Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Ruling denies Obama’s attempt to have complaint that seeks to strike President from Georgia ballot dismissed

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Birthers are hailing a decision by a judge in Georgia that could see Barack Obama struck from the presidential state ballot if Obama fails to prove that he fulfils the ‘natural born citizen’ constitutional requirement to be President.

“Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi in the Office of State Administrative Hearings denied a motion by Obama asking to dismiss the complaint that seeks to keep his name off the state ballot during the March presidential primary. The judge’s decision now sets the stage for a Jan. 26 hearing on the issue in Fulton County,” reports the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.

The complaint was originally filed by Orly Taitz on behalf of a Georgia resident. Taitz, a prominent ‘birther’ who previously represented two soldiers who refused to deploy to Afghanistan over their doubts that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible to be commander in chief, lauded the judge’s ruling.

“I can now depose Obama and everybody else (i)nvolved without any impediment,” the California attorney posted on her website.

Taitz, along with several other Georgia residents, will now be able to present their evidence that Obama was not born in the United States in a court of law – unless the ruling is overturned on appeal before January 26.

The case, Farrar v Obama, was also brought by J. Mark Hatfield, a Republican state representative who last year failed to pass a bill that would have required presidential candidates to submit proof of qualifications.

“The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought,” stated the ruling in response to President Obama’s attempt to have the case dismissed.

Despite the White House being forced to release a purported copy of Obama’s birth certificate last year, the controversy has yet to completely die down.

One time Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump repeatedly raised questions surrounding Obama’s background during the spring of 2011 before going cold on the issue, a move prominent ‘birther’ and author Jerome Corsi claimed was an organized political stunt to neutralize the issue.

The release of Corsi’s best-selling book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?, coincided with the White House deciding to release Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate. Corsi points to evidence that the document is a forgery created using modern computer techniques and has numerous discrepancies with a genuine 1961 birth certificate created by a typewriter.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Naw, its a real deal.

A Hawaiian judge seems to be enforcing the request since the HI state AG was ignoring the GA court. Hearing in HI on the 6th, court order for the original signed documents and microfiche roll.

We may not see the dox, there is some seal on the file. Still worth watching.
 
Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

Gothy, "depose" as used in the story is about getting a deposition or testimony from Obama, not deposing him from office.

de·pose
   [dih-pohz] Show IPA verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to remove from office or position, especially high office: The people deposed the dictator.

2. to testify or affirm under oath, especially in a written statement: to depose that it was true.

3. Law . to take the deposition of; examine under oath: Two lawyers deposed the witness.
verb (used without object)

4. to give sworn testimony, especially in writing.
Click to expand...
 
um, maybe gotholic is smarter than you and was making fun of the double meaning.

i mean, golly, sorta contra-positing the two is hilarious. like, the idea that by taking obama's deposition - in which he will answer questions in exactly the way he wants to and more or less say "i was born in hawaii" about 700 times - has some chance of helping miss taintz "depose" him as king.

gothy is ultimately shooting himself in the dick through a narrative of his own helplessness, sure, but he's laughing all the way. like that guy in the santa costume when he was seven.
 
I'm definitely chalking one up to Gothy on this one.
JC_banger1_1.gif
 
jimpeel said:
Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

Gothy, "depose" as used in the story is about getting a deposition or testimony from Obama, not deposing him from office.
Click to expand...

The title is the same title I took from the source.
 
The questions still abound.

SOURCE

New Hampshire lawmakers question Obama’s citizenship

By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times

Monday, January 9, 2012

CONCORD, N.H. — President Obama is on the Democratic ballot for New Hampshire’s primary on Tuesday, despite the efforts of some Republican state legislators who argue the president doesn’t qualify as a “natural-born citizen.”

“I don’t know where he was born, and I really don’t care,” said state Rep. Larry Rappaport of Colebrook, N.H., “but I think fraud is being perpetrated on the citizens of New Hampshire.”

Mr. Rappaport and several GOP colleagues have been trying to get the New Hampshire secretary of state to remove Mr. Obama from the ballot. Their argument isn’t focused on the old question of the president’s birthplace, but on a clause in the U.S. Constitution that requires a candidate to be a “natural-born citizen.”

The Republican legislators and their supporters say Mr. Obama doesn’t meet the definition of “natural-born citizen” because his father was Kenyan. They are relying on an 1875 Supreme Court decision that said a natural-born citizen is someone whose parents are both U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth.

After the legislators’ complaint was rejected by the New Hampshire's Ballot Law Commission, Mr. Rappaport and his colleagues filed an affidavit last week with the state attorney general to argue that the state isn’t applying election law consistently. But the attorney general’s office said it doesn’t intend to take any action.

State Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley attended a press conference held by the Republican legislators last week and described himself as perplexed.

“Since I didn’t have my tin-foil hat with me, I really didn’t understand what they were talking about,” Mr. Buckley said. “The shocking thing isn’t that there are people out there who fervently believe such nonsense, but that these people are elected officials.”

Mr. Rappaport is working on the matter with California attorney Orly Taitz, who is pursuing a similar complaint in Georgia state courts. In that case, a judge last week denied a motion by the Obama administration to have one of Ms. Taitz’s challenges to the president’s ballot eligibility dismissed.

“Thank you God!!!” she wrote on her website after the ruling. “I can now depose Obama and everybody else involved without any impediment.”

A hearing on the complaint in Georgia is set for Jan. 26 in Fulton County.

The White House released Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate in April in an effort to dispel persistent questions about his birthplace. The document showed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961.

Although he doesn’t call himself a “birther,” Mr. Rappaport doesn’t believe the validity of the president’s birth certificate.

“If I were asked to make a forgery, I could do a better job,” Mr. Rappaport said. “I don’t consider that a birth certificate at all.”

The legislator denied he is motivated by partisan politics.

“If this guy were a Republican, I would still be doing the same thing,” he said.

Mr. Buckley said GOP presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney and Ron Paul should be discouraging their supporters in the state legislature from engaging in the effort to question Mr. Obama’s citizenship.

“On the one hand, it’s hard to take it seriously,” Mr. Buckley said. “But they ought to be focusing on jobs and the economy and the things real Americans care about.”

The New Hampshire Secretary of State Office said it doesn’t have the authority to remove a candidate from the ballot for the citizenship question. But the state legislators cite two cases from 2007 and 2011 in which candidates were told by the secretary of state they had to be natural-born citizens to be on the ballot.

Although the GOP legislators appear to have lost their argument for removing Mr. Obama from the primary ballot, Mr. Rappaport said he intends to pursue their quest through the general election.

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC.
Click to expand...
 
and strangely enough all the birthertard nonsense will continue to go mostly ignored. maybe you can have him removed by the time he's been out of office for years...
 
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.

​
 
Suddenly out of nowhere, a new Obama2012 propaganda campaign appears that doesn't include a father who was a British subject and life in Indonesia.

GSaeN.jpg


Maybe he is having Minor problems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top