What's next?

As the first two attorneys were leaving, I heard something about Feb. 5th but couldn't understand the conversation. Did anyone else hear this?

Nice straightforward written account of this morning's proceedings

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=413....


(Drench -- did you compose this?) LOL

Doesn't this just remove him from the Democratic Primary for President in Georgia? My understanding is that there would have to be another motion filed by another party who would have standing to prevent him from being on the November ballot in Georgia. This person of standing (I'm guessing here) could be anyone on the ballot in November. So J6P from the CabbagePatch party could file the complaint if he makes the November ballot.

Fill me in on where I'm wrong here.

Quote:

(Drench -- did you compose this?) LOL

Haha, no, that was written by someone who could hear everybody. Good stuff.

Appears to have been pretty well covered. In addition, the total lack of counter testimony and ignoring the ordered appearance.. Well, I don't see as how the judge has ANYthing he can do except to remove him from the ballot.

I recall reading during the Clinton years that there has been lots of precedent that sitting presidents are not required to submit to ordinary legal subpoenas to appear in court while in office. (IIRC, it was stated that were this not the case, this would make the Executive subordinate to the Judicial branch or something along those lines.) IIRC, Clinton did not have to appear in court in the Paula Jones case, but was allowed to be deposed at HIS convenience, i.e., at a time of his choosing, NOT at a time of the court's choosing.

Why would Obama not have been entitled to the same deference regarding a subpoena as Clinton?

ETA: Just asking a question, not trying to defend Obama. I'm also not defending the fact that his lawyer didn't show up.

Quote:

Well, I don't see as how the judge has ANYthing he can do except to remove him from the ballot.

Agree. Holy crap, all hell would break loose if that were to happen.

Peter I don't think he asked for this privilege. I think he just told them to **** off.

Quote:

Why would Obama not have been entitled to the same deference regarding a subpoena as Clinton?

Possibly because CANDIDATE Obama's Constitutional eligibility is being challenged in these cases, not current President Obama's. His credentials as a candidate in the upcoming election are being challenged.

Peterm99: What TMD said. In addition, he apparently instructed his lawyer(s) to tell the judge to **** off too.

For some reason, I doubt that's going to go over well.

2dogs -

I'm not sure I see that as germane. It was GOVERNOR Clinton, not PRESIDENT Clinton, who was alleged to have assaulted/raped/whatever Paula Jones, yet Clinton was not required to appear in court because he was president at the time of the court proceedings.

Different scenario. The 2012 election is an upcoming event. Clinton's Governorship and alleged******of Paula Jones were past events, at the time.

There was not an alleged******of Paula Jones. The complaint was that he propositioned her and showed her little Billy.

If I had a nickel for every time I've showed the littlemortgagedude off well I might be able to get a ball park beer. Whole lot of skinny dipping in small towns don't you know.

OT: littlemortgagedude - sorry to hear that

Back on topic: I'm reading on other blogs that followed the case this morning "Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot! All of the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed."

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/20....

Note that my work virus blocker has this as questionable, but didn't stop me from opening the link.

BTW, I make no claim as to the veracity of the claim...I wasn't in the judge's chambers so I can't claim knowledge of what went on there. Just putting forth what I'm reading on other sites.

Is there some way to mark a ticker thread so it shows up in bold on new posts? (other than making an off-topic comment in the comments section such as this one) I cannot find a button for such functionality.

Ram: Nope.

How does the evidence submitted in this hearing, and any adverse verdict presumably issued in the days ahead, then get used effectively in any other state challenges?

Or is it strictly from a groundswell of attention and the force of political self interest that might arise when this makes front page news around the country?

One commenter on a blog I was reading surmised that the very fact that this matter was "allowed" to proceed suggests the sand is shifting behind the scenes and that significant power brokers have opened the door to these challenges to ward off erosion of their own interests under the existing regime.

Drudge has it. Right column, halfway down.

Quote:

I'm reading on other blogs that followed the case this morning "Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot! All of the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed."

I've seen that, too, but I've also seen an Obama supporter's claim elsewhere that the GA SoS has been provided a sealed State of Hawaii issued certified birth certificate for Obama. The Obama supporters are still heavily claiming Obama's U.S. citizenship was challenged and are focusing only on Orly Taitz's case. There is virtually no mention of either of the other two cases or the challenge to Obama's status as a Constitutional natural born citizen. They seem to want to try this in the court of public opinion, and a lot of misdirection and misinformation is being spread, including by the msm who are also reporting it as a challenge to Obama's U.S. citizenship.

Or... Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

But it's really depressing to think that so many people are really that stupid.

maybe Karl can pin this for a while?

Sdbn....I heard that comment about Feb 5th too....

According to the reporter in this video the attorneys have to file briefs by February 5th and the judge will rule after that....
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics....

Or maybe starting up/pinning a new topic in FedUp or Politics ...

Dang. Pietertvl, that link you posted isn't working.