Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Obama Release Your Records ^ | Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 5:14 AM

[Red Steel]

Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State

Brian Kemp About Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Article II Super PAC Email

Greetings,

Kevin Powell and Carl Swensson's counsel, Mark Hatfield, early this morning sent his response to judicial errors of fact and law to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, in response to Judge Michael Malihi's decision in the Georgia ballot challenge.

Click this link to read Attorney Hatfield's response - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Below is the ending portion of Attorney Hatfield's 6-page rebuttal letter to the Georgia Secretary of State. Read the whole letter!

"Please note that the foregoing cited errors, omissions, and flaws in Judge Malihi's "Decision" are not intended to be exhaustive, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to raise other claims of error hereafter.

Mr. Secretary, as you deliberate on your final determination of Defendant Obama's qualifications to seek and hold office, I am requesting, on behalf of my clients, that you consider the posture of these matters. Defendant Obama has initiated the submission of his name as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Ballot. Likewise, in accordance with their rights under Georgia law, my clients have raised a challenge to the Defendant's qualifications as a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution. The Defendant and his lawyer tried, unsuccessfully, to have my clients' challenges dismissed. The Defendant was then legally served with a Notice to Produce, requiring him to appear at trial and to bring certain documents and items of evidence with him. The Defendant did not object. When the time for trial was imminent, the Defendant's lawyer wrote a letter to you in which he boldly criticized and attacked the judge and in which he stated that he and his client were refusing to come to court. The day of trial, after you warned him that his failure to appear would be at his own peril, the Defendant and his lawyer nevertheless failed to appear for court and failed to comply with the Plaintiffs' valid Notice to Produce. The Defendant thus not only presented no evidence of his own, but he failed to produce significant pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs were legally entitled. Inexplicably, Judge Malihi, after verbally acknowledging Plaintiffs' entitlement to a "default judgment," then entered an order fully favorable to the recalcitrant Defendant, and to top it off, the judge refused to even acknowledge Plaintiffs' attempts to have Defendant held accountable for his purposefully contemptuous behavior in ignoring Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce.

Doesn't this result sound unreasonable? Doesn't this result appear on its face unfair? Doesn't this result in fact suggest that the Defendant is above the law?

Mr. Secretary, I am respectfully requesting on behalf of my clients that you render a decision in this matter that treats Defendant Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot who fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and who disregards the authority of our judiciary. I request that my clients' challenges to Defendant Obama's qualifications be sustained and upheld.

Finally, in view of the rapidly approaching Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia on March 6, 2012, I respectfully request that you enter a decision in these matters on an expedited basis."

READ THE FULL LETTER DEBUNKING THE DECISION BY JUDGE MALIHI HERE. IT ALSO DEBUNKS CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS.

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

[philman_36]

Larry understands the threat to our country, rule of law, national finances and of course, an ineligible, hostile “President”

I'm glad to hear that Mr. Klayman is willing to be counsel and recognizes how important this issue actually is.

I'm going to make an assumption and presume from the rather small amount being sought in donations (though to most it would probably seem a large sum on a person by person case) that such funds are for filing costs, travel expenses, etc. and that Mr. Klayman is going to take this case pro bono publico.

Do you know if I'm correct?

[philman_36]

My apology was sincere.
Well then your future actions here should vindicate you. We'll see.
For now, in my eyes, you're lower than the belly of a snake resting in an old wagon wheel rut at the bottom of Death Valley.

Is this issue that important that you would let it poison your heart?
Which issue? Abortion or presidential eligibility?
Both of those issues are "that important" to me. Both are an abomination before man and God.
And aren't you being rather presumptuous to assume my heart is "poisoned"?
You're not helping your cause one whit in making such a spurious characterization. Keep going. You only further corroborate my assessment of you with such statements.

I will pray for you.
I don't need prayers from the likes of you.

Ephesians 4:14...That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive...

James 1:8 A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.

[Harlan1196]

I am not sure where we got crossed up on abortion - I have only been discussing eligibility. I share your views on abortion. I sincerely apologize for.that misunderstanding - I certainty understand the great pain that would cause.

[philman_36]

I share your views on abortion.
Well it's nice of you not to qualify your statement this time.

And yet, you do not consider the "presidential eligibility" an abomination as you do not include that in your statement. So, I must therefore conclude that you consider it just, right and proper to lie and commit fraud upon your fellow Citizens. I must conclude that you consider your actions in continuing to "provide cover" and "run interference" for the sitting POTUS "a good thing".

Your own actions says more of your character than anything I could ever say to you.

[Harlan1196]

but there is a fundamental difference - eligibility is not universally supported by conservatives. Very few in fact do. Opposition to abortion is at the moral core of conservativism you cannot support abortion and be a conservative. On the other hand many conservatives disagree with you on eligibility.

[philman_36]

I am not sure where we got crossed up on abortion - I have only been discussing eligibility.
We're not crossed up on abortion. The abortion issue came about because of what you said while trying to impugn my character!
You're simply trying to direct attention away from the fact that you said that I was wrong on every issue every time. There was no "qualifying statement" there, was there?

You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time...

[philman_36]

On the other hand many conservatives disagree with you on eligibility.
So I'm just supposed to "give way" on issues due to nothing more than "majority opinion"?

[Harlan1196]

Every other sentence in that post is specific to eligibility. How the hell you can think that one sentence in the middle of a post on eligibility was talking about every single one of your beliefs is beyond me. You are just looking for reason to be outraged.

[philman_36]

You are just looking for reason to be outraged.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[Harlan1196]

I would never suggest that - one must hold true their beliefs. I just ask that you not make it a litmus test. One can be a conservative and not accept the eligibility argument.

[philman_36]

I just ask that you not make it a litmus test.
How am I making the eligibility issue a litmus test?
I've not told anybody that they must believe as I do on this issue or they're not a conservative. That is the reason that there is thread after thread here at FR where each side tries to convince others through convincing arguments that they're correct on the issue and the other side isn't.
So don't you dare try to conflate the two issues of eligibility and you blatantly lying about me into one single thing. You're not that crafty.

And while I'm venting...even though the issue appears to be far from settled people like you strut around doing some premature "happy dance" as if this were all finished so everybody should just sit down, shut up and take "it up the old wazoo" simply because "everybody doesn't agree with you".

One can be a conservative and not accept the eligibility argument.
You can be an absolute buffoon and not accept that either.

[Harlan1196]

I didn’t lie about you. I said that every eligibility theory you support has failed every case, every time.

You have yet to prove me wrong.

You taking a single sentence from a post that talk exclusively about eligibility that was in a entire conversation about eligibility and twisting that into an attack on every single one of your beliefs - well come on, you call that a honest debating tactic? You went out of your way to create something to get outraged over so you could launch an all out attack on me. That is not how honorable men act.

With that, I am done. I suggest we simply ignore each other.

[philman_36]

I said that every eligibility theory you support has failed every case, every time.
You not only lie about me, and to me, you lie to yourself.

THIS is what you said!
@194 You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.

@Why, Harlan, how could a newbie like you have been following little old me for three long years?

@Upper right hand corner > search > philman_36 Amazing technology.

I've got hundreds of posts going back over the last three years and yet you claimed you had seen them all and knew I was wrong on every issue, not just issues on presidential eligibility.

With that, I am done.
You were done before you ever got @out of the gate, IMO.

I suggest we simply ignore each other.
You'll not easily be able to simply slither away from your own well deserved, ignominious fate, snake.

[Harlan1196]

So why do you keep ignoring the ENTIRE post you cherry picked that ONE sentence from? Every other sentence before and after deals explicitly about eligibility. Only a fool would believe that the sentence right in the middle would not be about eligibility.

Why don’t you cite the entire post?

[philman_36]

Why don’t you cite the entire post?

Slither away, snake.

[philman_36]

So why do you keep ignoring the ENTIRE post you cherry picked that ONE sentence from?
Ya know what, you're right! Here ya go...the entire reply that you made!

Why are you talking to us - shouldn't you be on the phone to the Georgia SoS explaining to him how no one in his office knows how to do their jobs? Maybe he will give you a job.
A "personal dig" and nothing more! Nothing of merit whatsoever. It's not even funny.

You have shown ability to gather an impressive collection of legal minutia. You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.
Where you torpedoed your own boat.

I will make a fearless prediction - this case will go no further. If appealed it will lose. At every level. Every time. And your collection of laws will not change that simple fact.

So there ya go. Nothing but 1) slights, 2) personal attacks and 3) conjecture.

Every other sentence before and after deals explicitly about eligibility. Only a fool would believe that the sentence right in the middle would not be about eligibility.
Your first sentence set the tone in which you intended the whole reply to be taken. Only a fool would think that what you're saying now is true.

[philman_36]

You apparently don't even know how foolish you sound...

...this case will go no further. If appealed it will lose.
An appeal is the case going further.
Or are you simply too obtuse to realize that?

[philman_36]

You asked for it so I gave it to you.

[philman_36]

Every other sentence before and after deals explicitly about eligibility.
Perhaps your problem is that you don't really know the meaning of "explicitly".

[philman_36]

I extend my apologies for all of this. It was not, and is not, my intention to hijack your thread in any manner.