Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking News: Obama's Attorney In Georgia Ballot Challenge Refuses To Appear At Hearing

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birth; birthcertificate; certificate; certifigate; congress; democrats; georgia; georgiahearing; hawaii; media; mediabias; military; mittromney; naturalborncitizen; newtgingrich; obama; posse; sarahpalin; teaparty; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 last
To: SteveH

By the way, anyone know what nationality the name Malihi implies?


Sounds Hawaiian to me. I lived there for years.


201 posted on 01/25/2012 11:54:21 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
That's what I thought too. Allegations haven't proven to be baseless anywhere. They have just been blocked from being heard.
202 posted on 01/26/2012 4:39:09 AM PST by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; SteveH
By the way, anyone know what nationality the name Malihi implies?

Sounds Hawaiian to me. I lived there for years.

It does sound Hawaiian. I think it is Israeli though.

203 posted on 01/26/2012 5:32:50 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: VinceASA
"I just clicked on the links you posted to the ins.gov web-site. One link has been taken down. None of the others contain the term “natural born.”. If these are changes that occurred on a government website in the last several hours, we should all be quite disturbed. I have never been a conspiracy theorist, but a chill is running up my spine.

Those INS links were published just yesterday by Leo Donofrio. The Article I'd posted was his blog also posted yesterday.

204 posted on 01/26/2012 12:40:00 PM PST by A_Niceguy_in_CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: VinceASA
I still see the three natural-born citizen references from the INS document in my chrome browser this afternoon.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html

205 posted on 01/26/2012 12:55:38 PM PST by A_Niceguy_in_CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; All; Fred Nerks; LucyT; butterdezillion
Great observation, FJ!!!

"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."

Notice the parsing of words? "The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth (whose?) there." Notice that Jablonski says very carefully that the pResident made "documents" available. Nowhere in this statement does Jablonski say that the "documents" made available are the same as what the State of Hawaii produced, even though he (Jablonski) disingenuinely tries to suggest such, by surrounding the statement with references to the Full Faith and Credit language. Busted!

206 posted on 01/26/2012 7:21:51 PM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Plummz; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Thanks, Plummz.

207 posted on 01/26/2012 7:42:47 PM PST by LucyT ( NB. ~ Pakistan was NOT on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

all depends on what the meaning of “documents” is.


208 posted on 01/26/2012 7:57:13 PM PST by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I’ve been thinking the same thing. Put it in Google and see what come up before this case was filed.


209 posted on 01/26/2012 7:59:22 PM PST by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

So if he has them to put on whitehouse.gov, why not just turn them in to the court?

That’s the worst about all of this. How many of us would be allowed to hand a court a URL scan as evidence?


210 posted on 01/27/2012 3:15:58 AM PST by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter
Just this once, or any time, I’d like to hear a judge say: “Mr. Jablonski, I am not compelled by your arguments or your authorities to dismiss this case. None of the cases and rules you cited force me to make such a ruling. On the other hand, we denizens of the courts - lawyers, judges, journalists and the like - love to talk about assuring citizens “access to the courts”. One of the hallmarks of a free society is the right to have your plea heard in a legitimate legal dispute and to have it adjudicated in accordance with a transparent set of rules that apply equally to everyone. On that basis, and considering that no court has seen fit to do so before, I am ruling that this case should be heard on the merits. I realize that I will be targeted for ridicule and calumny, but that is no reason for me to shirk my duty to follow the law and to let an undecided issue of vital importance to be heard.” So Ordered.

I can dream, can’t I?

It appears that we will get to see how close to your dream this situation will play out.

211 posted on 01/27/2012 4:47:36 AM PST by snowsislander (Gingrich 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson