The Post & Email blog recently posted an interview with Liberty Legal Foundation‘s Van Irion, an attorney representing David Weldon, one of a handful of Georgia citizens challenging Obama’s right to be on the State’s ballot.
Mr. Irion describes the nature of his case, which has recently been severed from other cases, all of which are slated to be heard January 26, 2012:
I represent one person in an administrative action very specific to Georgia state law. We’re actually not going to a civil court. It’s an administrative court specifically set up by Georgia statute, and the entire purpose of the court is to advise the Secretary of State. I’m going to be starting by saying, ‘We recognize that your main purpose for being here is to be able to advise the Secretary of State on the facts and the law.’ Ultimately, regardless of what the court does, either side can appeal to a law court in Georgia, and that’s certainly what’s going to happen regardless of who wins.
His rationale for the case going before Judge Michael Malihi:
The reason we are going first and being heard separately is that I plan on calling one witness — my client, David Welden. I plan on asking him three questions; that’s it, we’re done, and making one argument. The presentation of evidence and testimony will take 15 minutes or less. We’ll probably argue the law for quite some time after that, but that’s the whole point. That’s the way I do law: I generally try to find the clearest, easiest-to-understand argument that I can support, and that’s what we present. If it doesn’t work, I rarely argue alternatives. Most lawyers do that habitually; there’s good reason for it; I understand why, but I also think it’s become very ineffective because courts have become numb to multiple alternative arguments.
Here it is: Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.
Mr. Irion goes on to say that even if his client were to somehow not have standing to challenge Obama’s qualifications, it is required by Georgia law, he contends, that the Secretary of State has a duty to make sure that all candidates are qualified to be on the ballot.
The interview is quite lengthy but well worth a read.
I contend — and at least partially agree with Mr. Irion in the above interview — that the window is exceptionally short for such a challenge, and will be quite challenging (no pun intended), in that the GA DNC may simply produce their self-ascribed paper stating (with no background documentation) that Obama is eligible for the presidency. It would then be up to Secretary of State Kemp to determine if this is “enough” evidence, based on this particular challenge.
Towards the end of the interview, I also picked up on this tid-bit:
The good news is that Judge Michael Malihi was the first judge anywhere to actually issue asubpoena to the Hawaii Department of Health to a) show up and be questioned, and b) have the original written birth certificate with you or a darn good explanation why you don’t, and the microfilm. This is a judge who understands that he has some authority here, and the court has the authority to force documents and witnesses to show up, and he’s doing it. Just that fact made me think, “We might actually get a fair hearing here.”
It took me a while to perform a search for any place that had a copy of the alleged document, and I found a posting at Dr. Orly Taitz’ site that contained a link to a copy of the document evidently stamped by Judge Malihi.
Once again, The Post & Email reports on interesting behavior going on over in the great State of Hawaii over subpoena enforcement:
(Jan. 6, 2012)— At approximately 3:05 ET, Atty. Orly Taitz contacted The Post & Email following the hearing scheduled for today in Taitz v. Fuddy in the First Circuit Court in Honolulu with Judge Rhonda Nishimura. Astoundingly, although we are told that Nishimura was aware that Taitz was not available on January 26, 2012 because of a ballot challenge hearing in Atlanta, GA, she scheduled a hearing on the subpoena issued by the court in Georgia for the very same day.
Taitz said that because of the Motion for Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement filed with the Hawaii court, Judge Nishimura was aware that Taitz could not be in both Hawaii and Georgia on that day. …
“They said that because the subpoena from Georgia is a new matter, there has to be a new hearing. Guess for what day they scheduled it? They scheduled it for January 26, the same day I have to be in Georgia,” Taitz said.
Taitz had reported previously that Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine claimed that Hawaii did not have to honor a subpoena from a court in Georgia. However, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the U.S. Constitution says differently. Taitz said that she included that argument in her pleading.
Being somewhat skeptical for just a moment (after having covered this saga for the better part of two years, I can do that ), I still find it hard to believe that an actual subpoena had been sent from Georgia to Hawaii. But that part seems plausible.
On first glance — I think Dr. Taitz needs to delegate legal responsibility to someone else. That’d be the simplest and least dramatic way to deal with the date conundrum.
What’s more interesting is that an administrative court judge allegedly issued the document. My questions:
- Does he have jurisdiction to do so? If so, why? If not, why not?
- Is he merely attempting to retrieve evidence to bolster his capacity to advise the Georgia Secretary of State on Obama’s eligibility and this is his only way to do it?
- Is this a fluke and someone is attempting to set up Internet readers because administrative law judges can’t issue subpoenas? (I would have thought a judge is a judge is a judge, they can do these kinds of things within the scope of their jurisdiction)
phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com