OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
DAVID FARRAR,
LEAH LAX,
CODY JUDY,
THOMAS MALAREN,
LAURIE ROTH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
DAVID P. WELDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
CARL SWENSSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1215136-60-MALIHI
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Orly Taitz
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1215137-60-MALIHI
: Counsel for Plaintiff: Van R. Irion
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1216218-60-MALIHI
: Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield
; Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
KEVIN RICHARD POWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1216823-60-MALIHI
: Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
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
