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.
In the last go-round in 2008-09, we were told over & over again that because the nominee/candidate/Pres elect was already in place, we had NO STANDING.
NOW-—Barry is a new candidate for the 2012 election—in other words, he has to prove his eligibility all over again in this election, as I understand things.
The Georgia Democratic Chairman now send his message to the Secretary of State Brian Kemp. They are now saying the SOS doesn’t have the authority to keep Obama’s name off the ballot.
Chairman Mike Berlon on Hearing to Address President Obama’s Inclusion on the Georgia Presidential Primary Ballot
By Georgia Democrat On January 25, 2012 · In Georgia Republicans
Georgia –Democratic Party of Georgia Chairman Mike Berlon releases the following statement on tomorrow’s administrative hearing to address President Obama’s inclusion on the Georgia Presidential primary ballot:
“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.
“This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.
“In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.
“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.
“In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases. Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”
Um, discredited by whom?? And when??
There has been ZERO documentation to prove that he was eligible, there has been ZERO proof that he meets the criteria set forth in the 14th Amendment and there have been ZERO court cases finding up or down on zero's eligibility.
(Interesting how many zero's zerto has accumulated.)
I agree with a previous poster - leave his name off the ballot - and DON'T put any place to write it in!!
“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits....”
These democrooks cannot be that stupid to state something like this.
I am beginning to think this may start unraveling quickly, and in our favor.
I’ve pointed that our myself a few times. There is a legal difference between a candidate for office and the holder of the office. They can be two different people or the same but the PERSONA being assumed is a separate entity in either case.
And don't think so, and I doubt it of Obama going crying to the GA SoS.
Here's the the order by the judge to deny the Obama motion.
"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.
MORE HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
UPDATE: Judge whacks Obama in eligibility case. 'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'. A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
MORE HERE: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/judge-rejects-obama-demand-to-quash-subpoena
UPDATE: Ga. Judge Orders President to Appear at Hearing. A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.
MORE HERE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ga-judge-orders-president-hearing-15407321
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."
Just like the "birth certificate" and "he was born in Hawaii" stories were red herrings, so is this story.(my, all that time and energy that some people, even people here on FR, wasted on that when it wasn't even the issue)
It's nothing more than diversion and the story line is that she's whacky, just like we've told everybody all along, so it doesn't matter what she says and does, 'cause she's whacky.
(Did I tell you I was in Vietnam? /Kerry)
Hm?...If I were I judge, I'd be insulted. What? Using the position of “judge” for “political posturing”? The Judge is out of control?
Team Obama is citing this case to state that the Georgia SOS isn’t allowed to remove Obama from the ballot:
[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.]
On that basis, they are saying as well that the other cases should not go forward.
Unfortunately orly’s web site is prohibited due to known viruses. I posted this exact thread over 2 hours ago and was unable to place her website in the URL.
Just thought you should know. But, since then many other web sites have taken this up.
That's right, an earlier judge stated this had already been "Twittered". I think Twitter must trump the Constitution and the RULE OF LAW.
bingo.
“the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website”
The document posted on the website is a multi-layered pdf version of a COLB, not an original COLB, and has little or no evidentiary value.
So as I understand this legalese diatribe in 25 words or less... Dear Judge. We don’t like what’s happening. Put an end to it. We won’t be participating. Shove it.
Like lawyer, like client. The letter is breathtaking in its arrogance. Sound like someone we know who occupies the oval office?
Here’s a question for some of you who have followed Orly Taitz’s various cases and others brought attempting to establish Obama’s birthplace, citizenship or Natural Born Citizenship status: Is the letter right that the substance of the claims in those cases has been found baseless? My understanding (and I haven’t followed it closely) was that (most of) the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds and never reached the substantive issue of whether Obama is eligible to run for President. For example, I seem to remember that some cases were dismissed on standing grounds, meaning that the plaintiff in a particular case does not meet certain prerequisites to qualify as someone with the legal capacity to bring that particular kind of a case. Similarly, I thought that cases were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, meaning the judge found that it did not have jurisdiction over the type of case being brought. Like a local magistrate cannot hear a murder case or a divorce court judge cannot preside over an appeal. A state court may not be able to accept cases involving purely federal issues.
If my memory is correct, then the main thrust of this lawyer’s letter to the court is a lie (shocking, isn’t it?) and should be easily refuted. As to the contempt, I think the strategery (H/T Rush)was to answer this at the last minute so that Taitz or others could not refute it, the hearing would be postponed so that the Judge it is addressed to can look into it and hear a response. In the sturm and drang of letters firing back and forth over the next couple of weeks, Obama’s lawyer will muddy the waters so much that the court will be unwilling to issue any contempt citation. Likewise, they are hoping they can just get a pass and not have to address the merits of the case (ie: is Obama qualified?) by throwing so much cr@p at the court that they will just punt.
His "birth certificate" only further validates that he doesn't qualify!
It incriminates him, it doesn't exonerate him.
If Ubama doesn't show up, he's not on the ballot.
Problem solved.
Jablonski could have shown up for the first hearing (NBC issue presuming Obama born in Hawaii) and ducked the other two.
That he is not even showing up for the first indicates, I imagine, a significant crisis of confidence on the part of the Obama camp.
Sending the letter on the afternoon of the last day prior to the hearing, I now tend to believe, indicates that the Obama camp has no confidence that SoS Kemp has any sympathy for their side. In fact, sending a letter at the last moment requesting that the rules be changed indicates IMHO contempt for the entire state judicial process. This is because the late date of the filing precludes any realistic response from the opposing parties (who btw were all lumped together in this letter). So the SoS is being asked to rule unilaterally to cancel a hearing in his own agency without the courtesy of even waiting to hear opposing arguments. Opposing counsel might have a valid response, but Obama’s camp is saying that it does not matter, and that the SoS should in effect take a chance and rule in Obama’s favor by taking the case away from Mahili at the last minute regardless of what potentially valid counterargument that the opposition might come up with later. IOW, Obama is asking in effect that the Georgia SoS take all the risk of a bad judgment along with granting the request in his letter.
I am not a lawyer but my very limited understanding of courtroom etiquette is that this is simply out of the question and it is disrespectful even to send such a letter to Mahili and SoS Kemp.
This has to rank somewhere up with Nixon for sheer chutzpah on the part of a sitting president to attempt to coerce a court...
One more observation: has anyone noticed that, no matter where these cases are brought, federal, state, election commission, secretary of state (hell, I think she delivered a petition directly to the Supremes) NO ONE HAS JURISDICTION OVER WHETHER OBAMA IS QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT AND NO ONE HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE OBAMA’S QUALIFICATIONS TO BE PRESIDENT. Does this make sense to anyone? Can it truly be the case that no one has the power to adjudicate this issue and no one has the right to bring a case? If that is the result it is absurd and outrageous. It virtually means a 20 year old guy could get off the plane from Fredonia and sign up to run for President and no one can stop him. WTH?!
Am I wrong? Has any judge ruled that there is a way to challenge eligibility by anyone anywhere?
The lawyer’s greatest weapon, although they won’t admit it, is the scary letter on official letterhead, even if they don’t have a leg to stand on. Which is precisely why most cases settle out of court. Lawyers are professional intimidators, and arguing before a judge is the very last line of defense when all else fails.
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.