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.
And it doesn't stop there. The Judge Mahili from Georgia also subpoenaed Obama's certified Selective Service SS-5 form that many have deemed fraudulent. Witnesses have been subpoenaed to testify about the Connecticutt Social Security number he's been using. Obama’s qualifications have been challenged, so Obama has the ultimate burden to convince the fact finding judge that he is legally qualified to hold the office for which he seeks election. There is something going on here that is more important than the subpoena. If Obama fails to produce he could be left off the ballot. If Obama fails to qualify, a majority of the People are going to realize he is not a NBC. It says this from the article:
"In an order written January 3, 2012, Malihi ruled that Georgia state law is very clear – any candidate for federal or state office must meet the qualifications of that office and that Georgia electors have the right to challenge those qualifications in court. As a result, Malihi flatly denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing for January 26."
Obama is not too popular in Georgia and this could be the case that breaks him. No way the MSM can’t block the story if this happens. It should be a interesting day on January 26th at 9am in the Georgia courthouse. This is just one of three different cases or ballot challenges the judge will hear that day.
Yeah, its definitely Scandinavian. Looked it up on a surname map and it's showing Denmark and Norway as having the highest concentration of Mikkelsons. It definitely didn't sound like a Jewish surname (there are exceptions though, of course) which is what first got me thinking that I should google this absurd claim. Surname etymology (and linguistics in general) is one of my useless hobbies.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the President to show up.
agreed. my thoughts are that jablonski will re-file and provide legal authority for the request or the judge will require a deposition from the president. as fun as it sounds i don't believe it's likely we'll see obama in court on thursday.
one thing i'm curious about, i'm not sure what statement anybody can give in court about their own birth, beyond providing a COLB, that wouldn't be hearsay ( "my birth? ah yes, i remember it well........" ).
should be a fun week in birtherville whatever happens.
Obama's lawyers had petitioned the Georgia judge to withdraw this subpoena.
Today the judge refused, and says Obama must still appear on Jan. 26.
Interestingly, the judge seems to be saying that Obama himself must appear in the courtroom in Georgia. Apparently having his lawyer show up in his place, isn't good enough. I find that a little odd, if I have this correctly.
'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'
Published: 14 hours ago
by Bob Unruh
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“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,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“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,” the judge continued.
“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.’”
Obama's lawyers had petitioned the Georgia judge to withdraw this subpoena.
Today the judge refused, and says Obama must still appear on Jan. 26.
obama's attorney can resubmit the petition on monday ( assumedly this time siting specific legal authority ). it's highly unlikely that obama will be required to physically be in court.
it would appear that the judge isn't going to offer any leeway to either side. good for him. should be a fun week.
Hey! We're not going to be kept responsible for that sort of crazy.
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.
