Tweet
Georgia on Obama's Mind?
American Thinker
Cindy Simpson
1/23/2012
Excerpts:
"The story began last November, when Georgia citizen David Welden filed a formal challenge over Obama's qualifications to appear on Georgia's 2012 presidential ballot.
Although the mainstream media pejoratively label those who question Obama's eligibility as conspiratorial "birthers" and defines "birtherism" as belief in a Kenyan birthplace, Welden stipulates otherwise:
"The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant's passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant's father was not a U.S. citizen.
Contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875)."
Welden is assisted by the Liberty Legal Foundation and Constitutional attorney Van Irion. Two other groups of Georgia residents have filed similar ballot challenges which question, in addition, the validity of Obama's records, and are represented separately by attorneys Orly Taitz and J. Mark Hatfield.......................
Although the court had consolidated all three challenges in the order, at the request of attorneys Irion and Hatfield, Judge Malihi later severed the cases, and three separate hearings are scheduled for January 26 in Atlanta.
Taitz had also filed a subpoena requiring Obama's testimony and production of several personal documents. In response, Michael Jablonski, Obama's attorney in Georgia, filed a motion to quash, stating that: "The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State." Jablonski further argued that such an action interrupted the duties of the president, and asserted that the plaintiff was merely attempting to "further her political agenda."
In her opposition, Taitz countered that Obama's motion to quash:
"...comes on the heels of his extended 17 day Hawaiian vacation, which cost US taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief, Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties, and rounds of golf. Considering all of the above, it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records..."
Last Friday, in a stunning turn of events, Judge Malihi denied Obama's motion with a succinct one-page denial, in which he asserted:
"...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...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."
Apparently, although Jablonski questions the reach of authority of the State of Georgia, he operates from a sphere somewhere above the law -- as often does his employer. Will Obama comply with the subpoena?
According to the White House Dossier, on Thursday, Obama is scheduled to be nowhere near Atlanta, rather "promoting the agenda he plans to lay out in Tuesday's State of the Union address," in Las Vegas and Denver............................................ .
I doubt he'll be there in person."
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...amas_mind.html
American Thinker
Cindy Simpson
1/23/2012
Excerpts:
"The story began last November, when Georgia citizen David Welden filed a formal challenge over Obama's qualifications to appear on Georgia's 2012 presidential ballot.
Although the mainstream media pejoratively label those who question Obama's eligibility as conspiratorial "birthers" and defines "birtherism" as belief in a Kenyan birthplace, Welden stipulates otherwise:
"The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant's passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant's father was not a U.S. citizen.
Contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875)."
Welden is assisted by the Liberty Legal Foundation and Constitutional attorney Van Irion. Two other groups of Georgia residents have filed similar ballot challenges which question, in addition, the validity of Obama's records, and are represented separately by attorneys Orly Taitz and J. Mark Hatfield.......................
Although the court had consolidated all three challenges in the order, at the request of attorneys Irion and Hatfield, Judge Malihi later severed the cases, and three separate hearings are scheduled for January 26 in Atlanta.
Taitz had also filed a subpoena requiring Obama's testimony and production of several personal documents. In response, Michael Jablonski, Obama's attorney in Georgia, filed a motion to quash, stating that: "The sovereignty of the State of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State." Jablonski further argued that such an action interrupted the duties of the president, and asserted that the plaintiff was merely attempting to "further her political agenda."
In her opposition, Taitz countered that Obama's motion to quash:
"...comes on the heels of his extended 17 day Hawaiian vacation, which cost US taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief, Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties, and rounds of golf. Considering all of the above, it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records..."
Last Friday, in a stunning turn of events, Judge Malihi denied Obama's motion with a succinct one-page denial, in which he asserted:
"...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...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."
Apparently, although Jablonski questions the reach of authority of the State of Georgia, he operates from a sphere somewhere above the law -- as often does his employer. Will Obama comply with the subpoena?
According to the White House Dossier, on Thursday, Obama is scheduled to be nowhere near Atlanta, rather "promoting the agenda he plans to lay out in Tuesday's State of the Union address," in Las Vegas and Denver............................................ .
I doubt he'll be there in person."
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...amas_mind.html