Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing
A Georgia court has jurisdiction to subpoena residents of the State of Georgia. Period. If someone who resides in a state other than Georgia is to be issued a subpoena, the attorney requesting the subpoena would first have to request the Georgia court for a commission and/or a letter rogatory, which would go to a court in the state in which that person resides, and that court would have to issue a subpoena. Orly skipped that step and merely mailed out multiple subpoenas as if they were enforceable (which, they most certainly, are not).
First, what has been repeatedly referred to as a "trial," will not be a trial, but an administrative hearing. Folks, it is being conducted by Georgia's Office of State Administrative Hearings. That should be the first clue about what will actually take place! The entire purpose of the hearing is for the administrative judge to make a recommendation to Georgia's Secretary of State, who is under no legal obligation to adhere to the judge's recommendation
Interestingly, one of the "witnesses" Orly lists is "Custodian of records Assissi [sic] school Jakarta, Indonesia;" so, not only does Orly believe that Georgia somehow has jurisdiction over Hawaii and other states (which, it doesn't), she seems to believe that it has jurisdiction over Jakarta, Indonesia as well. Are you beginning to see the problem here?
States within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Xcathdra
Judges sometimes make bonehead mistakes.
Sometimes I look at court decisions and wonder what qualifies a person to be a judge.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Non nationals can ignore the subpoenas of course but not US citizens,
Early in American history, courts became the forum in which it was decided whether the president of the United States would be exempt from such court orders.
Justice Chase refused Cooper's request to subpoena the president, but went on to charge the jury and said, "Now, gentlemen, the motives of the president, in his official capacity, are not a subject of inquiry with you. Shall we say to the president, you are not fit for the government of this country?" Justice Chase did, however, agree to Cooper's requests to subpoena members of Congress.
United States v. Cooper (1800)
This case appears to have been the first in which a president could possibly have been subpoenaed, and it was determined that America's chief executive is generally immune from such court orders.
United States v. Burr (1807)
Jefferson wrote that, "To comply with such calls would leave the nation without an executive branch, whose agency nevertheless is understood to be so constantly necessary that it is the sole branch which the constitution requires to be always in function." This set a longstanding precedent that a sitting president of the United States could not be forced to appear in court or produce materials relevant to a trial through the use of a subpoena.
Read more: www.answers.com...
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by timetothink
And Bush didn't destroy the constitution?
Let's get this straight: One president CANNOT (emphasis on this word) fix everything in 3 short years.
Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
Image that, a new thread on ATS stating a judge is considering ruling Obama's name will not be allowed to be on the Georgia ballot. This following his and his legal counsel's failure to show up in court.
WTH - Annee stated numerous times on this thread this Natural Born Citizen suit was a constitutional issue and had nothing to do with Obama! Why the heck then is this judge trying to punish Obama!
Annee was so certain and I don't mind saying pretty righteous about this fact. To me it doesn't even matter if the ballot issue is true, if the judge is even considering it, it confirms my feeling all along that this suit was always all about Obama.