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.
Are you saying that Welden’s attorney committed a felony by using a forged birth certificate to support his case?
Show me where anyone challenged the BC? Why did one attorney stipulate it is true and the other let it slide?
As for burden of proof, well yes - Obama did not meet it. That's why the judge was prepared to issue a default judgment. When the plaintiffs reject it and ask that the case be decided solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence, then Obama no long has a burden of proof - why would he? The plaintiffs are saying they can prove that Obama is ineligible - they assumed the burden of proof. They were trying to prove something - and failed.
It always comes down to insults, doesn’t it? I can understand why being proved wrong time and time again will make you bitter, but really?
@Do you know the difference between a hearing and a trial?
You replied with...
However, the diligent searcher finds this...
@2010 Georgia Code TITLE 50 - STATE GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 13 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
@TITLE 50 - STATE GOVERNMENT
ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sure enough, 50-13-15 is there...@§ 50-13-15
Yet there is a problem...for you.
ARTICLE 2 - OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
@TITLE 50 - STATE GOVERNMENT
ARTICLE 2 - OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
That is who held the hearings, right?
Your 2006 Georgia Code - 50-13-15 In contested cases: is now this...
2010 Georgia Code, TITLE 50 - STATE GOVERNMENT, CHAPTER 13 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 50-13-13 - Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases
(b) In proceedings before the agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing, if any party or an agent or employee of a party disobeys or resists any lawful order of process; or neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed; or, upon appearing, refuses to take the oath or affirmation as a witness; or after taking the oath or affirmation, refuses to testify, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the same rights and powers given the court under Chapter 11 of Title 9, the "Georgia Civil Practice Act." If any person or party refuses as specified in this subsection, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative may certify the facts to the superior court of the county where the offense is committed for appropriate action, including a finding of contempt. The agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the power to issue writs of fieri facias in order to collect fines imposed for violation of a lawful order of the agency, hearing officer, or other representative.
It's quite a bit longer than what you had posted.
Shall I go on or do you get the picture?
Do you think you're dealing with ignorant people here?
Great thread! Thanks for starting it.
Your 2006 Georgia Code - 50-13-15 In contested cases: is now this...
You were right...50-13-15 is still 50-13-15.
@§ 50-13-15 - Rules of evidence in contested cases; official notice; conducting hearings by utilizing remote telephonic communications
I watched that hearing. I distinctly remember one of the court personnel messing with the phone while the parties were in chambers. There was even feedback from somewhere multiple times during the hearing.
Was the phone causing the feedback and if so...who was on the phone?
@TITLE 9 - CIVIL PRACTICE CHAPTER 11 - CIVIL PRACTICE ACT ARTICLE 6 - TRIALS § 9-11-43 - Evidence
So could Malihi use Ankeny in the manner in which he did?
Yes, I can't tell you how many times I catch these OBots lying. They just go onto the next lie like the last never happened.
(b) Separate trials. The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue, or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.
I have this image of a Kangaroo court...
"The court, in determining such law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the rules of evidence. The court's determination shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law. " Wouldn't this include Ankney and also the BC submitted by Van Irion in Case #1 in deciding case #2. This may be why Hatfield's appeal is DOA.
This may be why Hatfield's appeal is DOA.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
“I distinctly remember one of the court personnel messing with the phone while the parties were in chambers.”
Did all parties - plaintiffs and defense consent? Should be easy enough to find out if HAtfield, Van Irion or Taitz agreed.
They could hardly agree if they were not informed, could they?
“But wouldn’t a decision from a higher court, like the Supreme Court, take precedent over a State Court’s decision?”
Only if the Courts agree that Minor is a precedent. And that is not cetain.
IINM,since the 1960’s, no law review article on Presidential eligiblity (Gordon, Lohman, Pryer, Medina) have cited Minor as precedent for NBC. And the Ankeny Court specifically says Minor did not decide NBC.
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.