Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To Squash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!
The Order:
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).
Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to squash is denied.
Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To Squash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!
The Order:
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).
Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to squash is denied.
That isn't a surprise to anyone who knows the law and have been following the hearing.
The Motion to Quash was at most to draw attention to Orly's antics. The judge didn't care, so quashed the motion and is just following Georgia's law (which is the only state that says candidates must prove their qualifications).
This only means that Jablonski just has to show the COLB (if asked for by the judge) that was released in 2008 or the one that was released in 2011. Until the judge asks for such evidence, he will be grilling the plaintiffs first on their original claim; that Obama is ineligible, based on what evidence they have.
If Orly et al can't provide evidence to prove that Obama isn't eligible, the judge can dismiss the complaint.
If the judge is satisfied that there is a legitimate concern, all Jablonski will do is show the COLB, and then argue that the state of Georgia and the state judges are in no position to determine eligibility of Presidential C
andidates (despite GA law) as that resides with Congress and the US Supreme Court.
Oh... this should be good. A Birther concerned with "the factor a time."
Birthers routinely try to completely rend the time space continuum and insist things like time travel by the founding fathers to discover definitions that did not exist until years or decades too late. Let's see what kind of temporal and intellectual yoga you're about to attempt now.
I hope you don't hurt yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You seem to think WKA asserts English law applied to citizenship laws in the U.S. since before the Constution was drafted and after, but we know for a FACT that isn't true given WHEN the two laws I cited were enacted.
It has nothing to do with what "I think." It has to do with what the court actually says. It is explicit regarding the period of time covered by the same rules of English common law.
Quote:
The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
There are no gaps there. Not a one from before the founding of the nation to the moment at which the court was writing its decision.
You have never demonstrated a single example of a US law from any period that contradicts English common law. Not a single one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Minor v. Happersett defined Constitutional natural born citizen in the very same passage Lockwood cites.
And the Lockwood court does not even care!!
Natural born citizenship had nothing to do with the Lockwood case. So Lockwood cites no precedent at all from any case at all regarding the definition of natural born citizenship.
To this very day, only one Supreme Court decision is history has ever been cited for that purpose. And we both know that it is not Minor.
Consider the example found in Minor v. Happersett (1875), a Supreme Court case dealing with the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordains: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” The following passage is from J. Waite’s opinion:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims the reference to the natural-born citizen clause in this passage is part of the holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this reference as obiter dictum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
When the court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of the decision, that reasoning is not dictum.
But when a court discusses an irrelevant issue that ultimately has no bearing whatsoever on the decision, it is dicta.
That isn't a surprise to anyone who knows the law and have been following the hearing.
In fact, as shown a day or two ago by "Steve" (the guy who shows his mad skillz by "infiltrating" public discussion forums) this is what the folks at FogBow have been talking about for days... the insufficiency of Jablonski's motion to quash ("squash"... lol.. that's just too funny).
I almost feel bad for Orly, she's already taking a premature victory lap. She (again) thinks that she will be personally in the same room cross examining the President of the United States.
Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To Squash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!
The Order:
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).
Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to squash is denied.
The only thing that is going to be "squashed" are you dreams that Obama will be handcuffed and forcibly removed from the Whitehouse. It isn't going to happen!
The only thing that is going to be "squashed" are you dreams that Obama will be handcuffed and forcibly removed from the Whitehouse. It isn't going to happen!
Hey, if Obama can take off to go play golf, he can take the time to show up as so ordered by the subpoena and be questioned about his eligibility. The judge did the right thing.
Oh... this should be good. A Birther concerned with "the factor a time.
I'm a Constitutionalist.
And furthermore, the time factor IS important. WKA asserts: "The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
I've already proven that Blacks and Native Americans were NOT granted birthright citizenship until a century and more AFTER the Constitution was drafted. So, NO, the same rule did NOT apply to the citizenship of those born in the U.S. during all that time. Anyone thinking WKA defined natural born citizen in terms of natural-born English subject is very obviously mistaken.
what part of "Certificate of Live Birth" issued by the state of Hawaii does the state of Georgia not understand? The people of Georgia should be suing this judge for a frivolous lawsuit!
What part of a crudely contrived forgery do you not understand?
I know. I was eating some good zucchini squash at lunch earlier. I guess it was still on my mind but I kinda like the term in the heading. It has that destructive feel to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
