Posted on 01/25/2012 5:57:22 PM PST by Mr. K
Michael Jablonski260 Brighton Road, NEAtlanta, Georgia 30309michael.jablonski@comcast.com
RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings
Dear Mr. Jablonski:I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of StateAdministrative Hearings ("OSAH") has handled the candidate challenges involving your client andadvising me that you and your client will "suspend" participation in the administrative proceeding. WhileI regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As thereferring agency, the Secretary of State's Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearingsscheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, Ido not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judgeto report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of thereport, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to myreview of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in theOSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to thismatter.Sincerely,Brian P. Kemp
If you say so.
I am impatiently waiting for someone to submit the BC to a court and have it properly and thoroughly challenged and questioned...who shall be the fall guy, Jablonski?
Are they sleeping well in Hawaii tonight? What a fire in the HDOH vault? How could that happen?
“then go for summary judgment...”
Apologies for nit-picking since we hope for the same outcome. If legal, I hope the judge conducts a full hearing, allowing the Plaintiffs to introduce arguments and evidence into the record, and then rules on the merits after careful, lengthy, consideration. IMO, a summary judgment would be much easier for Obama to explain away, and easier for the SOS to weasel out of, than one of Judge Malihi’s clear and well-reasoned rulings. If the SOS does find against Obama, Jablonski will appeal to regular State Court (i.e., a pre-selected Democratic party-hack judge). Much better to have a mountain of facts backing the case than a simple no-show.
I was in Atlanta downtown the day the police officers were acquitted in the Rodney King case. Believe me, you don’t want to be white while in Atlanta is President Trainwreck is cast off the ballot.
Jablonski is definitely between a rock and hard place. Apparently, being held in contempt for failing to appear tomorrow looks to Jablonski like the better option. Not much sleep tonight for the patsy Jablonski. Just another dupe Obama has put in jeopardy.
What I’d give to have been a ‘fly on the wall’ when Obama’s lawyer reported back to him! LOL.
[I hope they lack the intelligence to show up at that hearing tomorrow.]
I do too GG, we’ve waited so long for some good news out of all of this.
Now if the judge holds up... He’s showed some courage so far.
Because if he submits a fraudulant document to a court of law, the n—se will tighten around his neck quick...
AND, didn’t Pelosi certify him in the state of Georgia???
Makes me wonder. Let’s say he wins the convention, then certification is sent to 50 states... what are the consequences of sending that certification to Georgia? Are there legal ramifications for the certifier?
Jablonski will not be held in contempt; his client has apparently decided not to submit a substantive response to the petition, so a default judgment is in order.
Do not be surprised if Jablonski files a motion to continue in the morning. That will might buy Obama another week.
There will be a live feed in the mornings court proceedings. Here is the link to the live feed tomorrow morning in Malihi’s courtroom:
Fraudulantly certifying a Federal Document...
Someone goes to Jail...
Note his signupd date....
Up until now I have been very suspicious but not convinced that there was anything to this fake birth certificate deal but if he chooses to be left off of the primary ballot rather than make a few phone calls and produce the documents the judge is asking for then I will be convinced that there is no documentation and what he released on his web site and to the press was a fraud.
Thank you for that link.
PS I needed to post something so that I could change my tag line. ;o)
Very good point.
As I understand what happened in Florida in Nov.2000, the Democrats wanted to change the rules of an election partly through the voting process, and apply the change ONLY to two counties. The Republicans said no, and a court challente resulted.
This went all the way to SCOTUS which said it was a State of Florida problem, and kicked it back to Florida’s Supreme Court.
Is that correct? And if so, how would this be different?
“Should they receive an adverse ruling on the ballot issue at the state level they will just ask for and likely get a stay on any state court ruling pending a hearing in federal court. This is only the beginning and will (likely) drag out beyond the election while the order of stay is in effect and Obummer stays on the ballot.”
Suppose this does happen. Then suppose the election is very close and comes down to a few electors. Wouldn’t that mean that the election would hinge on that higher court ruling? Could we end up with another 2001 type scenario?
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.