Main Menu

Illinois ballot challenge, preview of Georgia?

Embedded below is the agenda for the February 2, 2012 meeting of the Illinois State Board of Elections with recommendations from the Hearing Officer and the General Counsel. These recommendations are in the cases of Freeman v. Obama and Jackson v. Obama, both so-called "birther” challenges.

In the Freeman case, Hearing Officer Jim Tenuto wrote:

A copy of the Candidate’s [long form] birth certificate is attached to the Candidate’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss the Objector’s Petition. The Hearing officer finds that the birth certificate clearly establishes the Candidate’s eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen.”

The General Counsel agreed.

In the next case, Jackson submitted an argument similar to that raised in Georgia that a Natural Born Citizen must be born in the United States to two citizen parents. Both the Georgia and Illinois arguments cite the Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett, and both argue against the application of the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Wong. Jackson also argues that Barack Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen because he was born with dual citizenship, US and UK.

Obama’s attorney moved to dismiss stating, among other things, that the challenge was based on an incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”

Jackson wrote in his Motion In Opposition to dismissal:

Because Obama was not born to citizen parent(s), assuming he was born in Hawaii, he has to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) to be a “citizen of the United States.” First, that amendment and statute do not provide anyone with the status of a “natural born Citizen,” which status is only obtained by satisfying the American common law definition of the clause as confirmed by Minor v Happersett.

In response to this argument, the hearing officer, with concurrence of the General Counsel, while not addressing any part of Jackson’s argument specifically, concluded that the submitted birth certificate clearly makes Obama a natural born citizen.

I’m sure birthers will point to the “Chicago Mafia” or say that Obama got to these officers; however, I think they should consider the possibility that this is the way normal people react to birther claims, and that they may see more of the same in Georgia a few days hence.

Illinois Elections Commission Freeman v Obama and Jackson v Obama agenda and recommendations

, , , , ,

98 Responses to Illinois ballot challenge, preview of Georgia?

  1. avatar
    Dr. Bob February 1, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    “I think they should consider the possibility that this is the way normal people react to birther claims, and that they may see more of the same in Georgia a few days hence.”
    ————-
    Right! Like that’s going to happen.

  2. avatar
    donna February 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    re georgia: included in her “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law”, taitz asked this question:

    It appears that for a period of two years there were two distinct separate individuals: Barry Obama, who attended Noelani elementary school in Hawaii and Barry Soetoro, who attended Assisi school in Indonesia. It is not clear, how these two individuals merge into one person. It is not clear, who came back from Indonesia: Barry Obama or Barry Soetoro. We have no idea, who is residing in the White House: is it Barry Obama or Barry Soetoro? If it is Barry Soetoro, what happened to Barry Obama?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80169403/2012-02-01-FARRAR-Proposed-Findings-of-Fact-and-Conclusions-of-Law

  3. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 1, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    Lemme guess: that stunning revelation is based on the ironclad evidence of erroneous date in some newspaper article?

  4. avatar
    yutube February 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Normal people react to “birther” claims while not addressing the issue of the Minor court and the rules of statutory construction arguments by simply presenting the birth certificate as proof? yep, I agree.

    How about normal people also respect the rule of law of the United States by following court subpoenas no matter how ridiculous the law suit is Dr. C.?

  5. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    In the Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner, item 10, the examiner appears to be saying that the pleadings are ‘illogical, nonsensical and not worthy consideration.”

    In the Objector’s (Jackson’s) exception to the Hearing Officers recommendations, he says that the examiner is referring to Leo Donofrio’s amicus brief.

  6. avatar
    Obsolete February 1, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    yutube: Normal people react to “birther” claims while not addressing the issue of the Minor court and the rules of statutory construction arguments by simply presenting the birth certificate as proof? yep, I agree.

    Because the birther claims about “Minor” are nonsense.

  7. avatar
    yutube February 1, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Obsolete: Because the birther claims about “Minor” are nonsense.

    uh huh, got it.

  8. avatar
    JoZeppy February 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    yutube: Normal people react to “birther” claims while not addressing the issue of the Minor court and the rules of statutory construction arguments by simply presenting the birth certificate as proof? yep, I agree.

    Actually, there is no issue of the Minor court and rules of statutory construction agurments (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). While most normal people may not know the legal orgins of the law and the term “natrual born citizen” they know what they were taught in school. Born on US soil = natural born citizen. And those of us who actually studied law agree….so yes, simply presenting the birth certificate is proof.

    yutube: How about normal people also respect the rule of law of the United States by following court subpoenas no matter how ridiculous the law suit is Dr. C.?

    Respect for the rule of law? The slight problem is the validity of the subpoena is questionable. State courts cannot subpoena federal officials. This wasn’t even a state court, it was state administrative hearing. Perhaps Orly should show a little respect for the law and quick shipping invalid subpoenas all around the country?

  9. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    Obsolete: Because the birther claims about “Minor” are nonsense.

    And illogical and not worthy of consideration.

    They are laughing at Leo. And rightfully so.

  10. avatar
    donna February 1, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    “How about normal people also respect the rule of law of the United States by following court subpoenas no matter how ridiculous the law suit is Dr. C.?”

    like arpaio? he said the “subpoena” was NOT VALID

    he refused to appear

    he refused to provide the requested documents

    and said to do so would place and UNDUE BURDEN ON HIM

  11. avatar
    Majority Will February 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    donna:
    “How about normal people also respect the rule of law of the United States by following court subpoenas no matter how ridiculous the law suit is Dr. C.?”

    like arpaio? he said the “subpoena” was NOT VALID

    he refused to appear

    he refused to provide the requested documents

    and said to do so would place and UNDUE BURDEN ON HIM

    For the birther bigot that’s different. Arpaio’s white. Or is that he’s not normal?

  12. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    yutube: Normal people react to “birther” claims while not addressing the issue of the Minor court and the rules of statutory construction arguments by simply presenting the birth certificate as proof? yep, I agree.

    I don’t know whether the members of Congress are “normal people” but there are 538 of them and not a single one objected when the 2008 results were certified. Nor diid any members of the Supreme Court nor any other court, state or federal.

    You are going to have to face reality. No matter how much you may disagree, the rest of the world considers anyone born here a natural born citizen. All the blog postings in the last 3 years haven’t changed that and 10 billion more in the next year won’t. If you guys want to enshine your definition as the law of the land you’re going to have to get out of the blogosphere and do the hard work of trying to amend the Constitution. That’s the reality. Face it, bub,

  13. avatar
    donna February 1, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    the letter from maricopa county attorney’s office

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79674934/Georgia-Farrar-v-Obama-Response-From-Joe-Arpaio-to-Orly-Re-Subpoena

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Are you referring to Sheriff Arpaio’s refusal to honor the subpoena or President Obama’s refusal? In either case, a Georgia subpoena isn’t valid outside of Georgia. That’s the law.

    yutube: How about normal people also respect the rule of law of the United States by following court subpoenas no matter how ridiculous the law suit is Dr. C.?

  15. avatar
    JPotter February 1, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    I was hoping that this fail twin-pack could serve as a gentle warm-up to the impending colossal fail in Georgia. Sort of like a stepping stone. Birthers are so invested in that case; if that can’t even acknowledge the results of these challenges … as Lincoln said, “Let’em up easy.” But like the South, the Birthers are dug in deep and ready to bite any helping hand idealistic enough to get within reach.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    The phrase, “they won’t know what hit them” comes to mind. Now Judge Malihi might rule for the birthers, but they would lose on appeal.

    JPotter: Birthers are so invested in that case;

  17. avatar
    JPotter February 1, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    yutube: How about normal people also respect the rule of law of the United States by following court subpoenas no matter how ridiculous the law suit is Dr. C.?

    Is yutube admitting the possibility that the challenges in GA might (might!) be ridiculous???

  18. avatar
    yutube February 1, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Are you referring to Sheriff Arpaio’s refusal to honor the subpoena or President Obama’s refusal? In either case, a Georgia subpoena isn’t valid outside of Georgia. That’s the law.

    So do you disagree with the judge’s ruling on the motion to quash defendant’s subpoena? Obama’s attorney couldn’t make the sheriff’s argument? Isn’t that a wtf moment?

  19. avatar
    yutube February 1, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

    JPotter: Is yutube admitting the possibility that the challenges in GA might (might!) be ridiculous???

    So, I’ve had ridiculous court citations for speeding 5 miles over the limit on a 55 zone, yet, I sent a lawyer to represent me. Case dismissed. 😉

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

    I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not competent to judge the legal argument Jablonski made; but I have read up some on the options one has when presented with a non-party subpoena (which applies to Sheriff Joe, but not to Obama). Sheriff Joe appears to have followed standard procedure for a non-party.

    Obama, being a party to the proceeding may not have had the same options open to him as Arpaio did (and of course there are Georgia state rules, and not the federal rules I studied.) If you read Judge Malihi’s denial of the Motion to Quash, he basically said: you may have good grounds for me to quash the subpoena — you just didn’t give the reasons and cite the law. So until somebody tells me better, I’m going to assume that the Motion to Quash just wasn’t well written. I don’t disagree with Malihi’s decision (I’m not competent to), but Malihi in that decision did not order Obama to appear, or claim that he had the authority to compel Obama to appear. He just denied the motion.

    yutube: So do you disagree with the judge’s ruling on the motion to quash defendant’s subpoena? Obama’s attorney couldn’t make the sheriff’s argument? Isn’t that a wtf moment?

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 1, 2012 at 9:48 pm #

    Yes, but I suspect you did not do what you did out of respect for the sanctity of the law but because there were consequences for you for not appearing. I assume that the Obama defense concluded that there were no consequence for not attending and I speculate that they might have believed that there were negative consequences (publicity for and legitimation of the birthers) if he did.

    Obama’s approach will be validated should he win in Georgia, an outcome for which I am cautiously optimistic, particularly after seeing what happened in Illinois.

    yutube: So, I’ve had ridiculous court citations for speeding 5 miles over the limit on a 55 zone, yet, I sent a lawyer to represent me. Case dismissed

  22. avatar
    Arthur February 1, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Dr. C.:

    Have you learned anything about the subpoena that was apparently served on the Georgia Secretary of State?

  23. avatar
    yutube February 1, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not competent to judge the legal argument Jablonski made; but I have read up some on the options one has when presented with a non-party subpoena(which applies to Sheriff Joe, but not to Obama). Sheriff Joe appears to have followed standard procedure for a non-party.

    Obama, being a party to the proceeding may not have had the same options open to him as Arpaio did (and of course there are Georgia state rules, and not the federal rules I studied.) If you read Judge Malihi’s denial of the Motion to Quash, he basically said: you may have good grounds for me to quash the subpoena — you just didn’t give the reasons and cite the law. So until somebody tells me better, I’m going to assume that the Motion to Quash just wasn’t well written. I don’t disagree with Malihi’s decision (I’m not competent to), but Malihi in that decision did not order Obama to appear, or claim that he had the authority to compel Obama to appear. He just denied the motion.

    And because the motion was denied, the subpoena stands as an order to appear.

  24. avatar
    alg February 1, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    yutube: And because the motion was denied, the subpoena stands as an order to appear.

    No it doesn’t. Please remember that at the very beginning of this proceeding, several weeks prior to the hearing, Mr. Malihi publically stated that Mr. Obama did not need to attend the hearing.

  25. avatar
    donna February 1, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    “And because the motion was denied, the subpoena stands as an order to appear.”

    when one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, von irion, raised the issue, malihi SAID “i’m not interested in COMMENTARY on that, counsel ….are you DONE?”

    PAGE 18 of the court transcript

    i would take clinton v jones as precedent

  26. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    yutube: And because the motion was denied, the subpoena stands as an order to appear.

    Let’s be serious. The President is not going to appear in a courtroom with Orly Taitz. Forget about it. To compare that to you going to fight a speeding ticket is silly. The President also doesn’t wait in line and take his shoes off to get on Air Force One.

  27. avatar
    charo February 1, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    Supposedly, a motion for contempt has been filed by Van Irion, representing David P. Weldon (excerpt)

    The letter from Obama’s lawyer to the state official, “coupled with the defendant’s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law,” the motion says. “The … actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.”

    Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion writes. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”

    Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

  28. avatar
    John Reilly February 1, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    The Courts, whether in Georgia or in the federal courts, are not about to declare open season on compelling President Romney or President Gingrich that they must appear and testify every time some crazy litigant thinks the President has some relevant information. If you ask the U. S. Attorney in your district, you will the President is sued multiple times per day in District Court by some pro per who thinks he or she has been wronged. I’ve heard that directly from the U.S. Attorney for Indiana in the prior administration.

  29. avatar
    JPotter February 1, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    yutube: So do you disagree with the judge’s ruling on the motion to quash defendant’s subpoena? Obama’s attorney couldn’t make the sheriff’s argument? Isn’t that a wtf moment?

    Dear (non)genius yutube, Arpaio’s representative made no argument. He sent a letter straight back to the source of the “subpoena”, Orly, not to the court. Further, the subpoena sent to Arpaio was improperly served. If you believe Orly, she sent it to Arpaio as “a favor”.

    Seriously.

    I have posted here before that Jablonski erred by making the motion to quash. He should have followed Arpaio’s example, and sent a ‘Dear John’ to Orly*, instead of recognizing the ‘subpoena’ by bothering the judge about it. To my knowledge, none of Orly’s lengthy list of subpoenas was honored, and nobody, least of all the judge, cared a whit.

    By writing the judge instead of Orly, Jablonski forced the judge to acknowledge the subpoena, that it was properly served, and that he didn’t have a reason to actively oppose it … and Jablonski failed to give him one. However, the judge did not proactively back it up with an order to compel or a bench warrant,** now did he? By prompting that, Jablonski whipped the birthers into a frenzy and drew limited national attention to the case and embarrassment on the state of Georgia. I’d like to think that was intentional, but I doubt it.

    The judge was more than happy to take advantage of Jablonski’s refusal to appear, by all reports attempting to talk the birthers into going home unheard. No fool, he saw that Jablonski had unwittingly(?) given him a chance to escape this mess … but the birthers wouldn’t take the hint, and insisted on wasting his time and embarrassing themselves. Stupefyingly, they made Obama’s case for him by submitting copies of his birth certificate. The same that carried the day in Illinois.

    So, to sum up the differences between the subpoenas you insist in confusing:

    Subpoena to Obama via Jablonski: proper service, improper response.
    Subpoena to Arpaio: improper service, proper response.

    See the differences now?

    * If you’re keeping track, this has become the universal SOP for handling correspondence from Orly Taitz. Her papers are lower than junk mail.

    ** Now that would have been awesome!!! 😀 (please understand this is JPotter awesome, not the same as common usage)

  30. avatar
    yutube February 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm #

    alg: No it doesn’t.Please remember that at the very beginning of this proceeding, several weeks prior to the hearing, Mr. Malihi publically stated that Mr. Obama did not need to attend the hearing.

    No authority cited as to why defendant cannot ATTEND
    “Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority
    evidencing why HIS ATTENDANCE is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is]
    irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at
    the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.” Ga. Comp.
    R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).

    No “DEFECT IN SERVICE” found:
    Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court’s rules
    provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party’s counsel of record. Ga.
    Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
    Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.”

    Conclusion: valid subpoena, subpoena stands, Obama ignored ruling.

  31. avatar
    JoZeppy February 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm #

    charo: Supposedly, a motion for contempt has been filed by Van Irion, representing David P. Weldon (excerpt)

    Several problems with this supposed “motion for contempt.” First it wasn’t his subpoena that was ignored. Unless Georgia has some rules I’ve never encountered before, a third party can’t move for sanctions.

    Secondly, for all that ranting about the judicial branch…there was no judicial branch involved. It was an administrative hearing…part of the executive branch.

    Thirdly, it is hardly unprecidented that a President ingore a judicial subpoena. Thomas Jefferson was the first to do so in U.S. v. Burr.

    Fourthly, while the Courts have acknoweldged that there are times where a sitting President may be required to testify, and thus attend a deposition or hearing under a subpoena, the Courts have always been very accomodating to the needs of the President, and generally require that there be a showing that the President is the only source of some necessary and unique testmony.

    And fithly, if this actually was a question of tensions between the power of the judicial verus the executive branches it would already be a hard case to make (just as he claims the President is above the judiciary, the converse is true, and the judiciary isn’t king of the exectuvie) there is also the issue that this is a state court (if it was actually a court, that is). You’re also mixing in a touch of federalism here, and whether a state court can compel a sitting President to do anything.

    Overall, this is just a publicity stunt for the benefit of the birthers. It isn’t going anywhere fast.

  32. avatar
    JD Reed February 1, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

    Good point that some collection of nuts could keep a sitting president occupied with nothing else other than swatting at gnats. Get it Youtube? The president was NOT ordered to appear, and this administrative law judge lacked such authority. If you wish for petty magistrates to possess such power to harass the person with the most awesome responsibility on the planet, and divert him from his job, I can only ask, why? For what good reason?

  33. avatar
    G February 1, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    I find Van Irion’s motion of contempt to be, well, ironic.

    How can he file a motion of contempt in regards to Obama not responding to someone ELSE’s subpoena? I mean, it came from Orly’s case, not his. After all, both he and Hatfield went to great lengths to sever their cases from Orly’s and make sure the judge agreed that their cases were completely separate and unconnected to hers.

    So how exactly can he file a complaint about someone not showing in court that his case never asked to be there in the first place??? Someone explain that one to me…

    charo: Supposedly, a motion for contempt has been filed by Van Irion, representing David P. Weldon (excerpt)
    The letter from Obama’s lawyer to the state official, “coupled with the defendant’s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law,” the motion says. “The … actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.”

  34. avatar
    yutube February 2, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    listen to this…now the osah court is part of the executive branch, wow, ok, whatever

  35. avatar
    Whatever4 February 2, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    JoZeppy:
    Perhaps Orly should show a little respect for the law and quick shipping invalid subpoenas all around the country?

    For Orly to show respect for the law she would first have to actually understand it.

  36. avatar
    JPotter February 2, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    G: I find Van Irion’s motion of contempt to be, well, ironic.

    Bob Unruh drones on forever about it at WND. Surprise! Insists that Orly’s subpoena was “this court’s order” blah, blah.

    My favorite part:

    Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

    Hysterical! If Obama really had revealed himself as the Dictator for Life representative of the NWO (or whatever) …. then what’s little old Judge Malihi going to do about it? What a setup!

    G: How can he file a motion of contempt in regards to Obama not responding to someone ELSE’s subpoena?

    I could swear I read somewhere that two parties had subpoena’d Obama, but I’m probably imagining that …. probably was a reference to 1 copy going to Jablonski, and 1 copy have been sent to the White House. I love that part. Orly crowed after Malihi confirmed correct service, that she knew what she was doing. That moron wallpapered the planet and proved that yes, given enough tries, a monkey really can type!

  37. avatar
    yutube February 2, 2012 at 12:29 am #

    My favorite part:

    Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

    Hysterical! If Obama really had revealed himself as the Dictator for Life representative of the NWO (or whatever) …. then what’s little old Judge Malihi going to do about it? What a setup!

    He is not asking Judge Malihi to do anything about it G… it is a motion to refer to a Superior Court. Oh G.

  38. avatar
    Obsolete February 2, 2012 at 12:34 am #

    Van Irion: Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority.

    If Obama was a dictator, we wouldn’t hear from the birthers anymore…

  39. avatar
    Tomtech February 2, 2012 at 12:50 am #

    yutube:
    listen to this…now the osah court is part of the executive branch, wow, ok, whatever

    The “Office of State Administrative Hearings” is an executive branch office which normally handles minor disputes with functionaries in order to keep minor cases out of the overburdened and burdensome court system.

  40. avatar
    G February 2, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    The point is that he did everything in his power to ensure that the Judge severed his case completely from Orly’s. Therefore, he is simply outside the bounds of his own case in trying to whine about such things – period.

    yutube: He is not asking Judge Malihi to do anything about it G… it is a motion to refer to a Superior Court. Oh G.

  41. avatar
    G February 2, 2012 at 12:59 am #

    Yeah, where are those black helicopters & FEMA Camps when you need them…? 😉

    Obsolete: If Obama was a dictator, we wouldn’t hear from the birthers anymore…

  42. avatar
    JPotter February 2, 2012 at 1:13 am #

    yutube: He is not asking Judge Malihi to do anything about it G… it is a motion to refer to a Superior Court. Oh G.

    Yo, ‘tube, you seem to be confused, replying to me, but addressing G?

    Why are all the trolls confused by the quote function?

  43. avatar
    gorefan February 2, 2012 at 2:08 am #

    yutube:
    listen to this…now the osah court is part of the executive branch, wow, ok, whatever

    No, read this from the 2010 Georgia Code,

    TITLE 50 – STATE GOVERNMENT
    CHAPTER 13 – ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
    ARTICLE 2 – OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
    § 50-13-40 – Office created; chief state administrative law judge

    O.C.G.A. 50-13-40 (2010)
    50-13-40. Office created; chief state administrative law judge

    (a) There is created within the executive branch of state government the Office of State Administrative Hearings.

    http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-50/chapter-13/article-2/50-13-40/

    And there is this about subpoenas,

    2006 Georgia Code – 50-13-13

    (7) Subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties. When a subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the superior court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience. Failure to comply with such order shall be cause for punishment as for contempt of court.

    http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/50/50-13-13.html

    The proper action for the three stooges would have been to ask for a continuance and then seek a motion to compel from the superior court.

  44. avatar
    JoZeppy February 2, 2012 at 2:56 am #

    yutube:
    listen to this…now the osah court is part of the executive branch, wow, ok, whatever

    as it always has been….are you really so clueless that you didn’t know that? Do you really not know that ALJs are part of the executive branch?

    What am I saying….of course you’re that clueless…otherwise you wouldn’t be a birther.

  45. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 2, 2012 at 4:38 am #

    Hi guys, the topic is Illinois.
    Copy of BC+copy of Ankeny and a referring to a Wikipedia article to explain birferdom (treating that article as a sort of repository for all lost birther cases). The first two things are what I advised Jablonski to do in Georgia, on this very website.
    It looks like the lawyer for Obama did not really put in a lot of effort in this case. You might even say he probably had a good time laughing at it all.
    But the immortal line from “Shogun” still is: “Except when you win”.

  46. avatar
    misha February 2, 2012 at 4:38 am #

    donna: It appears that for a period of two years there were two distinct separate individuals: Barry Obama, who attended Noelani elementary school in Hawaii and Barry Soetoro, who attended Assisi school in Indonesia. It is not clear, how these two individuals merge into one

    Ask Sigfried and Roy.

  47. avatar
    The Magic M February 2, 2012 at 5:19 am #

    yutube: the defendant’s contumacious conduct

    So I learned a new word today. I love this site, oh sorry, “cite”. 😉

  48. avatar
    The Magic M February 2, 2012 at 5:24 am #

    yutube: listen to this…now the osah court is part of the executive branch, wow, ok, whatever

    You’re excused for not knowing better. But what excuse does Van Irion have? He’s a lawyer, isn’t he? He should know the difference. So his motion can only be interpreted as propaganda, not meant for the court to enforce but for the birther audience to read. I think this could also qualify him for sanctions, couldn’t it?

  49. avatar
    Keith February 2, 2012 at 5:24 am #

    charo: in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch.

    Mr. Irion is barking up the wrong tree. The Administrative Hearing is an Executive Branch function. It is not a function of the judicial branch, it merely has a judge presiding as an independent hearing officer. This is much the same as a Presidential Impeachment trial that is a function of the Senate, not the Supreme Court, but a Supreme Court justice presides.

    The Georgia hearing is not a trial, the result is not a judgment with legal force, but a recommendation to the Secretary of State that can be accepted or ignored.

  50. avatar
    charo February 2, 2012 at 6:06 am #

    If Mr. Irion should have explained his position better regarding the judicial branch. The Supreme Court extended judicial immunity to ALJs, recognizing them as judges
    who decide cases. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 511-14 (1978). Technically, administrative hearings are part of the executive branch, but they are very much likened to the judiciary in major respects.

    Whether that motion has any impact whatsoever on Judge Malihi, we’ll see.

  51. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 2, 2012 at 6:48 am #

    charo: The Supreme Court extended judicial immunity to ALJs, recognizing them as judges
    who decide cases. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 511-14 (1978). Technically, administrative hearings are part of the executive branch, but they are very much likened to the judiciary in major respects.

    Er, from that decision:
    “The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the individual defendants, as federal officials, were entitled to absolute immunity for all discretionary acts within the scope of their authority.”

    This was a federal immunity case. Good luck trying to use that one to say that the judge in Georgia has the right to grant a motion for contempt for not answering a subpoena invalid outside of Georgia, precisely because one of the reasons for Butz granting immunity to federal ALJs is … that they can issue subpoenas.

  52. avatar
    charo February 2, 2012 at 7:12 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Er, from that decision:
    “The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the individual defendants, as federal officials, were entitled to absolute immunity for all discretionary acts within the scope of their authority.”

    This was a federal immunity case. Good luck trying to use that one to say that the judge in Georgia has the right to grant a motion for contempt for not answering a subpoena invalid outside of Georgia, precisely because one of the reasons for Butz granting immunity to federal ALJs is … that they can issue subpoenas.

    It is not my job to say anything to the judge. Irion was getting hammered for arguing in part that the hearings are part of the executive branch. Technically they are, but ALJs are considered quasi-judges. How you read anything else into my comment, I don’t know.

  53. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 2, 2012 at 7:28 am #

    charo: Technically they are, but ALJs are considered quasi-judges. How you read anything else into my comment, I don’t know.

    OK, let me rephrase what I was saying: the DICTA that you have referred to, is about FEDERAL judges.

  54. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 2, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    And there is another issue here. Supposing Butz would also mean judicial immunity for ALJs installed under Georgia state law.

    Are you really suggesting that Malihi should ignore Georgian state law, because he has judicial immunity anyway?

  55. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    Have you ever taken an IQ test and “finish the sequence”showed up several times?:
    http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/image/!Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf

    You should get to the result by deductive reasoning

  56. avatar
    Obummermustgo February 2, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    You people are blind,dumb, and idiotic…Obummer is not a citizen, he is a pretender with delusions of grandeur. He is a Hitler wannabe that should be ran out of the U.S.A.

  57. avatar
    Rickey February 2, 2012 at 10:19 am #

    gorefan:

    The proper action for the three stooges would have been to ask for a continuance and then seek a motion to compel from the superior court.

    Precisely. Orly, other birthers, and even clueless reporters assumed that the denial of the Motion to Quash was tantamount to a court order. It wash’t, of course.

    Here in New York, subpoenas are ignored all the time in civil cases. When a subpoenaed witness fails to appear, it does not automatically translate to a contempt order. The proper procedure is to file a Motion to Compel, which if granted will result in a real court order. Then the court order must be served upon the witness, and if the witness still refuses to comply he or she can be held in contempt.

    However, in the real world that never happens. The penalty for contempt in a civil case is a small fine. The only effective remedy is for the party which served the subpoena to ask the judge to give the jury a “missing witness charge” – in effect, inform the jury that they can make inferences regarding the failure of the witness to appear.

    Of course, if a Motion to Compel had been granted and a court order had ensured. Jablonski would have been able to appeal it, and this farce would have been dragged out even further.

  58. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    WOPRjr: You should get to the result by deductive reasoning

    But when you or anyone tries to pass off an incredible number of debunked and documented outright lies, all you really deserve is scorn and ridicule.

    Lots and lots of scorn and ridicule.

  59. avatar
    misha February 2, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    WOPRjr: You should get to the result by deductive reasoning

    Majority Will: all you really deserve is scorn and ridicule. Lots and lots of scorn and ridicule.

    WOPR, I listen to WOLD. When you leave here, go to gawker.com. I went there for the repartee, and stayed for the insults.

  60. avatar
    misha February 2, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    Obummermustgo: He is a Hitler wannabe that should be ran out of the U.S.A.

    First, learn present tense and past tense. You are confirming our worst suspicions.

    Rush Limbaugh – ‘Drug abusers should be stripped of their citizenship and thrown out of the country.’ So when is he leaving? And when are you joining him?

  61. avatar
    misha February 2, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    Obummermustgo: with delusions of grandeur

    This is a forum about Barack Obama, not Newton MacPherson Gingrich.

  62. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 11:56 am #

    Obummermustgo:
    You people are blind,dumb, and idiotic…Obummer is not a citizen, he is a pretender with delusions of grandeur. He is a Hitler wannabe that should be ran out of the U.S.A.

    Do you mean people you know or people you fantasize about?

    Who is Obummer? Is that one of the voices in your head that keeps whispering sexy things to you when you’re angry?

    Also, dumb and idiotic are synonyms and you have a nasty run-on sentence.

    How do you ran someone out?

    Is English not your native language?

  63. avatar
    J. Potter February 2, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    Obummermustgo: Obummermustgo

    I agree! The “obummer” thing is childish, and lame, uninspired. Personally, I would recommend using “Oblama”. Sounds much better, and more accurately communicates winger propaganda with little need for further explanation. Surely you already what it refers to. I hope it catches on, be sure to telll all your friends where you got it.

    Oblama gets 511K hits on Google, your lame “obummer” 502K, yet I only hear “obummer” all the time. What’s up with that? Clearly I am only running across the lamer representatives from team RWNJ.

    So, any comment about the thread topic? Your post drips with denial. I suggest you go ahead and double down and let it ride! 😀

  64. avatar
    Scientist February 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    WOPRjr: Have you ever taken an IQ test and “finish the sequence”showed up several times?:

    I happen to do very well on IQ tests. I am also quite familiar with statistics, having analyzed clinical trials for drug licensure. So let’s analyze your data.

    There have been 43 Presidents so far (it’s not proper to count Cleveland twice). Of those, 9 had parents who were not US citiizens when they were born-the first 7 + Arthur + Obama. 9/43, or 21%. Clearly, one can’t conclude anything from that.
    Now, you might want to exclude the first 7 grandfathers. Strictly speaking, by the standards used by FDA, that is not allowed. But, for you, I’ll do that. So now we have 36 Presidents with 2 with non-citiizen parents. That’s 5.5%. Sorry, that fails the 95% confidence standard. You will have to get more data. When we get to 50 Presidents, you can come back and re-submit.

  65. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    Scientist

    The first 7 were excluded,by definition.One got away and one is about to learn the penalty for forgery,fraud,conspiracy,et.al.

    Since you like statistics:
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

  66. avatar
    Arthur February 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    As I tell my students, “Don’t neglect the persuasive effect of insulting the opposition before you harangue them!”

    Obummermustgo: You people are blind,dumb, and idiotic…

  67. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    WOPRjr:
    Scientist

    The first 7 were excluded,by definition.One got away and one is about to learn the penalty for forgery,fraud,conspiracy,et.al.

    You conveniently left out the fact that your asinine PDF was filled with debunked lies about the President that only a deranged birther bigot would attempt to pass off as truthful.

    Any. . . day . . now. Right, fool?

    Birthers are such idiots.

  68. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    Majority Will

    Ah,namecalling…the white flag raised in debate

    The pResident is a big boy.Maybe he should put on his big boy pants and release ALL documents,including SS#.

  69. avatar
    Scientist February 2, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    WOPRjr: The first 7 were excluded,by definition.One got away and one is about to learn the penalty for forgery,fraud,conspiracy,et.al.

    Your silly chart concerns the citizenship of President’s parents. Since Obama wrote a book disclosing that his father was a student from Kenya, where is the fraud, forgery, etc.?

    As for your “poll”, that’s a bogus analysis. First, it’s one pollster. Second approval numbers don’t equal votes. Many people vote for the lesser of 2 evils. The approval numbers on every single Republican are at least 10 points worse than Obama’s and his are going up while theirs are going down.

    Here is a map that puts all the polls together http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
    Also, look at the national polls. Obama is up on Romney by >2 points and much more against any other Republican. No one has ever lost the electoral college when they won the popular vote by 2-3 %. The math doesn’t work.

  70. avatar
    Scientist February 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    WOPRjr: The pResident is a big boy.Maybe he should put on his big boy pants and release ALL documents,including SS#.

    What has Mitt released?
    Birth certificate? Nope.
    SS#? Nope
    College transcripts? Nope.
    Tax returns. 1 year vs 10 for Obama and at least 5 for every other candidate including his father.
    Records of deals Bain did? Nope.

  71. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    WOPRjr:
    Majority Will

    Ah,namecalling…the white flag raised in debate

    The pResident is a big boy.Maybe he should put on his big boy pants and release ALL documents,including SS#.

    Debate? You thought this was a debate? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Shucks! Did I hurt your feelings, princess?

    There’s nothing dishonest about calling out a deranged troll

    Why would anyone release a SS# to mentally unstable identity thieves?

    Here’s a verifiable fact you can choke on:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

    – US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

    Are you calling this Reagan appointed, conservative Supreme Court Justice a liar?

  72. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Majority Will
    “Are you calling this Reagan appointed, conservative Supreme Court Justice a liar?”
    At the very least, she is misinformed.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/51843919/Rep-John-Bingham-Father-of-14th-Amendment-Defined-Natural-Born-Citizen

    Obama’s father clearly had allegiance to his homeland and returned there.

  73. avatar
    donna February 2, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    from birther pamela barnett

    Illinois State Board of Elections “mocked me with great bias” the law had nothing to do with this hearing, said Michael Jackson regarding his 10 minute experience. Jackson was denied a right to speak in front of the board. Jackson compared the experience of what it would have been in “Communist Russia”. This is “tyranny”!

    “No such thing as the due process of law in Illinois,” Jackson continued. “This hearing was a joke.”

    Another person who had an objection on another issue was afforded the right to speak at the hearing.

    There were 3 Board member in Springfield and 5 in Chicago. All eight board members voted to ignore the Constitution and allow Obama on the Illinois ballot again.

    The Chairman William McCuffage was ready to dismiss within first minute, he did not even address that their Hearing Examiner conceded Jackson had standing and the Board had the authority to remove Obama from the ballot. No consideration of the Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett that defines NATURAL Born Citizen as a person born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents was made.

    Will have the order from board soon. Transcripts will be ordered.

    Jackson is looking for an attorney to appeal the decision.

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/illinois-state-board-of-elections-says-birther-complaints-have-been-settled-before-you-have-no-right-to-speak

  74. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    WOPRjr: At the very least, she is misinformed.

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! !

    WHEW!!

    Now that was funny! Thanks!

    Holy crap. Just when you think a birther idiot can’t say anything more asinine. Wow!!

  75. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    WOPRjr: Obama’s father clearly had allegiance to his homeland and returned there.

    Do all dark skinned people frighten you or is just those scary foreigners?

  76. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    Do all dark skinned people frighten you or is just those scary foreigners?
    I’m not frightened,but I suppose some ARE.:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wtJ6UVUdM0

  77. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    misha: This is a forum about Barack Obama, not Newton MacPherson Gingrich.

    Surely you mean … Wait a minute – has that guy ever explained how his paternal grandfather was called Kerstetter?

    Sounds very German to me. Like Eisenhower.

  78. avatar
    G February 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    Yeah, that was a no-brainer decision by the IL BOE. Michael Jackson is simply another nut who has no clue about what he’s talking about.

    Good luck with him finding a gullible attorney to fail again on this fool’s errand of his.

    He lost his case because there was no legitimate basis behind his nonsense. Nor does the BOE need to entertain further frivolity once they clearly realize that they are dealing with bogus charges and nonsense claims.

    donna: from birther pamela barnettIllinois State Board of Elections “mocked me with great bias” the law had nothing to do with this hearing, said Michael Jackson regarding his 10 minute experience. Jackson was denied a right to speak in front of the board. Jackson compared the experience of what it would have been in “Communist Russia”. This is “tyranny”!“No such thing as the due process of law in Illinois,” Jackson continued. “This hearing was a joke.”Another person who had an objection on another issue was afforded the right to speak at the hearing.There were 3 Board member in Springfield and 5 in Chicago. All eight board members voted to ignore the Constitution and allow Obama on the Illinois ballot again.The Chairman William McCuffage was ready to dismiss within first minute, he did not even address that their Hearing Examiner conceded Jackson had standing and the Board had the authority to remove Obama from the ballot. No consideration of the Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett that defines NATURAL Born Citizen as a person born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents was made.Will have the order from board soon. Transcripts will be ordered.Jackson is looking for an attorney to appeal the decision.http://obamaballotchallenge.com/illinois-state-board-of-elections-says-birther-complaints-have-been-settled-before-you-have-no-right-to-speak

  79. avatar
    JoZeppy February 2, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

    WOPRjr: At the very least, she is misinformed

    I always love how birthers purport to know more about the law than a former Supreme Court justice. Or for that matter, any actual Constitutional scholar.

    That takes some serious hubris…..don’t you think that it just might be possible that you, the birther lacking any legal education might be the one that is misinformed rather than a Supreme Court justice, and every real constitutional law scholar?

  80. avatar
    Daniel February 2, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    WOPRjr: Obama’s father clearly had allegiance to his homeland

    Timothy McVeigh’s parents were both natural born citizens with no allegiance aside from the US.

    Clearly having NBC parents is no guarantee of loyalty, and not having citizen parents no guarantee of treason.

  81. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    WOPRjr: I’m not frightened,but I suppose some ARE.: http://viletweets.com/

    FIFY.

  82. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Daniel

    Good thing TMV wasn’t running for POTUS in this lackadaisical environment.

    We might just have to default to BO@SOTU..”We must all play by the same rules”.
    Oh wait,3 days later,Ga. ballot hearing evasion proved he=hypocrite.

  83. avatar
    J. Potter February 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Daniel: Clearly having NBC parents is no guarantee of loyalty, and not having citizen parents no guarantee of treason.

    Benedict’s Arnold’s parents were New Englanders. Some people are just too pissy and petty for loyalty.

  84. avatar
    G February 2, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    No. There was no Motion to Compel him to be there. So he didn’t have to be.

    Furthermore, when have you EVER seen a sitting President appear in some local state hearing? NEVER. Therefore, not hypocritical at all.

    WOPRjr: DanielGood thing TMV wasn’t running for POTUS in this lackadaisical environment.We might just have to default to BO@SOTU..”We must all play by the same rules”.Oh wait,3 days later,Ga. ballot hearing evasion proved he=hypocrite.

  85. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

    G

    Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion writes. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/cite-obama-with-contempt-lawyers-urge-judge/

  86. avatar
    donna February 2, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    irion raised the contempt issue during the hearing

    malihi’s response: “i’m not interested in COMMENTARY on that, counselor ….are you DONE?”

    PAGE 18 of the court transcript

    G

    Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion writes. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/cite-obama-with-contempt-lawyers-urge-judge/

  87. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    WOPRjr:
    G

    Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion writes. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/cite-obama-with-contempt-lawyers-urge-judge/

    Since the OSAH is not even in the judicial branch, what else do you think this Confederate flag waving RWNJ got wrong?

  88. avatar
    misha February 2, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    donna: the law had nothing to do with this hearing, said Michael Jackson regarding his 10 minute experience. Jackson was denied a right to speak in front of the board.

    Of course. Michael Jackson is dead. How could he speak? With a ventriloquist?

    donna: Jackson is looking for an attorney to appeal the decision.

    I’m sure Leo Donofrio or Mario Aputzo would be glad to represent a corpse.

  89. avatar
    JoZeppy February 2, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    WOPRjr: Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion writes. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”

    How many mistakes did Irions make in that little quote.

    1) It is not unprecedented. The first to do so was Thomas Jefferson. Many between now and then have done so.

    2) This has nothing to do with the judicial branch or it’s authority. It was an administrative hearing (part of the executive).

    3) There was nothing unlawful in the request to kill the hearing. It is within the power of the Secretary of State to do so.

    4) Did he violate an order of the court? Last I checked, he wasn’t compelled to attend.

    5) Did he instruct his attorney to act in a manner that violated the professional rules of conduct? Well besides the fact that there is no evidence that the President has even spoken to the attorney, how exactly is ignoring a state issued subpoena, that is arguable non-enforceable against a federal officer a violation of anything.

  90. avatar
    J. Potter February 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    Whopper Jr is aptly named.

  91. avatar
    Majority Will February 2, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    WOPRjr: hypocrite

    Hypocrite?

    Like mentally unstable birther bigots not holding other Presidential candidates to the same standards of proof for eligibility?

  92. avatar
    misha February 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    WOPRjr: Oh wait,3 days later,Ga. ballot hearing evasion proved he=hypocrite.

    On the Cedartown Standard web forum, there is a call for Georgia to secede. “We would love to secede, trust me:” I agree.

    If Georgia did secede, the nation’s dental health would improve by 100%, overnight.

  93. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

    An HONEST individual would disclose ALL documents.

    Conclusion: Obama has a bunch of skeletons and LIES to conceal

  94. avatar
    WOPRjr February 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    At least Nixon had the sense to resign.

  95. avatar
    bovril February 2, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

    So come on then Whopper, whats your real name, address, age, SSN, work address (assuming you work), educational background, school records, kindergarten records, passport details (assuming you have one), copy of your “long form” birth cartificate etc.

    i mean “An HONEST individual would disclose ALL documents.”

  96. avatar
    Rickey February 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    WOPRjr:
    At least Nixon had the sense to resign.

    I have breaking news for you:

    Obama isn’t going to resign.

  97. avatar
    JoZeppy February 2, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    WOPRjr: Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

    I suppose he might have a point….if we were talking about Article III courts. Not only are we not dealing with the Judicial branch, but state courts are created under Article III…they’re created under some provision of their state constitution (not exactly sure what he’s getting at with Art IV). Which again, might all be relevant, if it was a Federal Court doing the subpoena’ing. Federalism….learn what it means, and learn what the limits of the states are.

    WOPRjr: An HONEST individual would disclose ALL documents.

    I guess we’ve never had an honest President in our nation’s history, because no President has disclosed anything remotely near what you nutters demand of President Obama. And no, only an idiot would waste his time responding to the likes of birthers. You guys just aren’t worth the effort. You aren’t important enough to merit a response.

    WOPRjr: Conclusion: Obama has a bunch of skeletons and LIES to conceal

    Conclusion: Birthers are a bunch of ungovernable nuts that should be treated with contempt and ridiculed whenever possible.

  98. avatar
    Daniel February 2, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    WOPRjr: An HONEST individual would disclose ALL documents.

    So in essence you’re saying there’s never been an honest President?