Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Obama Release Your Records ^ | Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 5:14 AM

[Red Steel]

Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State

Brian Kemp About Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Article II Super PAC Email

Greetings,

Kevin Powell and Carl Swensson's counsel, Mark Hatfield, early this morning sent his response to judicial errors of fact and law to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, in response to Judge Michael Malihi's decision in the Georgia ballot challenge.

Click this link to read Attorney Hatfield's response - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

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.

[Harlan1196]

So why did he offer the plaintiffs a default judgment? He was prepared to give them everything they wanted.

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.

[Harlan1196]

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?

[philman_36]

Alas, poor bumbling you.

@Do you know the difference between a hearing and a trial?

You replied with...

@Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (Title 50) applies to administrative hearings: 2006 Georgia Code - 50-13-15

However, the diligent searcher finds this...

@2010 Georgia Code TITLE 50 - STATE GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 13 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

@TITLE 50 - STATE GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER 13 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
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

CHAPTER 13 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2 - OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
That is who held the hearings, right? § 50-13-40 - Office created; chief state administrative law judge
§ 50-13-41 - Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review
§ 50-13-42 - Applicability of article
§ 50-13-43 - Agencies to cooperate with chief state administrative law judge; Office of State Administrative Hearings to comply with federal law; rules and regulations
§ 50-13-44 - Administrative transfer of individuals to Office of State Administrative Hearings; approval of chief state administrative law judge; funding of transferred positions; transferred employees status

[philman_36]

§ 50-13-41 - Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review§ 50-13-41 (2) An administrative law judge shall have the power to do all things specified in paragraph (6) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13. § 50-13-41 (c) Within 30 days after the close of the record, an administrative law judge shall issue a decision to all parties in the case except when it is determined that the complexity of the issues and the length of the record require an extension of this period and an order is issued by an administrative law judge so providing. Every decision of an administrative law judge shall contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the case.

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

§ 50-13-13 (9) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.

(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?

[philman_36]

I know you'll find my replies above of interest.

Great thread! Thanks for starting it.

[philman_36]

I'll correct myself...

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

[philman_36]

@§ 50-13-41 - Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, in all cases every decision of an administrative law judge shall be treated as an initial decision as set forth in subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-17, including, but not limited to, the taking of additional testimony or remanding the case to the administrative law judge for such purpose.

@§ 50-13-17 - Initial decisions in contested cases; review of initial decisions; final decisions and orders; Public Service Commission exceptions

(b) A final decision or order adverse to a party, other than the agency, in a contested case shall be in writing or stated in the record. A final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated, and the effective date of the decision or order. Findings of fact shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. Each agency shall maintain a properly indexed file of all decisions in contested cases, which file shall be open for public inspection with the exceptions provided in paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-3. A copy of the decision or order and accompanying findings and conclusions shall be delivered or mailed promptly to each party or to his attorney of record. Nothing in this Code section shall prevent agencies from entering summary decisions or orders for contested cases informally disposed of under paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13. Moreover, nothing in this Code section shall prevent the parties to a contested case before the Public Service Commission from waiving the requirements of this Code section relating to findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor preclude the commission from adopting a rule or rules prescribing the procedure whereby parties to a contested case before it may waive such requirements.

[philman_36]

And that brings me to an interesting observation... (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.

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?

[philman_36]

And something else to consider... ...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."

@TITLE 9 - CIVIL PRACTICE CHAPTER 11 - CIVIL PRACTICE ACT ARTICLE 6 - TRIALS § 9-11-43 - Evidence

(c) Determination of the law of other jurisdictions. A party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of another state or of a foreign country . 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.

So could Malihi use Ankeny in the manner in which he did?

[Red Steel]

Shall I go on or do you get the picture? Do you think you're dealing with ignorant people here?

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.

[philman_36]

And there is this...
@TITLE 9 - CIVIL PRACTICE, CHAPTER 11 - CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, ARTICLE 6 - TRIALS § 9-11-42 - Consolidation; severance(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, if the parties consent, the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

(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...

[philman_36]

Correction... § 9-11-43 - Evidence (c) Determination of the law of other jurisdictions. A party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of another state or of a foreign country shall give notice in his pleadings or other reasonable written notice. 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.

[philman_36]

See 166. I had to correct myself.
So much running through my mind.

[4Zoltan]

"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.

[philman_36]

Wouldn't this include Ankney and also the BC submitted by Van Irion in Case #1 in deciding case #2.
Why yes, it would include he Ankeny case. But wouldn't a decision from a higher court, like the Supreme Court, take precedent over a State Court's decision?
And as far as the limited intent of the birth certificate...well that's a whole 'nother story, isn't it.

This may be why Hatfield's appeal is DOA.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[4Zoltan]

“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.

[philman_36]

Damn, missed the "t" and drove right into the ditch!
...include the Ankeny case...

[philman_36]

Should be easy enough to find out if HAtfield, Van Irion or Taitz agreed.
Should be easy enough to find out if HAtfield, Van Irion or Taitz were informed that somebody was going to be listening in.

[philman_36]

They could hardly agree if they were not informed, could they?

[4Zoltan]

“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.