About two weeks ago, a judge in Georgia did what many judges had refused to. Michael Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge of the Administrative Court in Georgia, ruled in four eligibility cases that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. This means that Obama will have to “stand trial” [see caveat below] and prove his eligibility for office. (See my post on this, here.)
In all four cases, Obama is represented by high-powered attorney Michael Jablonski, the General Counsel for the Democratic Party of Georgia. Jablonski promptly filed a motion for Obama to not appear at the first hearing scheduled for next Thursday, January 26, 2012.
But that motion is denied by Judge Michael!!!
This happy news is reported by the website Article II Political Action Committee, Jan. 20, 2012. Here is Judge Michael’s order (you can also view the order in PDF format, here):
ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
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.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
Please ask God to send His Angels to protect Judge Michael. Please keep Judge Michael in your prayers!
Dean Haskins (of Birther Summit) cautions us against assuming too much:
“…what has been repeatedly referred to as a ‘trial,’ will not be a trial, but an administrative hearing. Folks, it is being conducted by Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings. That should be the first clue about what will actually take place! The entire purpose of the hearing is for the administrative judge to make a recommendation to Georgia’s Secretary of State, who is under no legal obligation to adhere to the judge’s recommendation.
[…] 616-1-2-.38 Discovery. Amended.
Discovery shall not be available in any proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge except to the extent specifically authorized by law. Nothing in this Rule is intended to limit the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50 or Rule 37.
And, for the record, what is excluded from the discovery rule are public records.”
H/t my friend Mark S. McGrew.