Apart from the unfortunate and erroneous AP wire story saying Obama had been ordered to appear in Atlanta this Thursday in the administrative hearing of Farrar v. Obama, there’s not much to stimulate enthusiasm in the general public. Without Obama on the stand, as we approach the 100th birther failure, most folks have long run out of interest in birther lawsuits. (I use the word “unfortunate” because it may result in lots of people showing up at the hearing hoping to see the President, creating unnecessary confusion and congestion at the Justice Center.)
We specialists (Birthers and the anti-birthers) know that there is something different about this case. No one is saying that it will be dismissed like all the others: the law in Georgia is different. Knowledgeable folks think that the judge will decide the merits of the birther claim against Barack Obama. So in the Birther Universe, this is a big deal.
Interest in the case is reflected in traffic at this web site, which has reached levels not seen since last August, around the time of Orly Taitz’s first court appearance in Hawaii. The percentage of first-time visitors is up, indicating I think people trying to find out more, via search engine, about a story they have seen. (It still only about one fourth the interest generated by the release of the long form in April.)
I commented before that anti-birthers are not criticizing Judge Malihi for ruling against Obama. I found an exception. Some have argued that the judge should have dismissed parts of the case, specifically the plaintiffs who are not Georgia voters because the law grants rights to challenge only to Georgia voters. This oversight, however, is not material to the outcome.
Not being a lawyer, I’m not qualified to criticize Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski; however, it seems that Jablonski is not taking the case seriously enough with his poorly-argued motion to quash the subpoena. Jablonski seems to think that he can ridicule his way through the case. While the case is ridiculous, judges, in my limited experience, are not concerned whether the litigants are cranks, but what the law says. Jablonski would do well to focus on the law and let Orly Taitz discredit herself.
Over the next few days, I will be focused on Atlanta. It’s the first genuine news story I’ve had in a long time.
I wonder what will be spun of the non-appearance of the president. Probably he is running scared, what is he hiding? Typical crap.
a birther site claims they will have live video feed
http://www.art2superpac.com/livevideo.html
.
I don’t think they will continue that feed if things don’t go the birther way, so has anyone got a non-birther link to the feed
Count on it.
And a resurgence of “he’s spending millions to hide information”. It perpetuates their fear based paranoia with a jingoistic fight against scary, foreign elitism look and feel.
Many birthers certainly are predictable in their bigotry and stupidity.
It’s not so much a criticism of the judge, but of a legal system that allows a shyster like Taitz to print out an on-line pre-signed subpoena and then places the burden on the party she serves it on to fight it. It seems to me that no subpoena should ever be issued unless a neutral arbiter is reasonably convinced that the party summoned has something they can actually testify about. That ought to apply to the President and to burger flippers alike.
That is the problem with conspiracies. That infinite loop that they cannot/will not escape. In the network field, looping causes network outages. It would explain the shorted-circuits in their craniums.
Agreed.
To me, that is a mistake to publicly make available a document with a judges signature, that screams “exploit me”.
“It’s not so much a criticism of the judge,”
no judge involved in this hearing, there is however a ringmaster
as in ringling bros, there are 3 rings
I had pointed out elsewhere here that Jablonski is chief counsel to the Georgia Blue Party. He is defending the Party’s action of entering the president’s name as a candidate in the primary. To my knowledge, he is not personally representing Obama. as such, I have speculated that he can be expected to represent the party’s interests first, the candidate’s second. The more I think about the filings he has made, the more this makes sense. He sounds to me like someone caught in them middle, and playing politics, representing the intersts of party, rather than as Obama’s personal advocate. His motion to dismiss focused on the relation of states to the actions of national parties. His motion to quash referred to online images, etc., rather than the real deal. And read like a memo from the state party (sans the fundraising pitch), as Doc said, focusing on parties involved (politics!) rather than the law.
The birthers think they have “gotten” to obama and have “his” attorney on the ropes. Seems to me they have succeeded in using up some of the state party’s time, and Obama, if he has noticed at all, has only chuckled from afar like the rest of us.
J.POTTER says “chuckled ”
yes Chucles the Clown will be there to provide humor!
President Obama is the defendant, not the state party. Here’s how Jablonski ended the motion to quash:
Michael Jablonski
Attorney for President Barack Obama
“I commented before that anti-birthers are not criticizing Judge Malihi for ruling against Obama.”
Doc…Maybe you haven’t kept up with the Fogbow Georgia Election Challenge thread, but they’ve all but decided he’s a “birther-in-sheep’s-clothing” to quote Loren.
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6845&start=3425
Among other things, they suspect he may be a Republican Party hack.
Hey Doc- you going to go to Atlanta for the hearing? What is that- a 2 or 3 hour drive?
Not that I am saying you should…. I am just curious if you will go since it is a reasonable distance.
I would consider that to be quite an unrealistic assessment of Loren’s position.
Well, these are conspiracy blogs/forums…it kinda goes both ways in a sense.
To clarify…
Loren was accusing some of his fellow Fogbowers of thinking the Judge was a closet birther.
Loren seems to be defending the judge and his motives.
it’s that time of year when birfer trolls flop in like schools of mindless salmon, pregnant and swollen with bile, before they’re netted, gutted and bled for their sweet sweet birfer tears.
“Bil DuBerger”
I believe the appropriate phrase is “Pants on Fire” for you opinion/comment.
If you had ACTUALLY read the rather extensive set of posts you would not make that statement.
Not one single person has stated, opined or assumed that Judeg Malihi is a “Republican Party hack”
SOME have stated that the feel he may be going down the Judge Ito route
SOME have stated that feel his actions may be coming from a “birfoon” friendly place
Many/Most are not best pleased with Jablonski’s crapulous motion
Guess what, much like thee, everyone has both arseholes and opinions
As for birth certificates, I was born at home and I didn’t have one till I was over 30, when I needed a passport. I took me 2 years to get a “delayed birth certificate”. My US Marine duty, my voting, all else, was done with a baptism certificate. (not valid for passport) I was able to get a temporary emergency passport with my nieces help (wifes mother was dying in Okinawa), but 2 years to get a BC then a passport. That was an ordeal that I did not enjoy. I had to round up witnesses and affidavits from Chicago (I was living in Hawaii at the time), it was tiresome and costly.. In 1939 a lot of people were born at home.
It’s not just an accusation, some folks DID accuse the judge of being a closet birther, and I agree with Loren that there’s no evidence to support that contention.
Even in states where someone has to physically sign off on each subpoena, it’s not always required that someone who can adjudicate the law has to do it. It’s easy enough for a clerk to simply stamp and sign it after a cursory check to see if the formatting is correct.
I read some of Hawaii’s rules. They state that the clerk is to give a stack of pre-signed but “otherwise in blank” subpoena forms to the parties/attornies.
Bob, I’m aware of that, my contention is, again, he is from the party, and defending Obama in name only, as Obama was named in the challenge. I’d be surprised if he’s taking calls from the Oval Office on this, or has ever discussed this with anyone from the WH. It’s a party matter. No, I don’t know that, just teh impression I am getting, and one that I feel explains the character of Jablonski’s filings. Have there been any statement to the effect of, “My name is Mr. Jablonski; President Obama has retained my services in this matter”?
Of course there was Reagan’s BC. He didn’t get it until he was 31, and it says he was born in some building in Illinois (doesn’t say it was a hospital).
There is the delayed (more than one year afterward) birth certificate language that the State Dept uses. Apparently if the attendant signs off on it, the State Dept considers it as “primary evidence” no matter how late it was filed. I’m actually surprised that the doctor who delivered Reagan was still alive.
Did you guys hear about a pair of sisters who were denied Social Security cards? They were born in various places by educated hippy parents. They kept on moving around. They never had their births legally recorded. They worked under the table for a while but wanted to get legal. They didn’t have any birth certificate or much evidence. They got a settlement with the Feds that the State Dept would issue them passport cards, which they could then use as a “foundation document” to get other documents.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501704_162-57330290/sisters-settle-suit-over-social-security-cards/
I agree, Scientist. I am more annoyed that Orly could file some bs complaint against me and I’d have to respond to it. She could go on and on and I’d have to deal with her or finally convince the court that she’s a nut and get her labeled a vex-whatever person so she’d have to go before a judge with her filings before she can actually file them.
But who wants/needs/have time for all that crap!?!? Again, I’m annoyed that she puts together a whole bag of bs and REAL lawyers have to spend time AND MONEY responding……..AND SHE’S LOST EVERY TIME. Any judge she goes before should notice this…..
Congratulations Bill! You’ve fallen for Fogbow disinformation. I hope you enjoy being laughed at…
I’ve read the entire thread from beginning to end and am aware of the pranksterism.
The fact is, they are still calling the Judge’s motives into question, while Loren is still trying to talk them off the ledge.
I’ve read the whole Fogbow thread and some are speculating about the judge’s motivations — perhaps they are good, bad, political, non-political, or indifferent. It’s just a discussion. No one is panicking. To say otherwise strikes me as disinformation.
I don’t blame the legal system. Taitz is abusing it.
from FogBow: Hearing has been moved to smaller venue
OSAH – Office of State Administrative Hearings
230 PEACHTREE STREET, NW, SUITE 850
ATLANTA, GA 30303
Non-Agency Attorney:
Case Official:
Case Status: This is an open case.
Someone has apparently shrunk the circus tent, and I’d bet money it was not Judge Malihi
I agree. But then again, most of Birtherism is just an endless attempt at a disinformation campaign in the first place…
These folks simply think that sowing doubt and telling lies repeatedly somehow magically changes reality… Most of the intentional propaganda trolling we see here and on other comments forums is for that explicit purpose.
These clueless clowns somehow think they’re the Karl Rove or Frank Luntz of the internet and are doing this because they think they can somehow swing votes to prevent Obama’s relelection…
Fairly futile at this point in an old story, if you ask me. Birtherism has no rational basis and has worn out most of its appeal to anyone but the already converted. Those willing to be suckered into such smears weren’t going to vote for Obama regardless and are just looking for their crack fix to use as an excuse for their already existing irrational hate.
Alright, I think it’s time to go out on a limb and predict the outcome:
I don’t think the judge will rule on Thursday. I think he will come out a week or 2 later and conclude that the 20th Amendment leaves the determination of presidential qualifications, and, thus, the interpretation of the meaning of natural born citizen to Congress. Obama will remain on the ballot-if he wins the matter will be in the hands of Congress; if he loses, it’s moot.
As for whether the President will appear, definitely not. I suspect the COLB and likely the long form will be in the courtroom (whether presented or not). There is an outside chance that the Perkins Coie attorney will be there and have a letter from Obama waiving attorney-client privilege so she can testify about how the long form was produced.
I would be interested in hearing other people’s predictions. I will gladly accept mockery from those brave enough to put forward their own guesses.
I like your predictions, I agree and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. 😀
If we were to be picky a mini-mock might involve pointing out that predicting that the ALJ won’t issue a decision on Thursday isn’t really a “prediction” at all as it’s already established that there will be no decision on Thursday, though the proceedings of the day will give great clues as to what the decision will eventually be.
The earliest that Malihi can make any recommendation to the SoS is probably the day after he receives both sides’ FoF and CoL ie around the 6th February.
Re the rest , they’re probably as good as anyone’s. Good luck!
Sure, scientist, I’ll repost mine 😀 Short version is: birthers ramble, and the defense doesn’t have to produce anything, as their challenge is without merit. My semi-serious analysis is below.
However, I do hope, that, in the interest of slamming the door so hard it atoms fuse to the frame, the defense does present basic documentation required to prove Obama’s eligibility: certified copy of BC (short and long for sake of completeness), and whatever paperwork GA requires a candidate to file. Which i am sure it has already been filed, but, whatever.
Double however, since, to my reading, the burden is on the challenger, I will be very surprised if the defense has to whip out the big guns. They don’t have to prove anything, until the birthers create a reasonable doubt as to Obama’s eligibility.
________________________
The birther’s chance of success = unlikely^3.1 … a sum that works out to 0.000063% when unlikely is defined as 1% chance of occurring.
The 3.1 unlikelihoods, which would be a cumulative sequence:
1. Burden of proof shifted entirely to Obama.
2. Defense team fails / refuses to respond.
3. Judge awards an opinion that-rather than the birther having proved Obama ineligible!-Obama failed to prove eligibility.
3.1. State SoS, in order to avoid the heat of making a decision, enforces opinion out of indignation or on procedural grounds.
Note that this whole sequence, the only possible way for the birthers to prevail that I can see, is classic denialism in action. They cannot *prove* that Obama is ineligible, with logical, documented refutations of the evidence he has of his eligibility. What they can do, is ask unreasonable questions that don’t need answering, in an attempt to force the other side to prove the birthers wrong, when in fact, it is the birthers place to be proving Obama wrong. We see it play out here with troll after troll.
This is precisely why the birther case has no chance. Obama and his party have stated that he is eligible. It’s up to the challengers to prove him ineligible, or at least make a convincing case that his eligibility is in question. There is no possibility of a “default” win for the birthers, because their entire case is crap, and even if Obama’s team doesn’t show, the judge will toss it. It will come down to “Take our word for it, he’s ineligible.”
If anyone can tell me how the birthers win even if a defense is not presented, I’d like to hear it.
___________________________
I, too, gladly accept mockery. I wouldn’t dish it if I couldn’t take it 😉
Worth cross-posting — from an oped in the Courier Herald; see: http://www.peachpundit.com/2012/01/24/president-obama-a-natural-born-citizen-will-not-be-in-georgia-on-thursday/#more-40838
More at the link above.
OK You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
I suspect the Judge will refuse to allow any “evidence” of any of the birthers, especially the crazytrain of the Orly circus. That will leave the birthers with nothing to put forward but argument. The defense will be allowed to enter the COLB as Prima Facie. Since evidence beats argument every time, the ruling, when it eventually comes out, will be obvious.
I am guessing that it all end up with Orly Taitz calling the judge a corrupt traitor, and perhaps with all the Birther lawyers wrestling each other on the floor over who is the real “Birther Queen”.
If only we could arrange it so that every time Orly uses the word “forgery”, everyone in the room throws toast at her…
Raw Story, an internet news site published an APF story that was not quite accurate,
it was titled “Judge says Obama must appear in birther’ suit”, in reality the judge
did not order Obama to appear, I sent emails explaining this to Raw Story, they got
a bit upset with me. I sent them a link to the Scribd document*** of the judges order which
clearly has no such order, their major response was to ban me from posting on Raw Story.
I gave them a link to a Georgia news site that got the story right:
http://www.peachpundit.com/2012/01/24/president-obama-a-natural-born-citizen-will-not-be-in-georgia-on-thursday/#more-40838
***Scribd link to actuakl Judges order, it contains no order for Obama to appear.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78887509/Georgia-Farrar-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoena-by-Attorney-Taitz
their has a quote “At Raw Story, we value our readers’ opinions.”
sure, they do sure!
link to Raw Story aricle:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/23/judge-says-obama-must-appear-in-birther-suit/
My prediction is in another thread. I am not at home and don’t have the time or inclination to look it up.
How about an Orly drinking game. Have a swig of beer each time she uses a magic word/phrase such as “forgery”, “Esquire”, “competent jurisdiction”, “corrupt”, or (my personal favorite) “criminal enterprise”.
I might need to be hospitalized for acute alcohol poisoning.
LOL! H/T for the Rocky Horror Picture Show reference!
You’re a witch…
I’ve got a pretty healthy constitution and boy…I think that would make me too drunk to stand too…
Oh, if only it was a evening/weekend event… then I might entertain the pure drinking game fun of it all! Oh well, I guess I’ll have to just stick to popcorn… 😉 I’m already working to free up my morning on Thursday to enjoy this guilty pleasure…
Don’t forget Fraud and decedent* (which I would be if I tried this drinking game).
*decedent = OrlyLaw for dissident.
I looked up the location.
Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings
230 Peachtree St NW # 850
Atlanta, GA 30303
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Georgia+Office+of+State+Administrative+Hearings,+230+Peachtree+St+NW+%23+850,+Atlanta,+GA+30303&hl=en&ll=33.760302,-84.387596&spn=0.002533,0.004994&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.456673,81.826172&vpsrc=6&hq=Georgia+Office+of+State+Administrative+Hearings,+230+Peachtree+St+NW+%23+850,&hnear=Atlanta,+Georgia+30303&t=h&z=18
On the same block as Benihana’s, across the street from the Hard Rock Cafe Atlanta, and less than 300 (ground) feet from Hooter’s.
Sounds tempting.
Just finished watching Obama’s State of the Union speech, now I have to go put and sell al those frogs I bought for the frog marching, I’m selling at .50 on the dollar. Contact me with any ofer.
I don’t understand, not one mention of reference to this big showdown. He really seems to believe he’ll be in office all week. I could swear he was referencing stuff that would take to the end of the month, maybe even longer! Even FOX failed to mention his imminent departure! (To my knowledge, anyway; FOX is entertaining but only in small doses.)
Boehner was right behind the President the whole time, and not once did I see him waving handcuffs.
I just finished watching Gov. Daniels deliver the Republican response. Mitch is a smart guy, but somehow he missed the fact that the President was ORDERED to be in Atlanta on Thursday and to PRODUCE all of the watercolors he did in 1st grade. OMG I know that it is true, i saw it on WND. Joe Farrah wouldn’t lie; the government wouldn’t let him.
Actually, I think we are missing a few things here. As we learned with the 49ers on Sunday, many organizations are staffed one deep, whether at punt returner or at President’s lawyer in Georgia. And the President’s lawyer does not have an open line to the White House. I agree it would be neat if he had a paper copy of the birth certificate, but that assumes that this issue is high on someone’s priority list. My guess is Mr. Jablonski is scrambling to figure out, at his lonely outpost, how he’s supposed to pull this rabbit out of a hat. If he has the burden of proof, it’s not like he can depend on Dr. Taitz to fgure out one of her infinite ways to get things wrong. Fortunately, some of the plaintiffs just want to argue the two parent issue, and to put the burden of proof on the President would require that the judge first find in favor of the two parent theory.
He was too busy sucking lemons! So sweet to see the disconnect between the propaganda and the reality. “This is not the Kenyan Gay Commie Marxo-Muslim we were promised!” The spin machine at FOX is on overdrive. When the guy you hate just because is standing there talking sense and laying out a slew of good ideas, well, then, that leaves your side with …. 😉
And the use of the military teamwork analogy was pretty awesome. “If the troops can do it, why can’t you?”
Spot on, John. Great minds named John think alike? I’m glad things are clearing up at work so I can watch the live coverage 😀
The more I think about it, the more I believe that a paper copy of a birth certificate might not be in the cards for this Thursday. While I suppose a paper copy with seal would be practically unimpeachable before the hearing, the judge probably isn’t a kook conspiracy theorist. He’s allowed to take sensible measures. I’m thinking the defense could introduce the statements (with links) of the Hawaii Director of Public Health, and the judge could reasonably look at them, check the website as he’s making his decision, and come to the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
Personally I would have hoped the Obama campaign would have prepared for his kind of eventuality by having hundreds of birth certificates on hand. I mean – just get the bulk discount, have them sent (unfolded) by package delivery, and carefully dole them out if the occasion might call for one.
Of course I was shocked when the “long form” was produced in 2011, so who knows what might happen Thursday.
Here’s a hint at a possible solution to your problem.
My prediction is either this hearing is for some reason not even going to start or that Jablonski is going to show up and stick to the guns which were in his original motion to dismiss. He will present no certified copy birth certificate.
He will then sit silently and allow the ALJ to handle the plantiffs’ submissions however the ALJ sees fit. No objections will be raised by him and no other evidence will be offered by him.
In that circumstance ALJ Frankenstein will realise that he is basically alone in a locked room with his creation and it’s anybody’s guess how far he will then let any of them go. My guess is not very far at all before he declares the hearing closed.
Further predictions re what will happen next can be assessed at that time.
Now that you mention it, quite possible. After all, he can present it at any time if he believes there’s a need, even after the hearing. There is no “present it here or forever be excluded from the ballot”, not in the law and not in legal procedure.
Then again, I don’t think lawyers play the “Bed. Made. Lie.” game with judges. If Judge Malihi is clueless about birthers and their antics, it’s not his fault, and there’s nothing to gain by making him feel bad for not granting the motions.
Did Mr. Jablonski submit to Judge Malihi a revised motion to quash the relevant subpoena?
“Here’s a hint at a possible solution to your problem.”
Thanks Keith , that was funny!
.
no Arthur, Joblonski did not, there is no need, this Judge lacks authority to enforce subpoenas.
during last night’s SOTU address, Obama told Leon Paneta, “good job tonight, good job”,
what we didn’t know at the time was that Obama was referring to the rescue of the two
kidnapped aid workers in Samolia by the same unit that killed Bin Laden. The two
workers, one American, one Dane, were in good health their kidnappers did not survive
the raid which was authorized by Obama. Things like this keep him busy so he won’t be
able to show up in the Georgia circus.
.
as for the “Obama Ordered” story, Here’s a link to a Georgia news site that got the story right.
http://www.peachpundit.com/2012/01/24/president-obama-a-natural-born-citizen-will-not-be-in-georgia-on-thursday/#more-40838
And it was Seal Team 6 that did the mission. Good Job.
Other countries have paid off pirates in cash and gold. Encouraging more pirates. Obama pays in lead.
It’s a question of basic economic incentives. Send foreign aid and try to encourage economic development so the people don’t have to resort to piracy. But back it up with the big stick. Crime will be paid for with punishment.
Thanks, rich, for answering my question. Here’s another: while I understand that Judge Malihi lacks authority to enforce Taitz’s subpoena, I don’t understand why Jablonski bothered to try to quash a seemingly meaningless subpoena in the first place. Any ideas?
“Any ideas”
it certainly brought attention to the crap Orly filed, the court became more aware of the silliness Orly brings.
Yeah. It sort of put the judge on notice that “You’ve got a so-called attorney before you who may not fully comprehend what she’s doing when she’s sending subpoenas to federal officials and people all around the country.
I’ve loved that line that Jill Nagamine said as she shrugged her shoulders after she explained that Orly’s subpoena of Fuddy wasn’t enforceable – “Hawaii isn’t Georgia”.
However, I have a suspicion that the judge got a little taste of some more serious judicial action compared to the more mundane things that he’s used to, so perhaps he looked upon the motion to quash as a chance to flex his judicial muscles in a way that he normally would not. I’m also wondering if this might be a record for the number of subpoenas filed by one party before his court.
Well I was “nearly” right. Jablonski has made it clear he is not attending the hearing on the 26th. His reasoning is tbasically hat the ALJ has seriously misinetrpreted the prevailing law and that the hearing can therefore only produce a ruling which can have no effect.
He has written to the SoS to that effect requesting that he remove the requirement for any hearing at all by instructing the ALJ that he no longer requires any administrative law determination on this matter.
….is basically that….
Not wanting lead poor folks to Mad Ole Orlys House of Hate and Malware, this is the letter Jablonski sent to the SoS
Doc, feel free to edit but this is a court document and so not subjectct to copyright
Hon. Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings
Dear Secretary Kemp:
This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia – that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.
Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.
For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.
It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.
Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.
In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….
As a national leader in the so-called birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.
All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).
The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.”) Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.
We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL JABLONSKI
Georgia State Bar Number 385850
Attorney for President Barack Obama
cc: Hon. Michael Malihi
Van Irion, Esq.
Orly Taitz, Esq.
Mark Hatfield, Esq.
Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
Stefan Ritter, Esq.
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq.
Darcy Coty, Esq.
Andrew B. Flake, Esq.
Oh, snap.
…. 😎
“For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.”
This must be the big surprise Carl Swensson was crowing about.
Right? 😀
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! !
So what Jablonski is saying is that Judge Malihi has pretty much gone full-on Lance Ito.
Although I praise Judge Ito for his prominent display of a Peet’s Coffee mug during the televised trial……
Since Scientist is claiming a pretty close prediction, so am I with the above…..especially since I also posted a few days ago that I really liked the idea of Jablonski going direct to the SoS with the COLB thus obviating the need for a hearing (I can’t find that post).
So there……razz….and na na na na naaaa na!
OK, we’re both right!!
Deal!
ldhgnpcbnbdpotqjsbdz, dapwmtnsjh , [url=http://www.faekfulech.com]ldmanqkqzz[/url], http://www.doontyvjjo.com dapwmtnsjh