Replies

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425
p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery
P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify
p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister
p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns
p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama
p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA
p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....
Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Thank you for the link to the American Thinker. IMO, the authors raise at least two pertinent points.

The first author emphasizes the context of the matter: Under Georgia law…the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary. I.e., the hearing officer’s written “judgment” is advisory only (but we knew that).

From the second author: The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand!

IMO, there is little irony involved. The defense has avoided the forum and may well prevail on the issue - great game plan!

As far as admitted evidence now being a matter of record (presumably for use in a higher court of law), that would seem to turn on whether the OSAH hearing was competent to hear a dispute over a candidate’s eligibility. If the defense is correct, the SOS’s determination may not include an examination of the candidate’s eligibility. Thus, there is a question of whether the hearing was properly convened.

I am not throwing in the towel yet, but if we easily lose in GA I will be pist that the litigators did not do a better job at forum shopping. We will not know until arguments are presented in a GA court of law.