Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

They got enough faked documents to make him look kosher, this is beating a dead horse. Next thread!

reply to post by spoor


Oh please, your article only says that Fred Woocher represented PART of the defense and did it for free. It didn't say anything about his regular attorney, who also represented him at the same time (Robert Bauer) was working for free too!! Give me a break!

reply to post by spyder550


Good friggin' grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I read another post about this case having anything to do with his birth certificate I'm going take up smoking again.

The plaintiffs are claiming that the Supreme Court has held that both parents need to be American citizens for the child to be "Natural born," and since his father wasn't a US citizen, Obama is not "natural born," therefore ineligible.

Originally posted by sealing
No offense to OP I know you're just reporting what you've found but,

Did you say Georgia Judge orders President of the USA to court ?
As in, "Explain yo'self boy, Is you is or is you ain't Merican ? "
a hahahahaha!!!! Oooohhaha hahaha !!!!!!
OK wait... ha haha hahahahaha!!!!
Whew... Yeah he'll be showing up for that.

Sad and debunked. Just like the BC. They'll never quit. U know why?
The judge (if there is one) is a big fat racist. Yep probably fat.
I used to give people the benefit of the doubt, but no more.
Racist..pure and simple

Fat judge? Racist? The deniers really are a one trick pony, aren't they?

They can't explain why Obama waited so long to come out with it. Only when he thinks Trump is going to run for President? Come on! Like the American people asking for it wasn't enough justification until they get a leader behind them? Something's wrong with that picture. Either way, it shows how little Obama feels about the American people.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by spyder550

 

Good friggin' grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I read another post about this case having anything to do with his birth certificate I'm going take up smoking again.

The plaintiffs are claiming that the Supreme Court has held that both parents need to be American citizens for the child to be "Natural born," and since his father wasn't a US citizen, Obama is not "natural born," therefore ineligible.

Right. The case is with the wording in the Constitution - - and really has nothing to do with Obama.

So - the idea Obama needs to appear in person - is ridiculous and insane.

reply to post by Annee


Hi Annee.

I think they have supreme court precedent. Don't know the details but I read a post here.

One of the legal eagles help me out please, what case was that? Maybe at wikipedia...oh, here...

Source and more court cases here

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)



The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT]

But probably the thing they want him there for is to allow him to face his accusers. Constitution says he deserves that. And in fact, if it does not go well, judges like to chew people out when they think they have, well, been less than honest about something.

Just my 2 cents. What the truth is, we don't know yet.

Comments are good, skip to the front door story, ha

Person 1: “Here is a door and on the other side of it is the inside of my house.”

Person 2: “No. There’s no inside.”

Person 1: “But I live in it everyday.”

Person 2: “You can’t prove it.”

This article discusses the motion in more detail:

www.therightsideoflife.com...

Yesterday, January 20, 2012, Judge Malihi, here in Georgia, issued his Order on Motion to Quash Subpoenas:

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

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 quash is denied.

SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

On first glance, I had to laugh out loud and say, “Gee — maybe it’s Obama who needs to get some competent representation! According to this judge, he’s pointed out that Mr. Jablonski hasn’t even provided a legal basis for his arguments, regardless of how rational or irrational his argumentation may be!”

If his counsel has yet to provide legal basis for his arguments I do think Obama needs new counsel. This is no joke.

If he get denied a place on the GA ballot the Secretary of States from other states might follow suit.
Someone said you can not prosecute a standing president, but he can be disqualified to run for president in GA. And when you think about it, that alone would cost him a multitude of candidates in other states regardless of whether or not he is on the ballot in their state.

reply to post by baphomet420


When I was a kid, our live in Russian used to have the same reaction to Jimmy Carter. It wasn't a race thing, or an American/Russian thing. He just didn't like the things Jimmy Carter would drone on about. Likewise, he was the only adult that would sit with me during the Watergate hearings, explaining things.
I don't think the behavior of a person fuming at a State of the Union address implies they are racist. My mother would get absolutely bilious at W saying anything, even "C'mon, Barney." She's so white she's almost transparent, from what I recall, George was not that pigmented either.
Sometimes, we have to think of the person as just a person, without a lot of hyphenated labels parked in front of them to wall away their true character.

It's not that I'm not concerned about citizenry, whether or not Obama is a citizen or not, I don't have any reason to believe he's not. The only thing that struck me about his citizenry is the scholarships he might have gotten in college for claiming citizenry of another country to get said scholarships. That was what, twenty years ago? Today he has more than enough money to pay back the scholarships, if that's what he did.
There would be a little shame in admitting that you lied on your scholarships form, but that would be it. That, and losing respect from a lot of people for doing it.

I'm no legal eagle, but this is the case they are going to cite:

Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:

“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “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.”

Obama’s problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:

Obama’s father was not a United States citizen.

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

For a person to run, as his or her party’s nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen.

______beforeitsnews/story/1454/078/Finally

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Thanks for the legal research. I hope I can afford you.

If his counsel has yet to provide legal basis for his arguments I do think Obama needs new counsel. This is no joke.

Well, Spoor found a story that his lawyer is working pro-bono.

Maybe he should spring for Perry Mason.

Originally posted by kawika
I think they have supreme court precedent. Don't know the details but I read a post here.

One of the legal eagles help me out please, what case was that? Maybe at wikipedia...oh, here...

Source and more court cases here

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

You forget that the 14th amendment overruled part of that....

Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled the Dred Scott case, the Court stated in the Slaughter-House Cases that at least one part of it had already been overruled by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which created citizenship at the national as opposed to the state level:.[5] The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.[6]

reply to post by spoor


Yup, There are about five listed at the place I found that one.

I guess, this is a little over my head.

I thought I understood it, but the thing to do is leave it to the judge.

Whatever judge decides, I am on board with.

Originally posted by kawika
But probably the thing they want him there for is to allow him to face his accusers.

Face his accusers? For what?

The wording of the Constitution?

Congratulations to sad_eyed_lady for firmly pointing out that this has nothing to do with the birth certificate. Good eyes (even though sad) and clear mind.

Spoor, I think you're missing the distinction between "citizen" and "natural-born citizen." That's the heart of this case and the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't deal with the "natural-born" issue.

I suspect the judge will allow the President to appear through his attorneys, but wanted to send a message to him and his legal team that this is serious. Although, maybe the President can turn it into a campaign swing.

reply to post by stanats

it is is truly idiotic to say that he regards himself as god and owns the country and needs to be reminded that he is a public servant.

Really?

Let's think about this... in the US Constitution it states the purpose of the Federal government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Source: www.usconstitution.net...

The key phrase I want to examine here is "provide for the common defense". In order to defend a place, you have to set a perimeter... a line where you intend to defend. That line in the case of the United States is the national border. Yet, the US government has, for many years now, turned a blind eye to illegal immigration. This much is fact, undeniable by anyone who has even looked at a newsstand in the last decade. It is a travesty perpetuated on Americans by our own government, from both sides of the political aisle.

Now, with a large percentage of the population out of work, exhausting unemployment benefits, defaulting on home loans, and unable to find a job, there is a renewed focus on illegal immigrants being used to thwart Americans getting jobs because by their illegal status they are not subject to the laws that make it expensive and difficult to hire Americans.

Because of that, several states, including my own Alabama, have enacted laws which do nothing... nothing more than allow state police to enforce Federal laws on immigration. Why is this such an issue? Because the Federal Executive branch refuses to enforce these laws themselves. That's the same Federal Executive branch that is headed by Barack Obama. Yet, instead of calling for repeal of the laws they do not want to enforce, instead of enforcing the laws if they do not want them reversed. Obama's administration sued the states that tried to do his job which he refused to do.

It's a little like hiring a housekeeper who for weeks refused to wash the dishes, then deciding to wash them yourself, and the housekeeper suing you for it.

Add in the things Obama has done which are clearly outside the scope of his Constitutional power, like bailouts of private businesses using taxpayer money. And like forcing governmental regulation and control over the entire national health industry by forcing unfunded mandatory expenses on private citizens. How about raising the debt ceiling at the same time we have a massive recession underway by trillions of dollars? That's at least legal, but highly irresponsible. I see no reason to wonder at the anger pointed directly at this poor excuse for a President; I see much to wonder at when I see people still defending him.

He has consistently and fervently thwarted the will of the American people. The fact that he is now asking them for their vote, after suing, regulating, and taxing those people into poverty, speaks volumes to how he considers himself not as much a President, but as a dictator.

Kim Jong Il would be proud.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Annee

Face his accusers? For what?

The wording of the Constitution?

What better purpose to face one's accusers than over the wording of the document you swore to uphold and defend?

TheRedneck

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


The Supreme Court might have to re-visit that judgment. If Obama is ruled ineligible to run again, I suspect there will be widespread civil disorder.

I went to the White House website and checked his schedule.

It is completely cleared off for next week.

It just says, no public schedule.

Pres Schedule Link Here

So, maybe he is going to Georgia.

reply to post by spoor


A few posts back I mentioned the case they are citing and it's not dred scott.

The attorney that can nail it is Van Orion.

Van Irion is the lead counsel and founder of Liberty Legal Foundation. Van is a Constitutional attorney, admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also a Patent attorney, adjunct Law Professor at the University of Tennessee, former medical researcher, published scientist, and former Republican candidate for Congress for TN03. Van was endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul in his Congressional campaign along with former Reagan White House staff and speech writers.

libertylegalfoundation.org...

I can just about believe Obama's attorney is doing this pro-bono. I saw a news clip of him talking to a reporter and he wasn't too impressive. I just hope he doesn't end up missing if he loses the case.

Originally posted by kawika
I went to the White House website and checked his schedule.

It is completely cleared off for next week.

It just says, no public schedule.

Pres Schedule Link Here

So, maybe he is going to Georgia.

Or permanently out of the country.
That would be very strange to have a president MIA.