Note that the Article II PAC is providing uncut, uncensored, gavel-to-gavel Livestream Video Coverage of the Atlanta hearings next Thursday
Carl Swensson's case also was allowed to proceed with discovery.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78876832/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge
Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To quash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!
Carl Swensson's case also was allowed to proceed with discovery.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78876832/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge
Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To quash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!
Actual order is here: http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf
The Order:
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.
__________________________
This is a follow-up to something I posted yesterday. Before making my observations, I want to make a guarantee. If it turns out that I was wrong in my previous statement, I will gladly state that I was wrong, and issue a full apology to Orly about my legal assessment (which is something I already know would never be a reciprocal agreement). However, I am certainly not prepared to do that today, regardless of Orly's "I won!!! I won!!! I won!!!" foolishness. You see, unlike Orly, I am not going to look at a cow patty, and assume that because there is evidence of a cow somewhere, I get to serve ice cream to everybody right now. Let me rephrase that . . . SELL ice cream to everybody right now.
This is one of the issues I have already discussed—that everything from Orly seems to come with her own flavor of spin. And then, once the spin has been made, it is blindly believed by people (who just want so badly for it to be true), and it starts getting posted around the internet. Problem is, when it turns out that it wasn't entirely true, the only recourse Orly has is to scream "corruption!"
Let me make a couple points to try to put this into context. First, because the first response to "birthers" by many in this country is simply to blow us off as conspiracy theorists, Michael Jablonski submitted a sloppy, weak Motion to Quash. I'm sure he thought it would suffice with the judge—since the opposition were birthers; however, Judge Malihi obviously regards his role and the legal process much more seriously than that. And, because I'm sure he wants to make certain that, at the end of these HEARINGS (not trials), there is nothing that could be viewed as procedurally improper, he's not going to grant the professional attorney involved any special favors. He will hold somebody accountable to understand the law, and I'll leave it up to you to figure out whom that might be.
Here's what will probably happen: after Jablonski recovers from his blanket party, he will likely file an amended Motion to Quash; and it will probably be one of the most thorough Motions to Quash in the history of Motions to Quash, and Judge Malihi will probably grant that motion.
In the unlikelihood that Judge Malihi does not grant his amended Motion to Quash, there is something that is virtually guaranteed to happen: Obama not showing up to an administrative law hearing in the state of Georgia. Jablonski would appear on his behalf, and present a certified "birth certificate" and proof of residency for the past 14 years. As the certified "birth certificate" will be considered self-verifying by the court, nothing Orly will say will sway it. And remember, the end result of this hearing is a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary of State. So, no, Obama will not be handcuffed in Atlanta next week (he won't even be there).
I'm not trying to be a downer, or burst anybody's bubble—but, honestly folks—we need to stop spreading the spin all over the internet, just to be made fools of when what was posted never happens. I'm amazed at the number of people who haven't figured that one out with Orly yet. It's just not going to happen like we want it to.
Actually, this denial of the Motion to Quash still doesn't address the invalidity of all the other out-of-state subpoenas Orly mailed (not served). Since Jablonski lives and works in Georgia, he was technically served. Nobody who lives outside of Georgia has been served.
As we have all come to expect, Orly continues to show the most debased levels of egomania, and still tries to attack others who have worked on this team as long as she has. She still has all the graciousness of a cactus loofah, and the attitude of a spoiled brat child (who is the only one who deserves your donations, and if you don't donate, you're an Obama operative).
So, again, when we're on the other side of this HEARING, and it turns out I am wrong, I'll freely admit it. However, and unfortunately for our side, I'm not wrong—so get ready to hear endless wails of "corruption." And, I do want to make a side note here before signing off: Orly's incompetence is, by no means, to be construed as an indictment against the other two hearings that will take place. Both of those cases have real attorneys involved, so I am hopeful that they will be able to produce positive results. It's funny . . . I haven't heard those other lawyers publicly proclaim ME, ME, ME even once. That alone gives me some hope about their cases.
Humbly,
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME
###
AND FURTHERMORE
__________________________
HAS ORLY ACTUALLY WON!!! WON!!! WON???
Dean Haskins @ Birther Summit
Posted: January 20, 2012
This is one of the issues I have already discussed—that everything from Orly seems to come with her own flavor of spin. And then, once the spin has been made, it is blindly believed by people (who just want so badly for it to be true), and it starts getting posted around the internet. Problem is, when it turns out that it wasn't entirely true, the only recourse Orly has is to scream "corruption!"
Let me make a couple points to try to put this into context. First, because the first response to "birthers" by many in this country is simply to blow us off as conspiracy theorists, Michael Jablonski submitted a sloppy, weak Motion to Quash. I'm sure he thought it would suffice with the judge—since the opposition were birthers; however, Judge Malihi obviously regards his role and the legal process much more seriously than that. And, because I'm sure he wants to make certain that, at the end of these HEARINGS (not trials), there is nothing that could be viewed as procedurally improper, he's not going to grant the professional attorney involved any special favors. He will hold somebody accountable to understand the law, and I'll leave it up to you to figure out whom that might be.
Here's what will probably happen: after Jablonski recovers from his blanket party, he will likely file an amended Motion to Quash; and it will probably be one of the most thorough Motions to Quash in the history of Motions to Quash, and Judge Malihi will probably grant that motion.
In the unlikelihood that Judge Malihi does not grant his amended Motion to Quash, there is something that is virtually guaranteed to happen: Obama not showing up to an administrative law hearing in the state of Georgia. Jablonski would appear on his behalf, and present a certified "birth certificate" and proof of residency for the past 14 years. As the certified "birth certificate" will be considered self-verifying by the court, nothing Orly will say will sway it. And remember, the end result of this hearing is a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary of State. So, no, Obama will not be handcuffed in Atlanta next week (he won't even be there).
I'm not trying to be a downer, or burst anybody's bubble—but, honestly folks—we need to stop spreading the spin all over the internet, just to be made fools of when what was posted never happens. I'm amazed at the number of people who haven't figured that one out with Orly yet. It's just not going to happen like we want it to.
Actually, this denial of the Motion to Quash still doesn't address the invalidity of all the other out-of-state subpoenas Orly mailed (not served). Since Jablonski lives and works in Georgia, he was technically served. Nobody who lives outside of Georgia has been served.
As we have all come to expect, Orly continues to show the most debased levels of egomania, and still tries to attack others who have worked on this team as long as she has. She still has all the graciousness of a cactus loofah, and the attitude of a spoiled brat child (who is the only one who deserves your donations, and if you don't donate, you're an Obama operative).
So, again, when we're on the other side of this HEARING, and it turns out I am wrong, I'll freely admit it. However, and unfortunately for our side, I'm not wrong—so get ready to hear endless wails of "corruption." And, I do want to make a side note here before signing off: Orly's incompetence is, by no means, to be construed as an indictment against the other two hearings that will take place. Both of those cases have real attorneys involved, so I am hopeful that they will be able to produce positive results. It's funny . . . I haven't heard those other lawyers publicly proclaim ME, ME, ME even once. That alone gives me some hope about their cases.
Humbly,
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME
###
HAS DEAN HASKINS LOST HIS MIND?
Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Posted: January 21, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Posted: January 21, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit
Believe me, that question has not gone unasked in my head since I released my assessment this past Thursday. For quite some time, I have been part of what I can only describe as a logical disconnect, wherein multiple conversations would occur almost daily with leaders in our movement, and in those conversations, whenever the topic would turn to a certain “lawyer,” there would be nothing but complaints about procedural missteps and outlandish self-aggrandizing; but, at the same time, there was an underlying understanding that nothing about that could be stated publicly—that we were somehow responsible to take the good along with the bad, and that meant either public praise, or silence.
As long as I rationalized that, with everyone on the planet, acceptance is accompanied with both good and bad, then my silence wasn't so much a betrayal of truth as it was an assent to the human condition, and a belief that unity could help usher in our desired result. But then, a funny thing happened on my way to sanity—I asked myself a salient question, and my head nearly exploded: Where's the good?
I know there are times in life wherein one believes his cause to be so just that, to assure what one deems a proper conclusion, he must find, and rely on, a bulldog advocate—that one ruthless counselor who is ultra-versed in the necessary knowledge, and is tenacious and unforgiving in the righteous pursuit. That person is normally not often accused of being overly gracious—but, that's why we're enamored—because that person will go after the opposition's jugular to accomplish what we know to be right. We accept the nastiness simply because it furthers our cause.
And, as I saw the purposely misleading messages, and thoroughly invalid legal statements being made across the internet (along with a seemingly steady stream of vicious attacks against anyone who was thought to either be siphoning her deserved donations from her, or garnering a bit too much of the limelight), I realized that what I had been doing wasaccepting the bad with the bad. Why on earth would we accept both the nastiness and nothing but failure in furthering our cause?
I know there are some who believe that noise and activity, regardless of its veracity, is helpful, as it keeps a buzz going about our cause. Well, sometimes noise and activity is nothing but noise and activity, and, as I fear has happened in our cause, sometimes they can actually do damage.
This latest round of hyperposting is so unprofessional it boggles the mind. It's as if we're losing in a 96-0 football game, we accidentally intercept a poorly thrown pass, and suddenly, we've won the Super Bowl. Instead of collectively Tebowing, we should be contemplating what will likely happen in the next play. And, as I've stated, if I've been wrong about my assessment, I'll admit and apologize, but, I can almost guarantee that the next play isn't what everyone is hoping for.
Those who worship at the altar of Taitz might stop and ponder why it is that it wasn't until after my post on Thursday that she filed a request for letters rogatory. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that, before my post, she had never even heard of a letter rogatory. However, even though she finally filed the right thing, she once again shot herself in the foot by asking a Georgia court to overturn Hawaii law. As I've explained, the law will not allow for release of Obama's original birth certificate. Yeah, I hate that too, but it's still the law.
Residents of Orlyberg (see what I just did there?) can go ahead and believe that a viable course of action is to ignore the law (because we really dislike it), and continue to ask courts to disregard the law as well. I, personally, believe we would be far better served to understand the law, and construct a way to work within it to further our cause. Come next Thursday, we'll again see how much closer to the goalpost we will get by trying to circumvent the law. I stand by my predictions, and will apologize if they are wrong—as much as I wish it were not the case, it is the only logical conclusion I can draw, based upon the law. I still hold out some hope for the first two HEARINGS scheduled. But again, the end result of it all will be a non-binding recommendation from the judge to the Secretary of State. So, obviously, the bigger hurdle, even if Judge Malihi can be persuaded, will be Sec. of State Brian Kemp.
Of course, over the past few days, I've received some hate mail, but, not as much as one might think. I have received far more messages from those who have basically said, “It's about time.” So, the Obots hate me because I'm a birther, the Orlybots hate me because I've told the truth, and then there is a publicly silent group who chooses to remain Swiss in this matter (now, isn't that an amazing coincidence?). It appears I may be making myself a man with no country. I've heard that island living isn't all that bad.
There are even those who suggest that what I have said could injure our cause. Well, if you believe that the truth will hurt your cause, then either you are corrupt, or your cause is; and, I'm not willing to concede that our cause is. Nothing I have said can harm our cause, because nothing I have said is untrue. Again, not liking the law, or proper legal procedure, is not a reason to ignore them. And, working outside of them is a formula for certain defeat. It is also worth mentioning the intellectual dishonesty involved in chiding me for telling a blunt truth, but giving incessant passes to the hateful attacks from the she-god.
And, as long as you have brought that up, Orly has, once again, leveled a blitzkrieg at the Article2SuperPac, directing her minions not to donate to them, but to send donations only to her. Does this not disgust anyone else? And, she continues to lie about doing 99% of the work, so I guess, in her mind, we are the 1%. I'm thinking that, maybe, those who are involved in the Article2SuperPac should do a quick study into things like defamation, libel, injurious falsehood, interference with advantageous relations (trade libel), and possibly, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
If I am to be “blamed” for telling the truth, then so be it. I suppose there will always be those who believe that Orly is the face of our movement, and I'm sure they now believe I am the movement's ass. Well, as I've stated, I'm not interested in popularity contests, I'm only interested in the truth. If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read what I write. It's that simple. But, I will promise those who choose to spend an occasional couple of minutes hearing from the voices in my head, I will try my best to present the truth the best I can, and will not lie simply for the purpose of promoting myself or prying a donation from you. I will not be boxed into any mandate for group-speak, and even when I hate the truth I share, I will share it anyway. In life, I have learned that the truth will set you free, but it will usually piss you off first. Ultimately, friends are no substitute for truth; and, if one's friends abandon him for speaking the truth, they weren't friends anyway.
###
If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment