rather than arguing them coherently, the focus on irrelevant matters. He is the son of a Kenyan and a US citizen, born on US soil. That by itself is sufficient to establish his eligibility.

    So what else do you think matters?

  159. avatar
    Majority Will January 21, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    charo:
    This link is from the ugly list, but I don’t see anywhere else that has it.It is a news story covered in Atlanta.I think you would be interested in its contents (you’ll have to ignore the first few seconds and the last few seconds because… you’ll see.

    http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing

    Six second search. Are you feeling better? 😀

  160. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    y_p_w: I think it was a huge mistake by Jablonski to point to the White House PDF in his motion to quash. That shouldn’t be admissible in court. I believe it’s a true representation (as are the photos that Guthrie took after the WH press conference of April 27), but I’m only a juror in the court of public opinion. They need a physical document for the judge. Georgia’s rules of evidence are clear.

    But the presumption of eligibility is strong given the known facts, facts even Orly knows. She however argues that the documents are fraudulent based on flawed logic.

    It all depends on whom the burden of proof falls.

  161. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    No, my link was a live report.

  162. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    If you find it, I will gladly ask Doc to delete my comment.

  163. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Oh… 🙂

  164. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    I see. I didn’t wait long enough for the link to appear.

    You can delete my link, Doc.

  165. avatar
    charo January 21, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Here is blogger jbjd’s explanation of the subpoena issue (it cleared up the matter for me)

    The GA election code requires that only candidates qualified for the job may have the state print their names on the ballot. The law allows citizens to contest the eligibility of candidates to the SoS and then, to an administrative law judge. (In other words, the process addresses whether the administration of the ballot eligibility law has been followed.) The Plaintiffs, represented by Orly, filed a ballot challenge with an administrative law judge arguing Defendant Obama is ineligible to be POTUS. They issued a subpoena – remember, this is the document they downloaded off the GA court web site but then indicated’ was actually issued by the court – to Defendant Obama, requiring him to appear and answer questions. Under normal circumstances, if a Defendant served by Plaintiff with a subpoena, refuses to comply with the request; the Plaintiff may then ask the court to sign an Order compelling whatever the subpoena requires. Obama’s local (GA) attorney received the subpoena and submitted to the court a Motion to Quash, thereby asking the court not to allow Plaintiff’s subpoena. If granted, this would mean, Orly could not in the future compel such compliance. Orly awaited the court ruling on Defendant’s motion, taking no further action, such as filing an Opposition to Defendant’s motion; to advance her position. The judge ruled to reject Defendant’s motion to quash on the narrow specific grounds that he had failed to provide sufficient (read, any) legal precedent or citations to support his motion. (Thus, in effect, by doing absolutely nothing, Orly obtained for the first time a court ruling prolonging her case instead of ending it on the spot.)

    In other words, this administrative law procedure is several steps away from producing a court Order to appear, Orly’s misrepresentations cyberspace victory dance – “I won!!! I won!!!” – notwithstanding.

  166. avatar
    Lord Basil January 21, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Lord Basil:
    [This comment was inappropriately posted on an article on another topic, showing a total disrespect for this online community, and causing me extra work cleaning up after him. I’ll move this to where it belongs (before it would have belonged on the Open Thread). If such abuse persists, I will remove free posting privileges for Lord Basil. Doc]

    I humbly apologize for my breach of board rules. My patriotism and passion got the better of me, and I wanted to make sure this critical story was not overlooked.

    I shall never repeat this transgression.

    HAH!The real news is that the Kenyan Marxist homosexual has been compelled to testify in the Georgia eligibility hearing.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78876832/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge

    Prepare for the Kenyan Marxist homosexual perp walk.

    ROTFLMAO!!!

  167. avatar
    Lord Basil January 21, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Oops. Weird formatting there. Here is my statement again:

    “I humbly apologize for my breach of board rules. My patriotism and passion got the better of me, and I wanted to make sure this critical story was not overlooked.

    I shall never repeat this transgression.”

    I have a suspicion that the Kenyan Marxist homosexual’s secret police – aka the “Civilian National Security Force” – is at work sabotaging the work of patriots on the net in order to deflect and confuse.

  168. avatar
    Rickey January 21, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    charo:
    This link is from the ugly list, but I don’t see anywhere else that has it.It is a news story covered in Atlanta.I think you would be interested in its contents (you’ll have to ignore the first few seconds and the last few seconds because… you’ll see.

    That is further proof of the deplorable state of journalism in the United States. The reporter can’t even get basic facts straight – e.g., her claim that “the judge subpoenaed the President.”

  169. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Lord Basil: patriots

    Would you even recognize one if it bit you?

  170. avatar
    Mike January 21, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Let us stick to the facts!!!

    To be President of the USA, Obama must be a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen, 2 conditions are required by the Constitution of the USA:
    1) Obama must be born in the USA. We still need to have someone verify that the original long form birth certificate in Hawaii corresponds to the forgery presented by the White House web site!!!!
    2) Obama’s parents must BOTH be American citizens. Obama’s father was NEVER an American citizen.
    Conclusion: Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is NOT entitled to run for presidency nor to be President of the USA!!!!

    By the way, Obama studied law at university and he knew very well that he was NOT a natural born citizen. But he decided that, being black, he would get away with it!! A kind of affirmative action that allows a black to be above the Constitution of the USA!!

  171. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    nbc: Lord Basil: patriots
    Would you even recognize one if it bit you?

    Tom Brady is a Patriot. I am really hoping for a Patriots-Giants Super Bowl rematch.

    Saipan Annie: Keep in mind, however, that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound.

    Wasn’t there a poster here by the name of Saipan Annie who claimed Obama’s father was Malcolm X? Why did you steal her identity?

    Anyway, all humans are descended from Kenyans/Ethiopians. Scientifc fact.

  172. avatar
    Majority Will January 21, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    Scientist:
    Wasn’t there a poster here by the name of Saipan Annie who claimed Obama’s father was Malcolm X?Why did you steal her identity?

    Anyway, all humans are descended from Kenyans/Ethiopians.Scientifc fact.

    Good catch.

  173. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    Majority Will:

    I know you’re extra careful about what you post.

    Majority Will, on this lovely Saturday evening, I am happy to report that every post I make emanates from sincerity and purity of purpose. Laugh, if you must. Ridicule me, if you must.

  174. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Ridicule me, if you must.

    No worries, I am totally confident in your own abilities to do so.

  175. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    nbc: But the presumption of eligibility is strong given the known facts, facts even Orly knows. She however argues that the documents are fraudulent based on flawed logic.

    It all depends on whom the burden of proof falls.

    Well – I take it as fact that Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Hospital and was delivered by Dr. Sinclair. However, we know that via documents that common sense tell us are real. That’s not going to work in court. The topic of this article that we’re commenting on is a court case, and a court has rules on how to allow evidence in a proceeding.

    Pointing to the White House web page is not evidence admissible in a court. Orly claims that she needs the original file because that supposedly follows “best evidence” guidelines as she reads it. She’s not right on this either.

    O.C.G.A. 24-5-20 (2010)
    24-5-20. When exemplifications of public records considered primary evidence; exemplifications transmitted by facsimile

    (a) Exemplifications made by public officers of records, documents, papers, or other matters in their respective offices, pursuant to Code Sections 24-7-20 and 24-7-21 or in the manner set out in subsection (b) of this Code section, shall be primary evidence as to all records or other things required by law to remain in such offices, but only secondary evidence as to such documents as by law properly remain in the possession of the party.

  176. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Scientist:
    Wasn’t there a poster here by the name of Saipan Annie who claimed Obama’s father was Malcolm X?Why did you steal her identity?

    How sad, that in what should be a compassionate discussion, what chronically percolates is sarcasm, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Do you not see that in so doing, you demonstrate an overall insensitivity to what Mr. Obama may be experiencing?

    Why do you treat him like an object? A case? Can’t any of you understand that a real person is involved? Why not step forward, and let him know that come what may, you’re there for him as true friends?

  177. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Do you not see that in so doing, you demonstrate an overall insensitivity to what Mr. Obama may be experiencing?

    ROTFL… Obama is having too much fun right now with all this foolishness.

    Others, claiming to be his friends, do not appear to be much… Such a concern troll you are and no arguments, nothing.

    I knew you were up to the task (see above)

  178. avatar
    John Reilly January 21, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    My recollection is there was a poster here named Saipan Annie who praised the coward Lakin.

  179. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    y_p_w: That’s not going to work in court. The topic of this article that we’re commenting on is a court case, and a court has rules on how to allow evidence in a proceeding.

    Sure, but the Court can take judicial notice of many things and this is not an issue where President Obama is trying to establish his eligibility, it’s one where the plaintiffs are looking to argue that he is not eligible.

    For instance

    Further, and most importantly in the case sub judice, a trial court may take judicial notice of its own records for evidentiary purposes in a case, either civil or criminal, that is pending before it. OCGA 24-1-4; Petkas v. Grizzard, 252 Ga. 104 (312 SE2d 107) (1984).

    OCGA 24-1-4

    The existence and territorial extent of states, their forms of government, symbols of nationality, the laws of nations, all laws and resolutions of the General Assembly and the journals of each branch thereof as published by authority, the laws of the United States and of the several states thereof as published by authority, general customs of merchants, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of our own government as well as the local divisions of our own state, the seals of the several departments of the government of the United States and of the several states of the Union, and all similar matters of public knowledge shall be judicially recognized without the introduction of proof.

  180. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Look Saipan, if you want to return and pretend previous discussions did not happen, then fine but surely you must realize that you have established your ‘credentials’ quite well here and honestly, I am personally not very impressed. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

  181. avatar
    misha January 21, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Scientist: Anyway, all humans are descended from Kenyans/Ethiopians. Scientifc fact.

    Olduvai Gorge, the archaeological site also known as “The Cradle of Mankind”, is a steep-sided ravine in the Great Rift Valley that stretches through eastern Africa. Homo sapiens – that’s us – are dated to have occupied the site 17,000 years ago.

    Read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge

  182. avatar
    misha January 21, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

    Lord Basil: My patriotism…got the better of me

    Samuel Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel.

  183. avatar
    misha January 21, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Mike: Obama must be born in the USA. We still need to have someone verify that the original long form birth certificate in Hawaii corresponds to the forgery presented by the White House web site!!!!

    You have a good point. I found an authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that causes some concern.

  184. avatar
    JPotter January 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    nbc: this is not an issue where President Obama is trying to establish his eligibility, it’s one where the plaintiffs are looking to argue that he is not eligible.

    And let the anti-Birthers say, “Amen”. If the burden of proof was on the candidate in eligibility challenges, then allcandidates would be challenged as a matter of standard procedure, just as petition signatures are routinely challenged. The challenger would have nothing to lose, and something to gain. This would also be a step in the direction of limiting ballot access, but making it harder to register as a candidate. Sounds like a great piece of Republican legislation! Oh, I’m too late, they’re already trying that all over the country, aren’t they?

  185. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    The judge didn’t personally issue that subpoena. Orly Taitz used a pre-signed form from the court. That’s how it works in many jurisdictions. If the recipient objects to a subpoena, there are several avenues, including filing a motion in court to quash the subpoena (which is what happened here).

    Bernard: The subpoena that has been posted on the net by birthers shows that the judge wants Obama to show up with a boatload of documents, some of which don’t exist (e.g., naturalization papers),

  186. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    One would think so.

    Saipan Annie: Then it should be a breeze’ to produce the birth certificate – in palpable paper form – shouldn’t it?

  187. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    And exactly which textbook did he learn that from? I’ve been waiting for 3 years for the birthers to find one.

    Nice try, but you’re in the wrong place for a softball like that.

    Mike: By the way, Obama studied law at university and he knew very well that he was NOT a natural born citizen.

  188. avatar
    Whatever4 January 21, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    Mike:

    By the way, Obama studied law at university and he knew very well that he was NOT a natural born citizen. But he decided that, being black, he would get away with it!! A kind of affirmative action that allows a black to be above the Constitution of the USA!!

    All righty. If it’s so obvious that Obama knew full well that he wasn’t a natural born citizen, you should be able to find textbooks, law books, or study guides that lay it out for students. We’ll just wait right here for that.

    While you look, here’s one from 1888: http://tinyurl.com/7szc2wh “Note, however, it is impossible for a foreigner to be elected President. A man who reaches this position must have been born in this country, he must have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and he must have been fourteen years a resident of the United States. ”

    If you look at the totality of evidence — most people (Congress members, lawyers, judges, authors, teachers, students, journalists from Colonial days through today) believe(d) that anyone born in this country (with a few obscure exceptions) and grow up to be eligible to the presidency. The quality, quantity, and span of quotes from a basic pre-2008 search that confirm that is breathtaking. Yet a few minor lawyers (pun intended) and a few thousand followers relying on a handful of cases claim otherwise. My basic question is this:

    Do you really believe this nonsense, are you trolling, are you so blinded by hated that you can rationalize anything, or is the majority of history missing something?

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    No. Saipan Annie first posted here on the 10th of January. There was a birther named “Annie” before. It is possible that folks got the impression that Saipan Annie was a birther based on her defense of Mario Apuzzo. However, it’s important to make a distinction between someone who objects to character attacks against a person and someone who approves of the person.

    Some folks here are guilty of knee-jerk reactions to new folks. It’s a definite detriment to the conversation and troll enabling.

    John Reilly: My recollection is there was a poster here named Saipan Annie who praised the coward Lakin.

  190. avatar
    chancery January 21, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    Still not fully awake, I am afraid…

    And that’s … let’s see, 10:15 am east coast U.S. time, 4:15 pm Belgian time? I like your lifestyle!

    I’ll take this opportunity to say that I’ve greatly enjoyed and profited from all of your posts here. I particularly enjoyed your explication some months ago of the defects in a translation from Dutch to English that was promoted by some vagabond whose name I don’t recall right now.

  191. avatar
    JPotter January 21, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: All sorts of explanations.

    Perhaps a bug fell into the typewriter, changing a letter in a name? People you’d never suspect are always getting arrested that way.*

    It has been noted here many times that a primary enabler of conspiratorial theorizing is a failure—or refusal!—to account for the constant level of chaos in everyday, mundane life. The past does not owe us a detailed explanation.

    * Obscure Brazil reference.

  192. avatar
    y_p_w January 21, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    nbc: Sure, but the Court can take judicial notice of many things and this is not an issue where President Obama is trying to establish his eligibility, it’s one where the plaintiffs are looking to argue that he is not eligible.

    Apparently some feel that the judge’s case is not now one where the challengers necessarily have to prove their case, but where the defenders have to prove theirs. I think

    The main problem is that that Orly might just bring up the supposed doubts in the public sphere, no matter how kooky they are. A real piece of paper with a real seal will trump anything.

    This judge has shown that he wants solid work. Jablonski already tried a “this is public knowledge” angle in his motion to quash and it went absolutely nowhere with the judge. You want to him to take his chances that the judge is going to change his mind about accepting that line of thinking? Or do you stick with the tried and true 100% surefire way that he’ll accept evidence? A proper birth certificate from a governmental authority with a proper seal is guaranteed to be accepted by the judge.

    I realize what you’re saying, which is that perhaps it’s beneath the dignity of the office of the President for them to have to respond to Orly, especially when other candidates haven’t been as heavily questioned about the accuracy of their bios (regarding place of birth). The judge may very well think that Orly is a joke of an attorney, but he’s not going to give Jablonski a free pass on those grounds. It’s pretty clear that he expects Jablonski to do things better and more thoroughly than he’s shown so far.

  193. avatar
    Majority Will January 22, 2012 at 4:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It is possible that folks got the impression that Saipan Annie was a birther based on her defense of Mario Apuzzo. However, it’s important to make a distinction between someone who objects to character attacks against a person and someone who approves of the person.

    So what could possibly be the motive for adamant and unsubstantiated assertions that the President’s parents are Jo Ann Newman (sic) and Malcolm X* other than a FUD tactic or baseless smear with utter disrespect to his actual parents based on certified, documented evidence?

    The poster has had ample opportunity to offer any explanation and provided nothing.

    And now the same poster asserts above “that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound”.

    Malcolm X (née Little) was born in Omaha, Nebraska on May 19, 1925.

    Again, there is no explanation from the poster.

    “Mr. Obama has endured much suffering that has never reached the public eye” and ” . . . accused of crimes against We The People”.

    Much suffering? Much hyperbole. And again, no explanation whatsoever. Just a consistent pattern of innuendo and bizarre, baseless claims of great mystery.

    Strange and confused, language or cultural error or concern trolling?

    And yes, the strong affinity for Apuzzo who regularly blames his own shortcomings on “Obots” doesn’t help or generate any sympathy.

    (*Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 9:13 am (Quote) #
    Mr. Obama was, indeed, a natural born citizen’ – as the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman.)

    These questions are also directed to Saipan Annie. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  194. avatar
    G January 22, 2012 at 4:45 am #

    And pray tell, just why does it matter that he’s the son of a Kenyan national in the first place? Do you fear you will somehow catch “Kenyan cooties” from him or something?

    Sorry, but there are no 2-citizen parent requirements in our laws at all. Zip. Nada. Just myths that started to be formed in late 2008 in order to attack Obama.

    No real world basis to such nonsense at all. You may not like it, but ZERO citizen parents are needed to make someone as US NBC, by fact of being born on US soil. Simple as that.

    Saipan Annie: Keep in mind, however, that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound.

  195. avatar
    G January 22, 2012 at 4:47 am #

    You truly suffer from extremely paranoid delusions. The bizarro fantasy world in your head is truly a scary place.

    I’m grateful that reality is nothing like your fevered delusions at all…

    Lord Basil: I have a suspicion that the Kenyan Marxist homosexual’s secret police – aka the “Civilian National Security Force” – is at work sabotaging the work of patriots on the net in order to deflect and confuse.

  196. avatar
    G January 22, 2012 at 4:49 am #

    FAIL!

    The official agency for such matters has been quite extensively clear in vetting and verifying these documents.

    Here, educate yourself for once:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    Sorry, but they’ve completely vouched for his birth & the LFBC and its chain of custody. End of story right there.

    Mike: We still need to have someone verify that the original long form birth certificate in Hawaii corresponds to the forgery presented by the White House web site!!!!

  197. avatar
    G January 22, 2012 at 4:50 am #

    FAIL!

    Sorry, but there are no 2-citizen parent requirements in our laws at all. Zip. Nada. Just myths that started to be formed in late 2008 in order to attack Obama.

    No real world basis to such nonsense at all. You may not like it, but ZERO citizen parents are needed to make someone as US NBC, by fact of being born on US soil. Simple as that.

    Mike: 2) Obama’s parents must BOTH be American citizens. Obama’s father was NEVER an American citizen.

  198. avatar
    G January 22, 2012 at 4:58 am #

    FAIL!

    Sorry, but there are no 2-citizen parent requirements in our laws at all. Zip. Nada. Just myths that started to be formed in late 2008 in order to attack Obama.

    No real world basis to such nonsense at all. You may not like it, but ZERO citizen parents are needed to make someone as US NBC, by fact of being born on US soil. Simple as that.

    Mike: 2) Obama’s parents must BOTH be American citizens. Obama’s father was NEVER an American citizen.

    Sorry, but your conclusions simply have no basis in fact nor reality. If anything, Obama’s Constitutional Law background means he darn well understand the Constitution and has no doubts at all about his clear NBC status and eligibility for the office he pursued. It is simply illogical to think he would put himself out there under such long and intense public scrutity of a Presidential campaign if he had any doubts about his eligibility.

    Second, the rest of your statement demonstrates a clear fixation on his race and your snotty affirmative action quip is a clear and open demonstration of a negative racial association and stereotyping. In other words, you have shown that you are simply a resentful bigot.

    Mike: By the way, Obama studied law at university and he knew very well that he was NOT a natural born citizen. But he decided that, being black, he would get away with it!! A kind of affirmative action that allows a black to be above the Constitution of the USA!!

  199. avatar
    G January 22, 2012 at 5:10 am #

    This has to be one of the lamest and most insincere forms of Concern Trolling I’ve come across yet!

    You truly are a weird and damaged individual to even come up with such lame crocodile tears.

    Sorry, none of us know Obama personally. He is simply the President of our nation and deserves the fair respect of not only that office, but what should also be due and accorded any individual.

    So no, no serious person would use terms as “friend” or “true friend” to describe him.. unless they personally knew him. Nor are we denying his humanity or objectifying him by merely pointing out that you obsessive hate-based idiots are just making up excuses to justify your irrational need to pretend his election never took place.

    Perhaps you think in such weird terms, because your personality is simply that of a Cult-like follower and you simply cannot grasp the majority of us in the rest of the world, who do not suffer your weird emotional hero-worship needs.

    Sorry, but you are just not as smart as your ego pretends, “Saipan Annie”. Everyone here is not buying your Concern Troll attempts…regardless of what pathetic and bizarre tactic you try. No one is falling for your current attempts at saccarin sarcasm here, so give it a rest and try being an honest person with a rational point for once.

    If you wish to stop being ridiculed, stop coming across so blatently ridiculous. Simple as that.

    Saipan Annie: How sad, that in what should be a compassionate discussion, what chronically percolates is sarcasm, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Do you not see that in so doing, you demonstrate an overall insensitivity to what Mr. Obama may be experiencing?
    Why do you treat him like an object? A case? Can’t any of you understand that a real person is involved? Why not step forward, and let him know that come what may, you’re there for him as true friends?

  200. avatar
    G January 22, 2012 at 5:20 am #

    Agreed on all points. Well said.

    This is clearly an avid Concern Troll simply trying various new avenues of Concern Trolling… they simply smack of insincerity right off the bat and are all failing miserably.

    Folks that try to pull disingenuous stunts here and can’t sustain adult arugments during scrutiny have a very short shelf life to their credibility as a result. Simple as that… and deservedly so.

    Such Concern Trolls are only fooling themselves to think that they haven’t just outed themselves here and that their “game” becomes quickly obvious to everyone else. I think they are too used to living in the comfy restricted environments of their Cult hangouts to grasp how transparent their insincerity comes across to most rational thinking people.

    Majority Will: So what could possibly be the motive for adamant and unsubstantiated assertions that the President’s parents are Jo Ann Newman (sic) and Malcolm X* other than a FUD tactic or baseless smear with utter disrespect to his actual parents based on certified, documented evidence?The poster has had ample opportunity to offer any explanation and provided nothing.And now the same poster asserts above “that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound”. Malcolm X (née Little) was born in Omaha, Nebraska on May 19, 1925.Again, there is no explanation from the poster.“Mr. Obama has endured much suffering that has never reached the public eye” and ” . . . accused of crimes against We The People”.Much suffering? Much hyperbole. And again, no explanation whatsoever. Just a consistent pattern of innuendo and bizarre, baseless claims of great mystery.Strange and confused, language or cultural error or concern trolling?And yes, the strong affinity for Apuzzo who regularly blames his own shortcomings on “Obots” doesn’t help or generate any sympathy.(*Saipan Annie January 11, 2012 at 9:13 am (Quote) #Mr. Obama was, indeed, a natural born citizen’ – as the child of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman.)These questions are also directed to Saipan Annie. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  201. avatar
    Keith January 22, 2012 at 5:54 am #

    Chris: What should B.H. Obama do, when asked in court (under oath) : (1) what is your legal name? (2) Do you have other legal names?

    If he is put under oath in court, he will be asked to state his full name for the record.

    He will undoubtedly tell the truth and answer Barack Hussein Obama the Second.

    If he is asked if he is, or has been known, by any other names, he likely would also say that he is called ‘Barry’ by some.

    And that would be ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’.

    But we won’t see that in this Georgia hearing, nor any other ballot challenge proceeding of any kind.

  202. avatar
    aarrgghh January 22, 2012 at 6:02 am #

    “lord basil” sounds a lot like freeper “old sarge”. welcome aboard!

  203. avatar
    Keith January 22, 2012 at 6:20 am #

    Saipan Annie: Has there been any case in which a sitting President has been accused of crimes against We The People?

    Yes. Andrew Johnson was impeached. (acquitted in 1868)
    Yes. Bill Clinton was impeached (acquitted in 1999).

    Yes. The House Judiciary issued Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon in 1974. Impeachment and a guilty finding was inevitable. He resigned resigned before the House could complete the debate, vote, and present the Articles to the Senate.

  204. avatar
    Keith January 22, 2012 at 6:24 am #

    misha: Trivia: The MacPherson strut, developed by Earle S. MacPherson of General Motors in 1947, is the most widely used front suspension system, especially in cars of European origin.http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-suspension4.htm

    “European origin” Uh, oh.

    And Japanese cars too. Japan – the last country we were actually formally in war with. Uh, oh.

  205. avatar
    Twinx January 22, 2012 at 7:18 am #

    Where is Newt’s birth certificate? Congratulations to him on releasing one year of tax returns and on paying his fair share. Obama has released back to 2004.

    In March, 2008, Obama released Tax Returns going back to 2000.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

  206. avatar
    Sef January 22, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    Since birthers are allowed their “any day now” here’s my scenario of how this could all play out:

    Orly subpoenaed a Federal Official & the defendant is a Federal official, so this can be kicked to the Federal Court. By sheer luck of the draw the judge is Judge Land. He sees Orly’s face again, rules that Obama meets all Constitutional eligibility requirements and sanctions Orly $50 grand for being a putz again. Orly appeals this decision all the way to SCOTUS where it is upheld, thus it is ruled nation-wide that Obama meets the Constitutional requirements everywhere. Any state challenge must acknowledge this and the birthers’ house of cards crumbles to the ground.

  207. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    chancery: And that’s … let’s see, 10:15 am east coast U.S. time, 4:15 pm Belgian time? I like your lifestyle!

    I’ll take this opportunity to say that I’ve greatly enjoyed and profited from all of your posts here. I particularly enjoyed your explication some months ago of the defects in a translation from Dutch to English that was promoted by some vagabond whose name I don’t recall right now.

    You had the time right. I went to a milonga evening on Friday night, got home late but got up at the normal time and had an Argentine siesta in the early afternoon. So, yes, I was not really fully awake yet when I wrote that…

    You know, that vagabond may be a fraud in every possible meaning of the word, but his willingness to confess on that occasion amazed me a bit. Of course, it was a minor point only really.

    I am still amused that he found the two major supporting points for his administrator nonsense in my country.

  208. avatar
    misha January 22, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    KenyanBornObama: Explosive NEW EVIDENCE on Obama’s Birth Place ~ Could this be Obama’s REAL Birth Certificate

    I agree with your concerns. I found a similar Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that will help your quest. Thanks for visiting.

  209. avatar
    charo January 22, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    A post with some comments by Loren (who posts comments here now and then).

    http://www.peachpundit.com/2012/01/20/ajc-georgia-judge-michael-malihi-orders-president-obama-to-appear-at-atlanta-legal-hearing-in-natural-born-citizen-case/

    I finally looked at Jablonksy’s Motion. What I find interesting is that he did cite legal support for his arguments concerning service. I wonder if he simply didn’t have any persuasive legal authority to support his position concerning the requirement to appear.

    What should he argue? I haven’t seen anyone give specifics.

  210. avatar
    y_p_w January 22, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    charo:
    A post with some comments by Loren (who posts comments here now and then).

    http://www.peachpundit.com/2012/01/20/ajc-georgia-judge-michael-malihi-orders-president-obama-to-appear-at-atlanta-legal-hearing-in-natural-born-citizen-case/

    I finally looked at Jablonksy’s Motion.What I find interesting is that he did cite legal support for his arguments concerning service. I wonder if he simply didn’t have any persuasive legal authority to support his position concerning the requirement to appear.

    What should he argue?I haven’t seen anyone give specifics.

    I certainly read it too. All judge Malihi said was that the subpoena sent to Jablonski’s office was valid according to the rules of the court. I read the court rules regarding service, and that does appear to be technically correct. Jablonski went off on all those other subpoenas that Taitz sent out of state, but Malihi didn’t respond to any of those, as they weren’t the point of the motion to quash.

    What he should argue is specific decisions and law that say that a sitting President does not. Someone suggested that perhaps Clinton v Jones could be cited. All Jablonski did was cite some part of the administrative rules that something unreasonable can be quashed, but never elaborated. I’m not a lawyer, but I can see exactly why the judge ruled the way he did. Jablonski probably has an office full of junior attorneys who can look up all this stuff, and he simply acts as if he can barely cite a few rules and the judge will look up how that applies.

  211. avatar
    charo January 22, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    y_p_w: I certainly read it too.All judge Malihi said was that the subpoena sent to Jablonski’s office was valid according to the rules of the court.I read the court rules regarding service, and that does appear to be technically correct.Jablonski went off on all those other subpoenas that Taitz sent out of state, but Malihi didn’t respond to any of those, as they weren’t the point of the motion to quash.

    What he should argue is specific decisions and law that say that a sitting President does not.Someone suggested that perhaps Clinton v Jones could be cited.All Jablonski did was cite some part of the administrative rules that something unreasonable can be quashed, but never elaborated.I’m not a lawyer, but I can see exactly why the judge ruled the way he did.Jablonski probably has an office full of junior attorneys who can look up all this stuff, and he simply acts as if he can barely cite a few rules and the judge will look up how that applies.

    I haven’t seen any of the lawyers quote the cases that would solidify his motion. Clinton v. Jones does not appear to help, except that the Court did not apply the holding to a state case.

  212. avatar
    y_p_w January 22, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    charo: I haven’t seen any of the lawyers quote the cases that would solidify his motion.Clinton v. Jones does not appear to help, except that the Court did not apply the holding to a state case.

    I heard perhaps citing sovereign immunity as POTUS. The fact is that Jablonski barely even tried. He basically just went off on Orly for filing a bunch of improperly served subpoenas.

  213. avatar
    charo January 22, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

    y_p_w: I heard perhaps citing sovereign immunity as POTUS.The fact is that Jablonski barely even tried.He basically just went off on Orly for filing a bunch of improperly served subpoenas.

    (I meant Jones v. Clinton)

    I was just surprised that he did not speak with the same intensity as to the other issue. I don’t know about sovereign immunity; the issue concerns proof of eligibility. Orly is accusing him of crimes, but I think we all agree that those won’t be considered.

  214. avatar
    y_p_w January 22, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

    I noticed that one of the few outlets actually covering this was the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.

    They must be getting so much traffic that they’ve now require registration to read any article on their paper’s website.

  215. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 22, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    charo: I haven’t seen any of the lawyers quote the cases that would solidify his motion.Clinton v. Jones does not appear to help, except that the Court did not apply the holding to a state case.

    Actually, Clinton v. Jones could be cited in support. The Supreme Court was deciding ONLY whether sovereign immunity required a stay of the civil suit until the President’s term of office expired. It did not, as many seem to assume, order President Clinton to testify at trial.

    “[O]ur decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place. We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so.”

    Catch that? It bears repeating.

    “Our decision … does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place.”

    SCOTUS noted that although Presidents have complied with court orders to respond to written interrogatories, give deposition testimony, and even to provide videotaped trial testimony, “no sitting President has ever testified, or been ordered to testify, in open court.” The Court also intimated that Supremacy Clause concerns might dictate a different result when the putative order is coming from state court, and left open the question whether the supreme law of land allows for “any direct control by a state court over the President, who has principal responsibility to ensure that those laws are “faithfully executed,”

  216. avatar
    y_p_w January 22, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Actually, Clinton v. Jones could be cited in support.The Supreme Court was deciding ONLY whether sovereign immunity required a stay of the civil suit until the President’s term of office expired.It did not, as many seem to assume, order President Clinton to testify at trial.

    “[O]ur decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place. We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so.”

    Catch that?It bears repeating.

    “Our decision … does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place.”

    SCOTUS noted that although Presidents have complied with court orders to respond to written interrogatories, give deposition testimony, and even to provide videotaped trial testimony, “no sitting President has ever testified, or been ordered to testify, in open court.”The Court also intimated that Supremacy Clause concerns might dictate a different result when the putative order is coming from state court, and left open the question whether the supreme law of land allows for “any direct control by a state court over the President, who has principal responsibility to ensure that those laws are “faithfully executed,”

    Now how come Jablonski (I guess we could similarly nickname him EmoryJD) hasn’t come up with what seem to be things that armchair lawyers are easily finding? He’s a graduate of a first-tier law school with years of experience. It doesn’t take a lawyer to read that the judge is finding his work to be lacking.

  217. avatar
    charo January 22, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: “Our decision … does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place.”

    I guess either side could use it. It choose NOT to confront the question.

  218. avatar
    charo January 22, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    y_p_w: Now how come Jablonski (I guess we could similarly nickname him EmoryJD) hasn’t come up with what seem to be things that armchair lawyers are easily finding?

    I don’t think Georgetown JD is an armchair lawyer.

  219. avatar
    charo January 22, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    y_p_w: We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so.”

    Although it is favorable language, the case could be distinguished in that eligibility is a more pressing matter than a civil suit and that at a civil trial, he could appear by video (not in person).

  220. avatar
    nbc January 22, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    Although it is favorable language, the case could be distinguished in that eligibility is a more pressing matter than a civil suit and that at a civil trial, he could appear by video (not in person).

    This is a civil suit, in fact it’s an administrative action. How is eligibility more pressing?

  221. avatar
    nbc January 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    charo: I don’t think Georgetown JD is an armchair lawyer.

    GT JD is part of a group of some very capable lawyers that hang out at the Fogbow. They are well informed, and quickly can do the research to establish what Orly has done wrong this time. Of course, that’s not much of a standard perse as I can often do the same and I am not a lawyer.

  222. avatar
    Scientist January 22, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    I am neither an armchair lawyer nor a real lawyer, but what could the President possibly testify to? The only relevant issues for eligibility are age, place of birth and residence. The first 2 depend on where and when he was born, which he has no first hand knowledge of and which are covered by the birth certificate(s) anyway. There is nothing game by him personally presenting the b.c.(s) to the court. Residence is proven by the deed to his house, election to the illinois and US Senates and the Presidency, which don’t require his testimony.

    So what could he be asked? Did you request the b.c.’s from Hawaii? Yes. But the b.c.(s) stand by themselves. The dual citizen. father’s citizenship, etc. are not relevant. If the judge wants expert testimony on the constitutional issues, he would not get that from a party to the case.

    And charo, do you think the President just shows up in downtown Atlanta? Do you rea;ize how many arrangements must be made for a Presidential visit and how much time and money are involved? Not to mention the disruption for thousands of people who live and work there and all those who are flying through Atlanta. All so he can say, “Yep, as far as I know I was born in Hawaii, like my b.c.(s) says, though I don’t actually remember the event.”.

  223. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 22, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    If I were an armchair lawyer, I would have a broken arm. The only thing close to law that I have taken is Computer Forensics.

  224. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 22, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    charo: Although it is favorable language, the case could be distinguished in that eligibility is a more pressing matter than a civil suit and that at a civil trial, he could appear by video (not in person).

    Assuming this judge could order such (which I would argue, he cannot), Clinton v. Jones makes clear that a court cannot dictate to the President the date, time and place to appear, so the testimony would have to be videotaped in advance, pretty much in the form of a deposition. That would require Orly to get the consent of the ALJ and coordinate scheduling with Obama’s counsel. Also there would be security arrangements and location and other logistics to deal with. Everyone involved would need to be pre-cleared by the Secret Service.

    But that ship already sailed.

  225. avatar
    y_p_w January 22, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    charo: I don’t think Georgetown JD is an armchair lawyer.

    That was apparent to me by the in-depth explanations and the JD at the end.

    However, I was making fun of Michael Jablonski, who is a graduate of Emory University School of Law and has been licensed to practice law in Georgia for 34+ years. He seems to be missing obvious things that several armchair lawyers have easily thought should have gone into his motion to quash.

    http://www.gabar.org/public/directory/MemberSearchDetail.php?ID=Mzg1ODUw

  226. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 23, 2012 at 1:57 am #

    The ALJ does not have the power to enforce the subpena with an order directed to Obama – or any other party for that matter. All he can do is make findings of fact and certify them to the Georgia Superior court; it would be up to the superior court to determine what, if any, orders to issue.

    GeorgetownJD: Assuming this judge could order such (which I would argue, he cannot), Clinton v. Jones makes clear that a court cannot dictate to the President the date, time and place to appear, so the testimony would have to be videotaped in advance, pretty much in the form of a deposition.That would require Orly to get the consent of the ALJ and coordinate scheduling with Obama’s counsel.Also there would be security arrangements and location and other logistics to deal with.Everyone involved would need to be pre-cleared by the Secret Service.

    But that ship already sailed.

  227. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 3:21 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Clinton v. Jones makes clear that a court cannot dictate to the President the date, time and place to appear,

    It could be argued that the case does not make it clear; the Court made an assumption which, because it did not “confront” the issue (using its term), is able to be rebutted. After all, Clinton DID show up. But, Jones’ attorney involved was not Orly, and did make victory laps prematurely. (Orly might not gain clearance).

  228. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 3:27 am #

    Expelliarmus:
    The ALJ does not have the power to enforce the subpena with an order directed to Obama – or any other party for that matter.All he can do is make findings of fact and certify them to the Georgia Superior court; it would be up to the superior court to determine what, if any, orders to issue.

    Loren cited a couple of cases (I gave a link above which gave a site where he responded) where Judge Malihi ruled someone eligible and someone ineligible; he said the cases were upheld, meaning that the court examined what he did and found no problem. Whether they involved subpoenas, I don’t know.

  229. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 3:31 am #

    Scientist: And charo, do you think the President just shows up in downtown Atlanta?

    No, I don’t. although the President has shown up at Target, and Mrs. Obama has had streets cleared to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables. President Clinton did show up for the Jones’ deposition, as I stated, so it cane be done. Concerning immateriality, I would have expected Jablonksy to have made that argument, except that the judge wants legal authority. It seemed to me that he argued common sense and lost.

  230. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 3:32 am #

    can be done

  231. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 23, 2012 at 5:13 am #

    No, he cite authority — he cited the Georgia statute about subpoenas & relevancy. He did not mention the federal sovereignty issue, and I don’t know why not — it could have been tactical, wanting to avoid having the ALJ make a decision based on a federal claim.

    The fact that the ALJ’s decisions have been upheld in other, straightforward case has nothing to do with this case. It’s not a batting average thing. The other cases were election challenges where there was a real issue of residency — that kind of thing comes up all the time.

    The ALJ simply does not have the legal power to issue a motion to compel an appearance or production of documents, or to force someone who disregards an subpena to appear. That’s in the Georgia administrative rules — that’s just something they they can’t do — they can issue subpenaes, but if a party or witness doesn’t comply,, then it HAS to go before a Superior Court judge.

    You are right that one could argue the issues left open by Jones v. Clinton, but that argument is only going to be resolved by a US Supreme Court decision — and there is no way the US Supreme Court would allow that to happen in a pre-election ballot challenge. The reason is that if it were allowed, then it would be a way that the incumbent President could be harassed in every election. There simply is no possible reason that President’s personal testimony would ever be needed, even if the US Supreme Court somehow ruled that state electoral officials could make a determination as to Presidential eligibility (which they won’t).

  232. avatar
    Scientist January 23, 2012 at 6:44 am #

    charo: No, I don’t. although the President has shown up at Target, and Mrs. Obama has had streets cleared to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables.

    From the security standpoint,there is a very big difference between a spontaneous outing where no one knows in advance that the President will be there and one that is pre-announced and likely to draw some very hostile people not known for their mental stability. One that some on the opposing side have been advertising, as Doc has noted.

    charo: Concerning immateriality, I would have expected Jablonksy to have made that argument, except that the judge wants legal authority. It seemed to me that he argued common sense and lost.

    Shouldn’t the burden be on the party issuing the subpoena to state what information the person they are subpoenaing is expected to have that would be admissible?

  233. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 23, 2012 at 7:20 am #

    charo: It could be argued that the case does not make it clear;the Court made an assumption which, because it did not “confront” the issue (using its term), is able to be rebutted. After all, Clinton DID show up.But, Jones’ attorney involved was not Orly, and did make victory laps prematurely.(Orly might not gain clearance).

    If you think there is wiggle room in Clinton v Jones, can we count on you for an amicus brief on the issue?

    An administrative hearing officer is not going to tango with the Supreme Court by ordering the time and place for the President to show up, by all means, give it a try. Since Malihi does not have that authority (lacking contempt power), he’ll need a Fulton County Superior Court judge to back him up and issue the actual order.

  234. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 23, 2012 at 7:23 am #

    charo: President Clinton did show up for the Jones’ deposition, …

    At a mutually agreed date and location. Big difference from being ordered to be in an Atlanta courthouse at 9:00 AM this coming Thursday.

  235. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    GeorgetownJD: At a mutually agreed date and location.Big difference from being ordered to be in an Atlanta courthouse at 9:00 AM this coming Thursday.

    You were arguing logistics.

    GeorgetownJD: If you think there is wiggle room in Clinton v Jones, can we count on you for an amicus brief on the issue?

    Resorting to smartas*ery language is not very becoming. If the judge wants legal authority, I could envision Jones v. Clinton being addressed. President Obama is not going to show up. It is an interesting question, though, which is the point of discussion here. I am wondering why the judge didn’t simply grant the motion to quash because he would not enforce it anyways. Would he really worry about reversal?

  236. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Scientist: From the security standpoint,there is a very big difference between a spontaneous outing where no one knows in advance that the President will be there and one that is pre-announced and likely to draw some very hostile people not known for their mental stability. One that some on the opposing side have been advertising, as Doc has noted.

    That is true for every President. The language Georgetown JD quoted from Jones concerned the business of the President’s schedule and his primary duty as President.

  237. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    charo: You were arguing logistics.

    Howe about a closed courtroom with the judge, the lawyers and the reporter? Clear the building. If theoretically the parties agreed to time and place, the same issues would arise. I didn’t gather from the language quoted form the Supreme Court that it was concerned about logistics but rather interrupting the duties of the President. From what I recall, the reason it was a federal case was the diversity of the parties rather than a federal question.

  238. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    Expelliarmus: The ALJ simply does not have the legal power to issue a motion to compel an appearance or production of documents, or to force someone who disregards an subpena to appear. That’s in the Georgia administrative rules — that’s just something they they can’t do — they can issue subpenaes, but if a party or witness doesn’t comply,, then it HAS to go before a Superior Court judge.

    I am not sure where you are seeing that. This is what I see:

    (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.

    http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf (under the subpoena section)

  239. avatar
    Scientist January 23, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    charo: Howe about a closed courtroom with the judge, the lawyers and the reporter? Clear the building.

    Do you know how many Secret Service and state and local police it takes to move a President from the airport to a courthouse and back? The disruption to ground and air travel? And for what? You haven’t proposed what he would actually testify to. What could you testify to about your birth?

  240. avatar
    Northland10 January 23, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    When it comes to residency, maybe he could use the ssn report from Orly. It shows many of his addresses back to his Harvard days. Gee, thanks Orly.

  241. avatar
    Rickey January 23, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    charo: President Clinton did show up for the Jones’ deposition, as I stated, so it cane be done.

    Yes, but that deposition was held at the office of Clinton’s attorney, Bob Bennett.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintondep031398.htm

    Some sources say that it was held at the White House, but the deposition transcript says otherwise.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/13/jones.v.clinton.docs/clinton/01.jpg

    President Obama will not be in Atlanta on Thursday.

  242. avatar
    Rickey January 23, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    There is an excellent analysis at Oh For Goodness Sake this morning which explains why there will be no OMG moment for either side at Thursday’s hearing. Judge Malihi has issued this order: “All parties must be prepared to submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by 5:00 PM, February 5, 2012.”

    This means that Judge Malihi will not even issue his recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State until the second week of February.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=20882#more-20882

    There is additional information there about why Obama cannot be compelled to testify.

  243. avatar
    Arthur January 23, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    Thanks for the link, Rickey. I’m slowly getting a grasp of what, from the outside, appear to be achingly convoluted rules and procedures.

  244. avatar
    The Magic M January 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    charo: I am wondering why the judge didn’t simply grant the motion to quash because he would not enforce it anyways. Would he really worry about reversal?

    Likely. And about reputation, not necessarily his personal one, but that of his office.

    I don’t think that “I do what you ask since I can’t force you to do the opposite anyway” is a valid line of thought for a judge. Making a de iure decision based on de facto reasoning could open Pandora’s box.

  245. avatar
    The Magic M January 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Scientist: ut what could the President possibly testify to? The only relevant issues for eligibility are age, place of birth and residence. The first 2 depend on where and when he was born, which he has no first hand knowledge of and which are covered by the birth certificate(s) anyway. There is nothing game by him personally presenting the b.c.(s) to the court. Residence is proven by the deed to his house, election to the illinois and US Senates and the Presidency, which don’t require his testimony.

    So what could he be asked? Did you request the b.c.’s from Hawaii? Yes. But the b.c.(s) stand by themselves. The dual citizen. father’s citizenship, etc. are not relevant. If the judge wants expert testimony on the constitutional issues, he would not get that from a party to the case.

    Precisely what Jablonsky should have argued in his motion to quash, instead of fulfilling birther prophecies of “he’s going to present the PDF on the WH website as proof”.

    “It’s not reasonable by any interpretation of the law” is always a better argument than “it’s burdensome” or “look how stupid the plaintiffs are”.

  246. avatar
    The Magic M January 23, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    What’s with the timing issue anyway? If Jablonsky files an amended motion to quash, how quickly will the judge rule on it? And can the birfers file a motion in opposition, or do they have a right to, and what when all this happens 2-3 days before the actual hearing?

  247. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

    A subpena is not self-executing. In a court of law, if a witness or party doesn’t show up in response to a subpena, the judge has the power to issue an order to compel attendance or hold the non-appearing party in contempt. The ALJ lacks that power –that’s section (5) of 616-1-2-.22 in the administrative rules you cited.

    charo: I am not sure where you are seeing that.This is what I see:

    (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.

    http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf (under the subpoena section)

  248. avatar
    G January 23, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Thank you for that clarification. We’ve been waiting for one of the official legal minds here to specifically explain that.

    Expelliarmus: A subpena is not self-executing. In a court of law, if a witness or party doesn’t show up in response to a subpena, the judge has the power to issue an order to compel attendance or hold the non-appearing party in contempt. The ALJ lacks that power –that’s section (5) of 616-1-2-.22 in the administrative rules you cited.

  249. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    Scientist: Do you know how many Secret Service and state and local police it takes to move a President from the airport to a courthouse and back?The disruption to ground and air travel? And for what?You haven’t proposed what he would actually testify to.What could you testify to about your birth?

    I was trying to understand what the judge had in mind when he felt it necessary to ask for legal authority. As for how many Secret Service etc.? That happens every time either he or Mrs.Obama and or kids go anywhere. The issue is whether he can be compelled (and in this instance, not very likely) to attend a proceeding; IF a sitting President can be compelled to appear in some kind of proceeding, then he/she would have to attend and all necessary personnel would do their jobs to make that happen.

  250. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    A subpena is not self-executing.In a court of law, if a witness or party doesn’t show up in response to a subpena, thejudge has the power to issue an order to compel attendance or hold the non-appearing party in contempt.The ALJ lacks that power –that’s section (5) of 616-1-2-.22 in the administrative rules you cited.

    Thanks.

  251. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 23, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    charo: I was trying to understand what the judge had in mind when he felt it necessary to ask for legal authority.

    I can’t understand that either. Any first year law student would know that the only question the ALJ should be asking is whether there is any legal authority that would give him power to supena a sitting President…. not the other way around.

  252. avatar
    Scientist January 23, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    charo: The issue is whether he can be compelled (and in this instance, not very likely) to attend a proceeding; IF a sitting President can be compelled to appear in some kind of proceeding, then he/she would have to attend and all necessary personnel would do their jobs to make that happen.

    Orly should pay the costs since it would be her idiocy that caused it.

    You ducked the real question: What could the President testify to regarding the place and time of his birth, given that testimony is supposed to be first hand knowledge? Unless you have come up with something, then the proper response is “There is nothing he can testify about, therefore his presence is unnecessary.”

  253. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 23, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    charo: The issue is whether he can be compelled (and in this instance, not very likely) to attend a proceeding;IF a sitting President can be compelled to appear in some kind of proceeding, then he/she would have to attend and all necessary personnel would do their jobs to make that happen.

    There was discussion of this question in the Blagojovich case — Blagojovich was standing trial on serious felony charges, in federal court, and listed Obama as a possible witness. Given the nature of the charges, it was theoretically possible that Obama might actually have had some relevant testimony to offer. Because it was criminal prosecution, the defendant’s due process rights were involved – he has a constitutional right to call any witness who could give relevant testimony.

    Most legal scholars at the time seemed to agree that the federal court would not be able to compel Obama’s appearance, but speculated as to whether an alternative could be arranged (submission of an affidavit, videotaped testimony, etc.)

  254. avatar
    J. Potter January 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    charo: I was trying to understand what the judge had in mind when he felt it necessary to ask for legal authority.

    I believe the judge was pointing out that the motion to quash cited no legal authority which evidenced that response to the subpoena would be oppressive, and also failed to outline how any testimony Obama could give would be immaterial. In short, Jablonski’s motion gave no legal grounds for quashing, only a lengthy “this is silly” and the incredible gaffe re: service in GA. He wasn’t asking for authority, he was asking Jablonski to write a worthwhile, effective motion!

  255. avatar
    y_p_w January 23, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Expelliarmus: A subpena is not self-executing. In a court of law, if a witness or party doesn’t show up in response to a subpena, the judge has the power to issue an order to compel attendance or hold the non-appearing party in contempt. The ALJ lacks that power –that’s section (5) of 616-1-2-.22 in the administrative rules you cited.

    I was thinking the same thing about an unlawful detainer (evicition proceeding). If someone isn’t leaving a rental property, it’s not as if the landlord can get default judgement (or win in court) and simply wave the papers around as if they had magical powers. It’s up to the landlord to contact the local sheriff department’s civil division and schedule an eviction.

    I understand some people have tried doing it themselves, only to have the local police come and tell them that only the sheriff can do it.

    Now that would be interesting. Anyone think it would make for good theater to have Orly try and personally haul Obama to the hearing? I doubt she gets within 200 feet before the Secret Service spots the hair.

  256. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 23, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    charo: IF a sitting President can be compelled to appear in some kind of proceeding, then he/she would have to attend and all necessary personnel would do their jobs to make that happen.

    The likely result is that he would be treated as being essentially “unavailable” for in-person testimony and — in a legitimate case — the parties would come to some sort of agreement or the judge would order a procedure to allow for the testimony to be presented in some other form.

    But the very first step would be that the party wishing to compel testimony would need to present the court with an offer of proof as to what the witness would be able to testify to. Hence Scientist’s question — the testimony would have to be shown to be relevant and non-cumulative.

    Presumably, Obama doesn’t remember his own birth, and his residency can easily be established by other means.

  257. avatar
    y_p_w January 23, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    J. Potter: I believe the judge was pointing out that the motion to quash cited no legal authority which evidenced that response to the subpoena would be oppressive, and also failed to outline how any testimony Obama could give would be immaterial. In short, Jablonski’s motion gave no legal grounds for quashing, only a lengthy “this is silly” and the incredible gaffe re: service in GA. He wasn’t asking for authority, he was asking Jablonski to write a worthwhile, effective motion!

    I thought that if the judge understood the rule well enough, he could cite it himself. Obviously, he wants Jablonski to actually earn his legal fees.

    I’ve heard of plenty of cases where a judge shot down a line of questioning even without an objection from the other side. I thought that if the judge knows something is patently wrong, he can act on it himself.

  258. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 23, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    charo: You were arguing logistics.

    Resorting to smartas*ery language is not very becoming.

    The Supreme Court made a point of distinguishing these logistics. If you believe that my pointing that out is smartass, please, in the future, just skip over my comments.

    I didn’t catch where you said you went to law school What year did you graduate?

  259. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: The Supreme Court made a point of distinguishing these logistics.If you believe that my pointing that out is smartass, please, in the future, just skip over my comments.

    I didn’t catch where you said you went to law schoolWhat year did you graduate?

    I won’t name the year but The Dickinson School of Law (pre-merger). I worked as a public servant in a very narrow field of law, not a traditional law firm. And it has been quite some time since I have worked in that field. I have an interest in responding to some of the issues here and certainly realize that I don’t have the “bona fides” that you have. I will take your advice and simply ignore your comments in the future, considering my unworthiness.

  260. avatar
    charo January 23, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Presumably, Obama doesn’t remember his own birth, and his residency can easily be established by other means.

    That is why I don’t understand why the judge didn’t just accept the brief arguments Jablonski made. All will be known soon.

  261. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 24, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    charo: I won’t name the year but The Dickinson School of Law (pre-merger).I worked as a public servant in a very narrow field of law, not a traditional law firm.And it has been quite some time since I have worked in that field.I have an interest in responding to some of the issues here and certainly realize that I don’t have the “bona fides” that you have. I will take your advice and simply ignore your comments in the future, considering my unworthiness.

    Whatever.

  262. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 24, 2012 at 3:07 am #

    Surprisingly, you and I are in complete agreement. The subpoena on its face is unreasonable, whatever the quality of the written motion.

    charo: That is why I don’t understand why the judge didn’t just accept the brief arguments Jablonski made. All will be known soon.

  263. avatar
    Scientist January 24, 2012 at 6:46 am #

    Expelliarmus: Surprisingly, you and I are in complete agreement. The subpoena on its face is unreasonable, whatever the quality of the written motion.

    I agree too. No one, President or janitor, can testify about something they have no knowledge of (their own birth). This illustrates one of many injustices in the legal system. No “attorney”, whether Orly Taitz or some ambulance chaser in your town, should be able to issue you a subpoena and oblige you to hire a lawyer to quash it. Subpoenas should ONLY be issued by judges and only after the party requesting one makes a solid case as to what relevant evidence the witness has. If you want to go fishing, go to the beach, not to court.

  264. avatar
    charo January 24, 2012 at 7:05 am #

    Scientist: I agree too.No one, President or janitor, can testify about something they have no knowledge of (their own birth).This illustrates one of many injustices in the legal system.No “attorney”, whether Orly Taitz or some ambulance chaser in your town, should be able to issue you a subpoena and oblige you to hire a lawyer to quash it.Subpoenas should ONLY be issued by judges and only after the party requesting one makes a solid case as to what relevant evidence the witness has.If you want to go fishing, go to the beach, not to court.

    My guess is that there are so many subpoenas issued that a judge could get bogged down. It becomes the burden of the party/witness to fight the subpoena.

  265. avatar
    The Magic M January 24, 2012 at 7:54 am #

    If “Sex and the City” taught me anything, it’s what “see you next Thursday” actually means (OK, it was Tuesday in the original…).

    Oh, and if you seek Amy… 😉

  266. avatar
    Nathanael January 24, 2012 at 7:55 am #

    Scientist: what could the President possibly testify to?

    The Magic M: Precisely what Jablonsky should have argued in his motion to quash

    Everything I know about law could fit on the back of a box of Cap’n Krunch, and I’ve got the legal instincts to match, but are those questions Jablonski should ask of the judge, or the judge of Taitz — say, when she files her motion to compel? It doesn’t strike me as much of a legal argument to say in effect, “Since neither you nor I can imagine what counsel for the plaintiff intends to ask, therefore it can’t be relevant.”

  267. avatar
    Scientist January 24, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    charo: My guess is that there are so many subpoenas issued that a judge could get bogged down. It becomes the burden of the party/witness to fight the subpoena.

    That may be true, but it still seems unfair that some shyster can issue subpoenas and place a burden on an innocent party to fight them. I suppose it’s what happens when the laws are made by and for lawyers.

  268. avatar
    Wile January 24, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    Scientist: That may be true, but it still seems unfair that some shyster can issue subpoenas and place a burden on an innocent party to fight them.I suppose it’s what happens when the laws are made by and for lawyers.

    Well, the innocent party doesn’t really have to fight them over the original subpoena.

    Instead of trying to quash the subpoena, they could just respond with a “Whatever dude. I won’t be there because…” letter, or just ignore the subpoena altogether.

    That would put the ball back in the other court, and force the subpoena issuer to have to justify the subpoena when trying to get a Motion to Compel.

  269. avatar
    Scientist January 24, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    Wile: Well, the innocent party doesn’t really have to fight them over the original subpoena.
    Instead of trying to quash the subpoena, they could just respond with a “Whatever dude. I won’t be there because…” letter, or just ignore the subpoena altogether.
    That would put the ball back in the other court, and force the subpoena issuer to have to justify the subpoena when trying to get a Motion to Compel.

    That’s true, but if I got a bogus subpoena from some Taitz like shyster, I would probably feel I needed to at least consult with an attorney which would entail some expense in time and money on my part.

  270. avatar
    y_p_w January 24, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    NBC:

    And then motion to object to petition for rogatory

    I noticed a pretty nasty flaw in Orly’s petition, but I guess it was taken down on NBC because I guess giving her hints isn’t a good idea?

    Let’s just say that I believe that she’s gotten pretty good at taking snippets of the law out of context.