Birthers Hail Judgeâs Decision That Could âDeposeâ Obama
- Thread starter Mvector
- Start date
woo.... now I'm on "modified ignore" your troll bs is so succinct.
Quick summary it is then.
Birthers file suit.
Court requires response.
Response made in the form of a motion to quash.
Refused by the court.
Jem-o-loon sings D.E.F.A.U.L.T. to the tune of Tammy Wynette.
Judge Malihi invites defense to file revised legal motion to quash.
Defense attorney decides not to respond.
Jem-o-loon sings a second verse of D.E.F.A.U.L.T.
Judge Malihi does not confirm there has been default nor does he make judgment for one, merely stating what he would have done under normal circumstances. It is clear the Judge doesn't consider these normal circumstances that define default in law within an administrative court against a President.
Judge Malihi has not subpoenaed nor ordered Obama to appear in court.
Judge Malihi denies birther bullshit baloney and they lose again.
Time for Georgia Secretary of State to eat his words "at your own peril".
Time for birther Jem-o-loon to choke another out of tune verse of D.E.F.A.U.L.T.
To stu on (modified ignore):
your tiny troll brain is confusing default with entry of default or default judgment.
Obama did not respond to the subpoenas after his motion to quash failed. Every moron with a brain understands that is a default, then plaintiffs requested a hearing instead of accepting the entry of default.
your tiny troll brain is confusing default with entry of default or default judgment.
Obama did not respond to the subpoenas after his motion to quash failed. Every moron with a brain understands that is a default, then plaintiffs requested a hearing instead of accepting the entry of default.
Stu you are so delusional you border on pscycho. You just wrote page after page and you are completely full of shit. No anchor to reality or truth. Why are you arguing with me. You don't understand procedure and you are lying about facts.
Below is a quote form Judge Malihi's order denying the motion to quash. (and a link).
Note the words subpoena and the words compelling attendance in the very first sentence... you fricken troll.
"Defendant, President Barach Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratice nominatin 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.
The court goes on to say...
"Defendant has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that any 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 enforceed... Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-19(5)."
Note the above was typed quickly here is a link to the courts order.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78887509/...on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoena-by-Attorney-Taitz
Below is a quote form Judge Malihi's order denying the motion to quash. (and a link).
Note the words subpoena and the words compelling attendance in the very first sentence... you fricken troll.
"Defendant, President Barach Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratice nominatin 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.
The court goes on to say...
"Defendant has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that any 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 enforceed... Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-19(5)."
Note the above was typed quickly here is a link to the courts order.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78887509/...on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoena-by-Attorney-Taitz
So much for your promise of "modified ignore"
Jem, you are hanging onto an argument about de facto default, that is to say, default irrespective of lawful authority.
Quoting the letter of the law as if definition will simplistically apply under all circumstances is a mistake. An ill-informed ignorant error.
To enforce any subpoenas referred to in Judge Mahili's Administrative Court, it is all but certain the superior court's authority, which is required, would not uphold any of them and may well in all likelihood find them invalid.
They will consider the foundation of the case the subpoenas are issued upon. Courts keep finding over and over again the birther claims have no grounding and are meritless.
A subpoena was served on Hawaii attempting to compel. They did not respond to it. So you'd say, Hawaii "chose to default". That fits Black's definition of default. Of course they didn't default. When Birther Taitz tried to then get that subpoena enforced, the motion was denied. Judge Mahili in that event would not enforce in the same way a superior court would not enforce subpoenas based on such frivolous suits.
The Judge stated Under normal circumstances decision to take no further part in proceedings would result in a default judgment. That does not mean in these unusual circumstances "Obama chose to default". There was a response. It was denied. In these unusual circumstances the question then goes back to whether those subpoena forms were enforceable in the first place, as was the case with Hawaii. The chances are, almost as certainly as it can be said without legal test, being based on the usual featherbrained claims, they were not.
You cannot choose to default in law on an invalid subpoena which itself doesn't stand in law.
It cannot be said there was default should a subpoena or order made from it be later vacated.
The definition in law for default applies to matters of law, not to your own mere observation and conclusion reached outside of it.
Now show the subpoena or order made by Judge Malihi for Obama to appear in court. Oily Titz's invalid and potentially invalid subpoenas drummed up using subpoena forms just won't do. Notice of an administrative hearing called under rules of procedure is not a subpoena.
Despite all this, despite lack of attendance by the defendant, the Court found comprehensively and unambiguously against the birther plaintiffs. Georgia Secretary Kemp is obliged to eat crow. A demeaning display and state sponsored spectacle of how to allow the law for the umpteenth time to be brought into disrepute.
Once you stop trying to be such a default loudmouth birther and clever dick , maybe you'll get a clue.
Kindly return me to "modified ignore".
in obamaloon world Stu made this up....
In defacto and de jure world... the judge denied the motion to quash by writing this...
"Defendant, President Barach 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.
The court goes on to say...
"Defendant has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that any 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 enforceed... Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-19(5)."
Note the above was typed quickly here is a link to the courts order.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78887509/...-Attorney-Taitz
Quote from stu:
woo.... now I'm on "modified ignore" your troll bs is so succinct.
Quick summary it is then.
Birthers file suit.
Court requires response.
Response made in the form of a motion to quash.
Refused by the court.
Jem-o-loon sings D.E.F.A.U.L.T. to the tune of Tammy Wynette.
Judge Malihi invites defense to file revised legal motion to quash.
Defense attorney decides not to respond.
Jem-o-loon sings a second verse of D.E.F.A.U.L.T.
Judge Malihi does not confirm there has been default nor does he make judgment for one, merely stating what he would have done under normal circumstances. It is clear the Judge doesn't consider these normal circumstances that define default in law within an administrative court against a President.
Judge Malihi has not subpoenaed nor ordered Obama to appear in court.
Judge Malihi denies birther bullshit baloney and they lose again.
Time for Georgia Secretary of State to eat his words "at your own peril".
Time for birther Jem-o-loon to choke another out of tune verse of D.E.F.A.U.L.T.
In defacto and de jure world... the judge denied the motion to quash by writing this...
"Defendant, President Barach 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.
The court goes on to say...
"Defendant has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that any 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 enforceed... Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-19(5)."
Note the above was typed quickly here is a link to the courts order.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78887509/...-Attorney-Taitz