Posted on 01/25/2012 2:39:58 PM PST by Obama Exposer
President Obama's private attorney Michael Jablonski has issued a letter to the Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp confirming that he will not attend the Georgia Access Ballot Challenge hearing set by the Honorable Judge Michael Malihi for January 26, 2012 at 9am.
Here is the letter from Jablonski stating the reasons why he as well as the president will not show:
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.
LMAO....Actually, I’m afraid that is what our future beholds as of right now.
I smell Perkins/Coie all over this Red Steel. I bet the flew in to Atlanta over this past weekend after the disasterous Motion to Quash Taitz and the other attorneys subpoenas was denied.
Weren’t those other cases turned down, not because they lacked merit, but supposedly because the person bringing the case lacked standing? If so, that speaks nothing about the merit of the case.
Noted for future references.
Yes, that is correct. They’re hoping the secretary of state in Georgia doesn’t know any better.
The solution to the Obama problem does not lie within the legal system An extra legal solution is the only way to get rid of him
Can a judge order the Secretary of State to place someone on the ballot if the proper procedures were followed to determine that they were ineligible?
I mean we just saw that in Virginia where Perry and Gingrich were told that the State procedures MUST be followed as only the state can determine if a candidate meets the states requirements to be on a ballot.
Courts don’t have the power to do anything to the POTUS. His atttorney is another matter entirely. Find him in contempt and order the Marshalls after him if he steps foot in Georgia.
So some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at him?
Oh is that it?? The OBot lawyer states you (court) can't determine who gets on GA ballots. Only the political party Exec. can doooooooo that.
Dig up Saddam Hussein from Tikrit, Iraq and run him on the Georgia presidential ballot. Yeah, he's as qualified as Obama. LoL.
""Ultra vires" is a Latin phrase meaning literally "beyond the powers", although its standard legal translation and substitute is "beyond power". If an act requires ....."
Bump to read later
"Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it. "
If they leave Obama’s name off the ballot then the underground Acorn organization will still use the dead to vote him in. And the voting machines will show it. The dead cannot be prosecuted.
Please ask GA SoS Brian Kemp to reject Jablonski’s request to intervene:
http://sos.georgia.gov/cgi-bin/email.asp
Sample message:
The merits of the question of Obama’s eligibility have never been heard in any court. Every case on this issue has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or standing. There is a strong and growing sense that the people have been denied due process and are suffering a usurper in the Oval Office. Please reject Jablonski’s request to interfere in the course of justice and allow the question of Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen to be heard on its merits.
True, but if this judge finds Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible, the secretary of state has no legal ground for validating ANY ballots cast in Obama’s name.
Posse—a group of men assembled to assist in law enforcement
Summary Judgment....Ozero off ballot.
There are a couple of parts to the Natural Born Citizen status.
One concerns WHERE he is born....
The other concerns the fact that BOTH of his parents MUST be American citizens.
We all know for a fact that daddy was here from Kenya on a student visa & scholarship. He was never a citizen of America, nor did he ever even apply to become one.
Barry the Imposter could have been born in front of the Lincoln Memorial & he still would NOT be a Natural Born citizen because of his father’s lack of American citizenship.
I sure hope this Georgia judge doesn’t take this crap from Barry the Imposter & his attorney.
Was this in the original motion to quash?? I don’t recall. If not, then why didn’t counsel file this immediately with the secretary of state?? It’s just more evidence of how pathetic and desperate these people are. If anyone was on the fence about Obama hiding the truth, it should be obvious now that he’s a total fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.