Obama Motion To Quash Subpoenas In Georgia Denied

[ABM]

Very interesting....

http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-atlanta/pres-obama-motion-to-quash-subpoenas-georgia-denied

On Sat., Jan. 21, 2012, the Augusta Chronicle reported that Pres. Obama was ordered to appear at a hearing scheduled for Thursday in Atlanta, GA by Deputy Chief Judge Michael M. Malihi.

Pres. Obama had sought to avoid the hearing, with his legal representation filing a motion to quash subpoenas requiring his presence. On Friday Judge Malihi denied the motion, stating that:

"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," Judge Malihi wrote.

The case involves a Georgia citizen's complaint that Pres. Obama is not a natural-born citizen and thus not eligible to be listed on the March primary ballot in the state............

 

[Denny Crane]

Obummer.

 

[MARIS61]

Very interesting....

http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-atlanta/pres-obama-motion-to-quash-subpoenas-georgia-denied

The judge himself admits he has no legal authority to do it, but does it anyway.

Seems like abuse of office at taxpayer's expense.

 

[Denny Crane]

The judge himself admits he has no legal authority to do it, but does it anyway.

Seems like abuse of office at taxpayer's expense.

It says no such thing.

 

[MARIS61]

"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," Judge Malihi wrote.

As a judge (unless he somehow skipped law school) he knows the legal precedence has been well established. He is a serf of the legal system with no more power over the President than you or I have.

 

[Denny Crane]

"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," Judge Malihi wrote.

As a judge (unless he somehow skipped law school) he knows the legal precedence has been well established. He is a serf of the legal system with no more power over the President than you or I have.

What legal precedent? Nixon was compelled to testify. So was Clinton. So was Reagan (Iran-Contra). W (and Cheney) were "interviewed" by the FBI and their testimony made public.

Seems the courts feel no man is above the law. Seems you don't.

 

[magnifier661]

What legal precedent? Nixon was compelled to testify. So was Clinton. So was Reagan (Iran-Contra). W (and Cheney) were "interviewed" by the FBI and their testimony made public.

Seems the courts feel no man is above the law. Seems you don't.

I agree with this. But it's obama Denny.

 

[ABM]

My only question is, how did Obama escape this prior to the last Georgia primary?

 

[MARIS61]

What legal precedent? Nixon was compelled to testify. So was Clinton. So was Reagan (Iran-Contra). W (and Cheney) were "interviewed" by the FBI and their testimony made public.

Seems the courts feel no man is above the law. Seems you don't.

In your examples only Clinton actually testified, and it wasn't in court.

Nixon destroyed the most damning evidence and was "pardoned" without being prosecuted for his certain guilt.

Reagan did not testify at all, simply lied over and over saying "I don't recall". The coward's way of taking the fifth.

Bush/Cheney had their writers concoct a supposed interview and released it through their media machine.

All were proven to be "above the law". None were charged or prosecuted for anything. Thanks for playing.

 

[MARIS61]

My only question is, how did Obama escape this prior to the last Georgia primary?

Racists are slow thinkers?

 

[ABM]

Racists are slow thinkers?

You're a racist.

 

[Denny Crane]

In your examples only Clinton actually testified, and it wasn't in court.

Nixon destroyed the most damning evidence and was "pardoned" without being prosecuted for his certain guilt.

Reagan did not testify at all, simply lied over and over saying "I don't recall". The coward's way of taking the fifth.

Bush/Cheney had their writers concoct a supposed interview and released it through their media machine.

All were proven to be "above the law". None were charged or prosecuted for anything. Thanks for playing.

Utter bullshit.

Clinton plea bargained and was disbarred. Nixon was pardoned. Bush and Cheney committed crimes only in your fevered imagination.

Reagan must have testified to even say "I don't remember."

I don't see anything in your post that is truthful.

 

[MARIS61]

I'll bet you were an obnoxious child.

You simply cannot admit when you are wrong, which is quite often.

Get help.

 

[MARIS61]

Utter bullshit.

Clinton plea bargained and was disbarred. Nixon was pardoned. Bush and Cheney committed crimes only in your fevered imagination.

Reagan must have testified to even say "I don't remember."

I don't see anything in your post that is truthful.

All four were subpoenaed but none ever stepped into a court or testified before a judge.

Clinton and Reagan testified before Congress, their colleagues.

Disbarring a President is like banning me from ever being a paperboy again.

As I said, Presidents are above the law.

 

[Denny Crane]

All four were subpoenaed but none ever stepped into a court or testified before a judge.

Clinton and Reagan testified before Congress, their colleagues.

Disbarring a President is like banning me from ever being a paperboy again.

As I said, Presidents are above the law.

Clinton testified before a grand jury. Reagan testified at the trial of John Poindexter.

http://www.888webtoday.com/beezley251.html

Jan 19, 2001


Today, I signed a consent order in the lawsuit brought by the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct which brings to an end that proceeding.

I have accepted a five-year suspension of my law license, agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to cover counsel fees, and acknowledged a violation of one of the Arkansas model rules of professional conduct because of testimony in my Paula Jones case deposition. The disbarment suit will now be dismissed.

I have taken every step I can to end this matter. I've already settled the Paula Jones case, even after it was dismissed as being completely without legal and factual merit. I have also paid court and counsel fees and restitution and been held in civil contempt for my deposition testimony regarding Ms. Lewinsky, which Judge Wright agreed had no bearing on Ms. Jones case, even though I disagreed with the findings in the judge's order.

I will not seek any legal fees incurred as a result of the Lewinsky investigation to which I might otherwise become entitled under the Independent Counsel Act.

I have had occasion frequently to reflect on the Jones case. In this consent order, I acknowledge having knowingly violated Judge Wright's discovery orders in my deposition in that case. I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.

I have apologized for my conduct and I have done my best to atone for it with my family, my administration and the American people. I have paid a high price for it, which I accept because it caused so much pain to so many people. I hope my actions today will help bring closure and finality to the matters.

Bill Clinton

President of the United States