Orly Taitz has achieved her goal. She can now claim that Obama had a chance to defend himself in court and was afraid to appear.
I assume Michael Malihi’s goal is hoping that Gingrich wins the election and appoints him to the Supreme Court.
Not since seven years before he was born in Hawaii, as it happens: M4 Sherman - Wikipedia
Yeah, really. The President is making a serious mistake if he blows off the Georgia administrative proceeding. It’s a distraction he doesn’t need, and it only gives the birthers a stick with which to pound him. Better to nip it in the bud and get on with running the country and running for reelection.
Taitz has been able to claim pretty much whatever she wants for as long as she’s been around. This won’t breed more wingnuts and it won’t convince any sane people.
ETA: EH, are you seriously suggesting that the Prez show up before a state ALJ in person? Or just that he should make the Georgia Democratic Party’s attorney file the motion the ALJ wants?
What makes you think this isn’t actually a part (albeit a miniscule – er, a very small, part) of his reelection strategy? The Birther crackpots are an embarrassment to his opposition – the only people who are favorably impressed by them are ones who would Republican anyway even if the next GOP debate features all four candidates engaged in a menage a cinq with a sheep. Stirring them up and shining a little publicity their way is a net benefit to Obama.
There WAS! You can see it behind Ms. Tait at about :56 in the video linked by howye!
I’m really confused now so please correct me if anything is incorrect.
FWIW IANAB
Taintz gets a administrative judge to give he her day in court. She of course subpoenas Obama to show up, I guess to testify that he was born in Hawaii or something.
Obama’s attorney files a motion to quash the subpoena by writing “She can’t do that. He’s the Prezident. Hes [sic] real busy” on a cocktail napkin.
The judge notices the motion is defective in that Obama’s attorney didn’t really say WHY the President can’t be subpoenaed.
The attorney maturely rewites the motion taking the suggestions of the judge into account. Oh wait! No he doesn’t. He boycotts the hearing because everyone knows that not showing up to court is the best strategy to let the Judge know that you are really, really serious.
If the attorney doesn’t show up, the Judge will have to rule in favor of Taintz
Is that assessment about accurate? If so, then how are any of the decisions of the Judge wrong? Yes we all know that subpoenaing Obama is ridiculous and ultimate he would not be required to attend, but isn’t one of the requirements in lawsuits is that you actually do the paperwork right? Even if the Judge knows the law, doesn’t the attorney have to point it out to the Judge to make it “official”?
No, not really. Obama’s attorney has presented a defense. It’s just not clear how much of one. He could rule against Taitz on the pleadings in either case; she bears the burden of proof, and for obvious reasons is unlikely to be able to prove any of her allegations (that is, none of the witnesses her attorneys subpoenaed are going to show up, and none of it is true anyway).
The judge can certainly quash the subpoena sua sponte. There’s really no question of law there. He doesn’t have to, but he probably should. The attorney only has to point it out to the judge to make it “official” if Taitz’ attorneys have made a plausible argument that Obama should be compelled to attend. I can’t imagine what such argument she could have made.
Nobody expects the director of the FBI to show up to a criminal trial because some kid who knocked over a 7-11 claims he was framed by the feds.
Thanks. My experiences with court have always been the “If you don’t dot your i’s and cross your t’s, then I’m ruling against you on principal.”
What would be the actual consequence of Obama not being on the ballot in Georgia, being that he’s roughly as likely to win the state as Hell is to host the winter Olympics?
The current attempt of Taitz’s is only in regard to the Democratic primary. Let’s pretend we’re all insane and assume she wins: she’ll have to do it all over again for the general election.
It would depress Democratic voter turnout in Georgia overall, since some people go to the polls just to vote for the president and wind up filling/punching some other candidates’ dots too.
And there’s the precedent it would set.
Obama lost Georgia in 2008 in what was a borderline landslide victory. The actual consequences of Obama not being on the ballot on Georgia? I would say nothing for Obama, since he is extremely unlikely to win Georgia in 2012, but Georgia embarrassing itself on the national stage by siding with a known nutjob is a pretty likely scenario.
I’m not a [Lionel Hutz] one of those law talking guys [/Lionel Hutz] but I can see only two reasons that Obama’s attorney didn’t appear at the hearing.
-
They want the “issue.” Let the rabid right birfer fringe frothing over this in hopes of discrediting their less stupid opponents. Possible but not a high likelihood. Or:
-
If the administrative law Judge does find against them and rules to leave them off the Georgia ballot they immediately appeal the ruling to the Middle District of Georgia where Mrs.Taitz has already been sanctioned to the tune of $20,000 by Judge Clay Land for her involvement in the Capt. Connie Rhodes lawsuit. Included in Judge Land’s comments were the following:
What are the odds that if this case does find it’s way to the Middle District of Georgia, Judge Land is there to greet Mrs.Taitz?
Thank goodness the hearing wasn’t scheduled for March fifth.
He’d probably recuse himself because he’d had earlier dealings with her and sanctioned her. But maybe not.
In any event, I expect this to be resolved in Georgia courts - or even administratively by the Georgia secretary of state - and not end up before Judge Land in U.S. district court.
I don’t see why he would. His sanction was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court, and on three separate occasions, the Supreme Court declined to get involved. (Twice on an application to stay (to Thomas and then Alito), and then on appeal.)
Seems to me that indicates that he acted correctly and would have no reason to recuse.
Why was she sanctioned?
Contempt of court, effectively. Wikipedia.
Sorta a side comment here but I’ve been reading a few “birther” blogs (don’t worry, I have excellent virus protection software installed) and there seems to be some growing concern over Mitt Romney’s potential candidacy. He has in his very own words admitted that his father was born in Mexico and it seems that by the very special birther definition of the term “natural born citizen” Mitt might not be eligible for the office of president. I’m not sure if our strategic duct tape reserve is large enough to keep their collective heads from exploding if they ever learned that Mitt’s father, the Mexican born George (Horhay?) Romney himself ran for president.
I don’t look forward to a Mitt Romney presidency but if we’re stuck with one, it might be amusing to see that all this birther nonsense being recycled this time against a caucasian republican.