Whew! We're in trouble now!
Posted on 02/07/2012 11:38:23 AM PST by Red Steel
Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State
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.
Kind of hard to do that if you're not in court, isn't it.
I would be concerned if I were Jablonski.
However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial.
Do you really think the judge's mind works like yours? Either the birth certificate is valid or it is not. And when on top of it, Welden’s attorney stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii then you get the verdict you got.
Are the rules of evidence the same for a hearing as they are for a trial?
You seem to have this image of judges going out to seek only the “purest” sources. I take it you have no practical experience with the judicial system. Judges are busy people - they are not going create work for themselves.
If the BC was a forgery as many maintain, then it was not possible to prove that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, correct?
The Founders did not capitalize non-proper nouns.
The court didn't see any genuine birf certificate from Obama. and the plaintiffs for Hatfield and Taitz did not stipulate it was Fogbutt. Only a corrupt or stupid judge would accept the crap from Obama on the Internet.
Attorney Hatfield states,
"Defense counsel, in fact, never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.
However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial."
What?? We see a dishonest OBot Jablonski submitted bull crap through the backdoor.
And more from Hatfield Foggyhead.
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
The judge failed in so many areas that the only logical conclusion is that he is corrupt just like the turds who lurk and sleaze at theFogbow.com
Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (Title 50) applies to administrative hearings:
2006 Georgia Code - 50-13-15
50-13-15. In contested cases:
(1) Irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. The rules of evidence as applied in the trial of civil nonjury cases in the superior courts shall be followed. When necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under such rules, evidence not admissible thereunder may be admitted, except where precluded by statute, if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs or if it consists of a report of medical, psychiatric, or psychological evaluation of a type routinely submitted to and relied upon by an agency in the normal course of its business. Agencies shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to evidentiary offers may be made and shall be noted in the record. Subject to these requirements, when a hearing will be expedited and the interest of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be received in written form;
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original or have it established as documentary evidence according to the rules of evidence applicable to the superior courts of this state;
(3) A party may conduct such cross-examination as shall be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts;
(4) Official notice may be taken of judicially cognizable facts. In addition, official notice may be taken of generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency´s specialized knowledge. Parties shall be notified either before or during the hearing, by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material noticed, including any staff memoranda or data, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. The agency´s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence; and
(5) Any hearing which is required or permitted hereunder may be conducted by utilizing remote telephonic communications if the record reflects that all parties have consented to the conduct of the hearing by use of such communications and that such procedure will not jeopardize the rights of any party to the hearing.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/50/50-13.html
Oh geeze, you've got to be the dumbest Commie Foggydumb in existence. "Purest sources" What? The 'judge was tooooo busy" to get into evidence a certified birth certificate from Hawaii but the idiot will accept some bullcrap picture on the Internet.
"And more from Hatfield Foggyhead.
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
Poor you, you’re looking up stuff for the past while I’m looking up stuff for the future.
These two clowns 4Dolt and Harlot are Dr. CON and Commie FogBlower posters.
You are not suggesting that Welden’s lawyer committed a felony by submitting a forged document into evidence, are you?
If it is good enough for the plaintiff then it is good enough. It was their challenge, it was their case.
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.