Secretary of State warns Obama – miss hearing “at your own peril”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
Infowars.com
Friday, January 27, 2012
President Barack Obama was accused by prosecution lawyers of being in contempt of court after failing to show up for a ‘birther’ hearing in Georgia that seeks to establish whether he is eligible to appear on the state ballot in November.
As we reported earlier this month, so-called ‘birthers,’ those who claim there is evidence to suggest Obama was not born in the United States, hailed a judges decision to hear the case as a potential roadblock to Obama even being permitted to run for a second term in the White House.
“Lawyers for area residents mounting “birther” challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing,” reports the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.
“It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch,” lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.
Earlier this week, Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, requested that Secretary of State Brian Kemp suspend the hearing, claiming it was not a legitimate issue and insisting he and his client would boycott the hearing. However, Kemp fired back, warning that the hearing was necessary under Georgia law and that Obama and Jablonski’s failure to participate would be “at your own peril.”
Attendants packed the Georgia courtroom yesterday for the trial brought by residents who affirm that Obama was born in Kenya, making him ineligible to be US President.
The ‘birther’ argument was addressed by the White House in an unprecedented acknowledgement of the controversy surrounding the issue last year when a document purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate was released to coincide with the publication of bestselling author Jerome Corsi’s book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?
Corsi and other skeptics were unconvinced by the move however, claiming that the document is a forgery created using modern computer techniques and has numerous discrepancies with a genuine 1961 birth certificate created by a typewriter
