Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

www.thestate.com

ATLANTA — 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.

A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Same story about Obama's eligibility to be POTUS, however, a different twist. Seems a Georgia resident is getting out front on this one to say that he can't be on the Georgia ballot this time around. This one is different in that it is preemptive and would bar him from running for POTUS in the first place.

The Judge in this case has, so far, denied motions to stop the subpoena of Obama.

And, apparently for the first time, the plaintiffs have standing:

Judge Malihi’s decision appears to accept the plaintiffs’ standing to defend the requirements for President set forth in Article II: Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

www.thestate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Seems this judge has experience in qualification suits:

www.peachpundit.com... citizen-case/

Judge Malihi is no rookie: he has served since 1995 as a Judge on the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings.

The Judge has previously ruled in political campaign residency cases, including a finding in 2006 that Democratic Senate candidate Mell Traylor was not a resident of Senate district 1 in the Savannah area. Traylor was challenging Republican Sen. Eric Johnson at the time. Judge Malihi’s ruling was upheld and Traylor was disqualified.

Could you imagine trying to be a process server assigned to that one....

I could just see it now.....'Pizza guy'....'We didn't order a pizza'.....etc.

This excerpt from the Judge's Order on Motion to Quash Subpoena:

www.art2superpac.com...

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).

Obama: I'm President and I don't have to do anything I don't want to.

Judge: Sorry, that's not good enough, sir. Motion to quash is denied.

The next false flag timeline will be stepped up, so he can get out of it. Betcha something "happens". Israel raids Iran, the US attacks NK, I dunno. But watch.

Obama ain't gonna be there, one way or the other, despite the denied quash of subpoena. No way in hell.

" All those....... Chickens, are... comin home to roost.....! "

Sometimes you just can't have your way. Obama will be held in contempt and it will hurt him in the general election and make the issue valid for discussion. If I were Obama I would show up with my authentic long form original non copy birth certificate and that would be that. But since he doesn't have one, oh well.....

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
This excerpt from the Judge's Order on Motion to Quash Subpoena:

www.art2superpac.com...

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).

Obama: I'm President and I don't have to do anything I don't want to.

Judge: Sorry, that's not good enough, sir. Motion to quash is denied.

edit on 21/1/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

from your source

"This may be correct"

nothing will come from this

What is it the democrat operatives always like to say, oh yeah, I remember now....

" It's not a question of there being a crime, it's the seriousness of the charge.."

Yeah, that's what it was.

Not being a real citizen, well, it's a serious charge.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

from your source

"This may be correct"

nothing will come from this

Ah, yes, but the arrogance of it all... Can't we at least hope that the Office of President is held accountable for putting just a little effort into supporting the legal system in our country?

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

from your source

"This may be correct"

nothing will come from this

Ah, yes, but the arrogance of it all... Can't we at least hope that the Office of President is held accountable for putting just a little effort into supporting the legal system in our country?

that's a horse of a different color, and we are taught that our country is different but it really isn't. even an impeachment is hard to come by unless the rival party controls both houses of congress.

bottom line is presidents aren't removed form office until they are caught committing a crime that will hurt their party in the next election.

what I do like about these challenges is as mind boggling as it sounds, potus candidates (ALL of them) are not properly vetted for qualifications at the right time, which is getting on the primary ballots

I have a CDL with a HAZMAT endorsement, I had to show my BC, and get fingerprinted by the DHLS

I just think they need to give up on obama, and focus on changing the system for the next go round

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Actually, it's not a motion to remove Obama from office. It seems this is a challenge to his eligibility to run in the 2012 election and the plaintiffs, this time around, have standing.

Judge Malihi’s decision appears to accept the plaintiffs’ standing to defend the requirements for President set forth in Article II: Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Actually, it's not a motion to remove Obama from office. It seems this is a challenge to his eligibility to run in the 2012 election and the plaintiffs, this time around, have standing.

Judge Malihi’s decision appears to accept the plaintiffs’ standing to defend the requirements for President set forth in Article II: Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

edit on 21/1/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

interesting, but I don't expect he will appear, the most you can hope for is his lawyers are compelled to show documentation. I think he has it, and uses this to gain sympathy votes. the republican strategists know this and never bring it up. it strengthens him like lightning for king kong

I am in the camp that natural born means you gained your citizenship by way of your birth, and has absolutely nothing to do with your parents, so I have always felt he was born in hawaii by way of the newspaper announcements.

so for me, he is eligible and uses this type of thing to make his rivals seems like nutters

what is nice going forward is maybe we'll never have to go through this again if they are all properly vetted at the right time

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so for me, he is eligible and uses this type of thing to make his rivals seems like nutters

what is nice going forward is maybe we'll never have to go through this again if they are all properly vetted at the right time

edit on 21-1-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

I agree that maybe we'll never have to go through this if they are all properly vetted at the right time. The judge is apparently saying that the right time is NOW before the 2012 election. I happen to agree with that. Let's get it done NOW, and over with once and for all.

I'm sure I am about to get lambasted again for stating my opinion on this, but I really don't care.

I also don't care whether the silly Birth Certificate challenge is viable or not. Anything, and I mean anything so far as legal action that affects Obama's day is a good thing in my opinion. The President is not above the law, and if he is sued, he should be required to show up and answer the complaint just like any other citizen. The day we allow a sitting President to thumb his nose at the law or the Constitution is the day we no longer have a law or a Constitution... or a republic.

The difference between a dictatorship and a democratic republic is that in a dictatorship, the dictator is above the law; in a democratic republic he is not. In a dictatorship, all a dictator must do is declare his will and it becomes law; in a democratic republic, a president has no such power and must bend his will to the will of the country, which is the law.

When anyone is above the law, any law, then all laws are at risk of being moot... and that includes Constitutional protections ensuring Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom from unreasonable Search and Seizure, and Freedom from government-imposed Religion.

It is my sincere and fervent hope that Obama is forced to appear in Georgia court in person, and this ruins at least a week of his life.

He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword, and he that lives by the lawsuits shall die by lawsuits.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The President is not above the law, and if he is sued, he should be required to show up and answer the complaint just like any other citizen. The day we allow a sitting President to thumb his nose at the law or the Constitution is the day we no longer have a law or a Constitution... or a republic.

I agree entirely!

reply to post by pointr97


Yer killin me!!
I see reality tv in the making here, BarryO avoids the service and they send Dog the booby hunter after him.
Ghetto/trailer park type fight ensues...

Originally posted by pointr97
Could you imagine trying to be a process server assigned to that one....

I could just see it now.....'Pizza guy'....'We didn't order a pizza'.....etc.

Actually it would be pretty simple.. You would go to the Whitehouse, explain why you are there and someone from the councils office will accept the service. Just because its the President does not make him / her immune to the legal process.

Worst case scenario he refuses to show up, pisses the presiding judge off, who could issue a bench w3arrant for his arrest. That honor would fall to the US Marshall's office to enforce.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pointr97
Could you imagine trying to be a process server assigned to that one....

I could just see it now.....'Pizza guy'....'We didn't order a pizza'.....etc.

Actually it would be pretty simple.. You would go to the Whitehouse, explain why you are there and someone from the councils office will accept the service. Just because its the President does not make him / her immune to the legal process.

Worst case scenario he refuses to show up, pisses the presiding judge off, who could issue a bench w3arrant for his arrest. That honor would fall to the US Marshall's office to enforce.

edit on 21-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

So how does that work actually? U.S. Marshal's are appointed by the President, right?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


US Marshals are the only ones who can legally arrest the President. The head Marshal for each zone is appointed, the deputy marshals underneath are not. It would be like me going to arrest the City Manager of my city. Just because he is technically my boss, he cant issue an lawful orders for me to stop, and if he did they would be invalid.