Hi Everybody,

They all got up on the wrong side today!

Georgia court today.

http://www.libertylegalfoundation.com/1381/no-certification-without-verification

Eligibility attorney: Obama needs impeaching

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
http://www.codyjudy.us/
http://superstore.wnd.com/books/Wheres-the-Birth-Certifcate-Hardcover-PLUS-FREE-Wheres-the-REAL-Birth-Certifcate
http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf

One of the attorneys who argued before a Georgia judge today that Barack 
Obama is ineligible to have his name on the state’s 2012 presidential 
ballot says the president’s decision to snub the court system and ignore 
the hearing is a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundation of 
the United States.

“We have a president who has openly refused to comply with a legal order 
of the judicial branch,” Van Irion told WND after today’s hearing before 
Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi concluded in Atlanta.

Malihi’s recommendation on the issue, whether Obama’s name should be on 
the ballot or not, is expected later and eventually will end up before 
state Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

Irion, of Liberty Legal Foundation, represents David Weldon, who filed a 
complaint under state law challenging Obama.

David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth are represented 
by California attorney Orly Taitz and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard 
Powell are represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a 
challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” 
means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of 
“Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office 
who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party 
or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and 
statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is 
eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a 
challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

The White House was notified of the hearing, and Obama’s lawyer filed a 
motion to quash the subpoena for Obama to appear at the hearing to 
testify, and to bring with him records of his birth.

Malihi refused, noting that, “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.”

His order said, “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.”

He said, “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 lawyer, Michael Jablonski then told Kemp that he and his client 
were not going to participate in the hearing because the judge was 
letting attorneys “run amok,” and Kemp responded that not participating 
would be at Obama’s “peril.”

Irion told WND a decision on the substance of the hearing was important 
to get on the record. He said often when one party simply refuses to 
show up for a hearing, a default judgment is the result.

He said in this case he would not have wanted such a result, because 
that would not have allowed the evidence to be entered into the record, 
which undoubtedly will find its way into an appellate court system.

“At this point, there’s really nothing we can do [about Obama.] If he 
can ignore the judiciary, we don’t have a constitutional republic any 
longer. We have a dictatorship,” he said.

Irion said that there are procedures and actions available, such as 
seeking a writ of mandamus from a higher court, or Obama’s attorney 
could simply have argued the court doesn’t have jurisdiction.

“They didn’t do that,” he said. “They didn’t follow the process. They 
just said, ‘I don’t agree with the court, I’m just going to ignore it.’ 
That’s one thing you can’t do.”

He said the actions very clearly state that Obama believes he is above 
the laws that are applied to the rest of society.
And he said there should be consequences.

“Whenever a president does that, they have essentially said, ‘I am above 
the law, above the Constitution, above other branches.’ That is an 
impeachable offense. They very foundations of our system of government 
are at stake here.”

He noted even Nixon during Watergate and Clinton during the scandals 
over his sexual antics seemed to follow the procedures.

Irion noted that Obama previously stepped on the wrong side of the law 
in attacking Arizona’s immigration plan, in taking over banks and car 
companies, and other situations.

But he said this is the “most blatant” example. It’s one thing to 
maneuver and manipulate, he noted, but another simply to refuse to deal 
with such a court order.

“If this doesn’t lead to impeachment proceedings, everyone in Congress 
is as responsible,” he said.

Developing . . .
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://pete-theisen.com/
http://elect-pete-theisen.com/

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to