Revealed: Maricopa County Attorney's Office Reply To Obama ID Fraud Criminal Complaint

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/05/maricopa-county-attorneys-office-reply.html ^ | 5-28-13

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

From: Bill Montgomery To: Brian Reilly Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:30 AM Subject: Website Submission

Dear Mr. Reilly,

Thank you for taking the time to write and for the concerns you have expressed. There are a couple of points of analysis, though, in determining whether a criminal charge can be filed, regardless of the charge or who the suspect might be. The first is whether I have jurisdiction over the case. That requires that some conduct had to have occurred in Maricopa County for me to have jurisdiction. From the Sheriff’s Office investigation into suspect documents produced by the White House to date, that investigation has not revealed any evidence that conduct occurred in Maricopa County. I have discussed this with the Sheriff. As for any issues regarding qualifications or information provided regarding the Presidential Election itself, that is a statewide election. Under Arizona law, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have jurisdiction over statewide elections. I do not.

I will share with you, as well, that the criminal statute you cited in your message requires additional evidence that the MCSO investigation to date has not uncovered. Specifically, we would need evidence to affirmatively prove that Mr. Obama is not a US citizen. To date, there has been evidence presented leading to speculation that documents have been forged and other documents do not exist. That alone, though, is not sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury and actually have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. I cannot speak for other prosecutors at the state level around the rest of the country or for prosecutors at the federal level but Arizona’s ethics rules do not permit prosecutors to file a charge they can only hope to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....

[4Zoltan]

The transcript link is from the first (Thursday) hearing.

There must be a transcript from the second (Monday) hearing but I haven’t seen it yet.

[edge919]

SoS Kobach didn’t buy the two citizen parent theory. SoS Kobach told Montgomery that he had misread the Minor decision and that there are only two types of citizens born and naturalized (no 14th amendment citizen).

Yes, Kobach speculated, but provided no citations, to support his BELIEF that NBCs could include persons other than what was defined in Minor. He claimed he had researched the issue, but he came up with absolutely NOTHING to rebut Minor.

Kobach is a Constitutional Law Professor and an expert in immigration law (he drafted both the Arizona and Alabama immigration laws).

Right, but he still came up with NOTHING to rebut the Minor, Wong Kim Ark and Luria citations that were provided.

He wanted to contact Hawaii to get Kansas their very own verification. Which he did get.

He did this because he had no legal foundation for denying the objection and because Obama's attorneys provided absolutely NOTHING in the way of evidence. It's not his job to provide evidence on behalf of a candidate.

IMO, Montgomery bailed because he knew he was going to lose and he didn’t want an adverse ruling on the record.

Wow, that's really stupid. Withdrawing the objection wouldn't prevent an adverse ruling from going on the record. It was pretty obvious that Kobach did not want to accept the ballot objection based on the types of questions he asked. But, he still provided no legal foundation for denying the objection. By law, they were supposed to make a ruling at the conclusion of the hearing. It was pretty obvious they were trying to buy time to come up with some type of CYA, which they did. What people like you don't want to admit is that the Kansas objection successfully shifted the burden of proof, execpt that it was taken up by the Objections board rather than by the candidate.

Especially from someone with Kris Kobach’s credentials.

His credentials were irrelevant in this challenge. The other two members of the objection board were a lawyer and an MD. None of those three could come up with a LEGAL FOUNDATION to reject the challenge.

[edge919]

What section of Kansas law required the Election Board to make a decision on the same day that the objection was heard?

It's not the Election Board, but the objections board. The board establishes its rules and procedures to decide matters quickly so that the printing of the ballot is not delayed. I didn't see the specific rules posted at the KS SOS website, but it does explain how the board has to act quickly:

By their nature, objections are filed during the election process at a time when it is urgent that the matter be concluded and the process of printing ballots and preparing for election day continue without delay. According to the law, the objections board makes its decision by majority vote, and the decision is final. There is no provision in the law for appealing the decision except in extraordinary cases, which would involve quo warranto, mandamus or injunction. [KSA 25-308(c)] Courts have held that the objections board is a quasi-judicial body. This gives the objections board a more authoritative posture than a mere administrative body. It possesses broad powers to investigate facts, weigh evidence and draw conclusions as a basis for official action. The purpose is to decide cases as they arise and get on with the process of conducting the election.

link

The agenda for the hearing listed the Obama objection third. The other two previous objections were decided immediately before continuing to the next. A motion was required to postpone a decision on the Obama objection because the board had no legal basis to deny the objection.

The procedure for each objection will be as follows:

Summary of case
Objector’s statement
Objectee’s statement
Discussion
Decision

[edge919]

Read that closely. A motion was made to overrule the objection, but there was no vote to do this. Your own citation says what my citations said. Kobach said the matter was withdrawn and the objections board had no jurisdiction:

... Kobach recounted that Montgomery had notified their office at 1:02 pm Friday that he was withdrawing his objection effective immediately. Therefore, at this point the board was without jurisdiction.

[Nero Germanicus]

I wasn’t there so I can only reference news reports but looks to me like they killed two birds with one motion: overrule (just to get it on the record) and adjourn.
One more time, from The Birther Report blog by way of the Wichita Eagle:

State board votes that Obama can be on Kansas ballot
By Brent Wistrom @ The Wichita Eagle

TOPEKA – The State Objections Board brought the issue of President Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on Kansas ballots to a swift end Monday morning.

After accepting several records related to Obama’s birth in Hawaii, Mark Dugan, Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer’s chief of staff, moved to overrule the objection AND close the board’s meeting.

The board’s UNANIMOUS VOTE brings an end to an OBJECTION raised by Manhattan resident Joe Montgomery, who said Obama shouldn’t be on Kansas ballots and isn’t qualified to be president because his parents were
not both born in the United States. [excerpted]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/kansas-board-votes-that-obama-can-stay.html

For the sake of comity, I agree that whether the objection was officially withdrawn only or overruled by the Objections Board, the end result was that the Kansas ballot challenge did not result in removal of Barack Obama’s name from the state ballot.