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.
@194 You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.
Why, Harlan, how could a newbie like you have been following little old me for three long years?
First they sent out the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I thought OWS was right.
Then they sent out the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because my family were trade unionists.
Then they lied to the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they went after the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and tore me out of my Mother's womb.
With all due apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller
I took the liberty of changing it to what I originally intended here.
No - just a small sampling was enough. Not much variety in your postings.
So - have you found any examples where your theories prevailed in court? Granted I didn’t look at all your post - perhaps I missed one.
“Yeah, I guess being more subtle was a necessity after being busted the first time trying to do it.”
Your are ascribing motives that may or may not be there.
The first several attempts (Bingham, Synder, Conyers) were all attempts to allow naturalized citizens to be President.
BTW, I read some time ago that the first attempts to change Presidental eligiblity occurred in the early 1800’s, I’ll try to locate that reference.
Have a good weekend.
Twist twist twist,
Afraid to admit you have backed a losing cause for so long? Don’t blame you.
Now, let's just dismiss the artistic merit or value of my replies and address your second stipulation.
You tell me how I am wrong on the issue of abortion.
Sorry for the confusion - you are absolutely right about abortion. I was referring to your view on Obama’s eligibility. That was the context of our discussion.
If I lied, then you can show me exactly where one of your predictions concerning a birther law suit panned out? Or where your theories on NBC prevailed in a real court of law? Sorry to bring the conversation back on track.
What does it have to do with birtherism?
You lie, blatantly, when it suits your needs!
You are a real piece of work.
You know I was talking about birtherism. Now answer my question. Prove me wrong. Show me where you were ever right. Simple challenge.
You claim to "know me" so well then YOU show ME a prediction I made that came out wrong.
And let's forget the damn birther law suit a minute. That issue apparently isn't settled by a damn sight so there's no sense in you jumping up and down and dancing a victory jig claiming a false victory!
You've qualified your comment...I share many of those sentiments.
Which sentiment do you not share?
And I want you to state publicly that I'm not wrong on the issue of abortion since you publicly lied and called me wrong on "every" issue.
I don't have to show you a thing. If you want to "throw something in my face" then you go find it and do so!
And if you can't then that is just one more strike against you.
Whereas I use humor to disarm an opponent you use dishonesty and outright lies to attempt to disparage them and cast aspersions against their character.
When I ask troubling questions that would automatically make your side of the argument look bad you attack through insinuation and innuendo, not with facts.
And you have the audacity to lecture me and state...@It always comes down to insults, doesn’t it?...when I post a humorous rejoinder and then you state the things about me that you have?! You've gone so far outside of the bounds of propriety that it's unfathomable.
You are not even worthy of one more moment of consideration in my book, much less deserving of any respect in a debate.
Good day, sir!
This may interest you:
"But Bruce Ledewitz, a professor for the Duquesne University School of Law for over 30 years, is not convinced.
"It doesn't matter," Ledewitz said. "Since the 1870s, we've treated people born here as citizens ... That's been the understanding."
Ledewitz was asked if Barchfeld's argument over the "natural born citizens" aspect holds any water.
"No," Ledewitz said. "And I'm not speaking about whether he's a good president or a bad president or anything else. It's just accepted law that people born in the United States are natural-born citizens. That's just been the understanding for a long time.
"It has nothing to do with Obama you understand. If you were born here, you're a natural-born citizen."
http://baldwin-whitehall.patch.com/articles/whitehall-man-is-aiming-to-remove-obama-from-pa-ballot#photo-8080552
I...wow.
[finishes bourbon]
On that note, I’m going to bed.
May there not be a head, horse or hog, therein.
Well, they just pulled it because I included links in the copy/paste of the article that ask for money.
But you can see here at ORYR
Attorney Larry Klayman To Take On Obama Ballot Access Challenges In Florida and California
You are right. I was too combative. I sometimes find myself arguing just for the sake of arguing.
In retrospect I went over the line and wish to offer an apology.
From now on every time I see your screen name on a thread you'll see this...
My apology was sincere. Is this issue that important that you would let it poison your heart? I will pray for you.
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.