BREAKING NEWS Georgia Judge Denies Obama’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas + VIDEO

Breaking: Georgia Judge Denies Obama’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
(NOW WITH BACKGROUND VIDEO)



GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE WILL PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY

by Sharon Rondeau


Judge Michael Malihi has denied a Motion to Quash Subpoenas submitted by Barack Hussein Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski

(Jan. 20, 2012) — 11:45 a.m., ET – Atty. Orly Taitz informed The Post & Email moments ago that Georgia Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi has denied Obama counsel’s request to quash subpoenas requesting original documentation of Obama’s birth, aliases and social security number application, school records, and other records.

Taitz had written an Opposition to Obama counsel Michael Jablonski’s Motion to Quash the subpoenas she issued as a result of Malihi’s denial of Jablonski’s Motion to Dismiss in the challenge to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to run for president in 2012.

Jablonski had claimed that the hearing scheduled for January 26, 2012 would cause Obama to “interrupt [his] duties as President of the United States” and that the subpoena was, “on its face, unreasonable.”

However, last night (very unpresidentially) Obama publicly sang a solo at The Apollo Theater in New York City.

(Alan note: And spends more time playing golf (including his expensive trips to/from the courses)than administering the country and may have to cancel one of his next golf games!)

The order from Judge Malihi reads, in part:

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 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 in the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced…

On her website, Taitz stated:

I feel extremely proud to be a part of this historic moment. I guess an American dream is still alive, as this subpoena was issued by an immigrant, who was raised in a communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and came here with one suitcase with a couple of dresses, who had to study English, to study law at night, while working as a dentist and raising a family with 3 children. Only in America is this possible.

Humbly,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

BACKGROUND VIDEO