Whew! We're in trouble now!
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.
The court didn't see any genuine birf certificate from Obama. and the plaintiffs for Hatfield and Taitz did not stipulate it was Fogbutt. Only a corrupt or stupid judge would accept the crap from Obama on the Internet.
Attorney Hatfield states,
"Defense counsel, in fact, never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.
However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial."
What?? We see a dishonest OBot Jablonski submitted bull crap through the backdoor.
And more from Hatfield Foggyhead.
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
The judge failed in so many areas that the only logical conclusion is that he is corrupt just like the turds who lurk and sleaze at theFogbow.com
Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (Title 50) applies to administrative hearings:
2006 Georgia Code - 50-13-15
50-13-15. In contested cases:
(1) Irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. The rules of evidence as applied in the trial of civil nonjury cases in the superior courts shall be followed. When necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under such rules, evidence not admissible thereunder may be admitted, except where precluded by statute, if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs or if it consists of a report of medical, psychiatric, or psychological evaluation of a type routinely submitted to and relied upon by an agency in the normal course of its business. Agencies shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to evidentiary offers may be made and shall be noted in the record. Subject to these requirements, when a hearing will be expedited and the interest of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be received in written form;
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original or have it established as documentary evidence according to the rules of evidence applicable to the superior courts of this state;
(3) A party may conduct such cross-examination as shall be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts;
(4) Official notice may be taken of judicially cognizable facts. In addition, official notice may be taken of generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency´s specialized knowledge. Parties shall be notified either before or during the hearing, by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material noticed, including any staff memoranda or data, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. The agency´s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence; and
(5) Any hearing which is required or permitted hereunder may be conducted by utilizing remote telephonic communications if the record reflects that all parties have consented to the conduct of the hearing by use of such communications and that such procedure will not jeopardize the rights of any party to the hearing.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/50/50-13.html
Oh geeze, you've got to be the dumbest Commie Foggydumb in existence. "Purest sources" What? The 'judge was tooooo busy" to get into evidence a certified birth certificate from Hawaii but the idiot will accept some bullcrap picture on the Internet.
"And more from Hatfield Foggyhead.
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
Poor you, you’re looking up stuff for the past while I’m looking up stuff for the future.
These two clowns 4Dolt and Harlot are Dr. CON and Commie FogBlower posters.
You are not suggesting that Welden’s lawyer committed a felony by submitting a forged document into evidence, are you?
If it is good enough for the plaintiff then it is good enough. It was their challenge, it was their case.
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.
And the Ankeny Court specifically says Minor did not decide NBC.
Really? @Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse v. Governor of the State of Indiana
Really? Where?
Snip...
That is the crux of the matter, isn't it. Since the boil is at a head don't you think it should be lanced?
"In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:"
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens..[skip]...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
"Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12"
Footnote 12 that you reference only states the obvious that in Minor, the Court didn't even consider the case of a child with one citizen parent.
So cite other law review articles.
“we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.”
So you agree, that if President Obama was born in Hawaii, he is at least a citizen at birth.
Did the Ankeny court state that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen?
They could hardly agree if they were not informed, could they?
So in the mean time let me ask you this...
If "nobody knows" what natural born citizen means then why have there been so many attempts to change Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 in the last few years?
@Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
Eight times? Come on!
I mean, in order for something to be changed to something else the person wanting to change the thing would first have to know what the thing being changed from meant in the first place, wouldn't they?
Else why bother changing it at all unless you wanted it to mean something else than what it already did, right?
Gunning Fog index : 14.80
Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :
Coleman Liau index : 9.18
Flesch Kincaid Grade level : 13.83
ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 17.69
SMOG : 10.75
Or he found a horse’s head in his bed.
You have shown ability to gather an impressive collection of legal minutia. You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.
I will make a fearless prediction - this case will go no further. If appealed it will lose. At every level. Every time. And your collection of laws will not change that simple fact.
You know, being from where I'm from and following the ways of my Cajun cultural heritage, I've eaten hog head cheese many, many times. I don't particularly care for it one way or the other, but I'll eat it.
And every single time I see or hear that expression the first thing that goes through my mind is...I wonder if it would taste like hog head cheese.
“Funny that, that you would specifically include only Democrats/liberals.”
You said that I only cited liberal democrats law review articles on Minor v. Happersett.
So cite other law review articles that claim Minor v. happersett is binding precedent.
As to your question:
Of the Constitutional amendments proposed only 1 deals with the definition of natural born citizen (S.2128 by Republican Senator Don Nickles). And it says,
“(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States—
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.”
The rest are attempts to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible to the Presidency, they are currently excluded. Those don’t try to change the definition of “natural born citizen”.
The last effort by Sen. McCaskill is not an amendment but a bill. It would make child born overseas to US Military personnel to be included in the term “natural born Citizen”. It doesn’t say anything about children born in the United States. It would clear up cases like Senator John McCain.
BTW, they don’t mention Sen. Hatch’s 2004 amendment S.R. 15 which would also allow naturalized citizens to be President. It is sometimes referred to as the Schwarzenegger Amendment.
Let's review that reply...
IINM,since the 1960’s, no law review article on Presidential eligiblity (Gordon, Lohman, Pryer, Medina) have cited Minor as precedent for NBC.
(@Gordon, @Lohman, @Pryer (sp), @Medina) Funny that, that you would specifically include only Democrats/liberals.
The rest are attempts to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible to the Presidency, they are currently excluded.
Yeah, I guess being more subtle was a necessity after being busted the first time trying to do it.
Those don’t try to change the definition of “natural born citizen”.
While technically true, it nevertheless tries to undermine the intent of the Founding Fathers which was avoiding foreign influence in the office of POTUS.
Good effort. Yours is the first answer that even attempts to answer the question.
Upper right hand corner > search > philman_36
Amazing technology.
Can you show me where any of your theories have ever prevailed in court? I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Amazing technology.
Yes, it is.
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.