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 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next last
To: JewishRighter
You said: My understanding (and I haven’t followed it closely) was that (most of) the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds and never reached the substantive issue of whether Obama is eligible to run for President.

Correct! This issue has never been heard on the merits. Tomorrow's hearing is intended to be the first.

You can ask Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian P. Kemp, to allow this case to be heard by sending a message to him here:

http://sos.georgia.gov/cgi-bin/email.asp

101 posted on 01/25/2012 4:13:14 PM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter
(H/T Rush)
^^^^^^^^^^^

Rush will be silent...and so will all the other so-called “conservative” yappers.

In 2008, I turned them off and tuned them out. I can't stand to hear their voices. It's not what they talk about, it is what they **don't** talk about that disgusts me. The eligibility issue is only one of several abuses conservatives suffer that the “yappers” refuse to discuss.

Remember: Rush is the man who **lied** to a caller and when he said that he did not know who Larry Sinclair was.

102 posted on 01/25/2012 4:13:33 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter

Yep. Obama’s lawyer basically stated in his letter that Judge Malihi has lost control. This will infuriate Malihi. Also Isn’t it time people wake up and realize that Obama CANNOT prove his eligibility in a court of law?? Notice there’s no attempt to show EITHER of the two alleged hard copies of the alleged long form birth certificate. Can it be any more obvious that these alleged documents are deficient??


103 posted on 01/25/2012 4:13:33 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
Photobucket
104 posted on 01/25/2012 4:13:49 PM PST by halfright ("Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". -TJefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Whoa! I was only H/T’ing Rush for the use of the word strategery. I neither worship nor revile Rush (as you apparently do). Of course he has flaws, but otherwise is one of the best spokesmen overall for the conservative cause.


105 posted on 01/25/2012 4:17:54 PM PST by JewishRighter (Anybody but Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Yeah, I saw that too. I believe there's a GA law in conflict with it, or that court case may not applicable.

We're going to find out soon.

106 posted on 01/25/2012 4:19:19 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
(“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.

This argues that there is no controlling legal authority, and that even if Obama is ineligible, there is nothing you can do about it.

107 posted on 01/25/2012 4:20:53 PM PST by UnwashedPeasant (Don't nuke me, bro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Show me how to edit and insert the link in the OP.

There is a field in the Free Republic posting template labeled:

Source URL A web link to the original article

This is where you insert the URL (link) of the page containing the article you are posting.

1 - Go to the source page, right click the URL link, select "copy".

2 - Go back to the Free Republic posting template, right click the "Source URL" field, select "paste" to paste the URL into the field.

Copy and paste is easier than typing the URL and eliminates chance of typing error, especially with long URLs.


108 posted on 01/25/2012 4:27:01 PM PST by Iron Munro ("Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight he'll just kill you." John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter

bflr


109 posted on 01/25/2012 4:27:30 PM PST by freebird5850 (Of course Obama loves his country...it's just that Newt loves mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: detective
The attorney refused to even make an appearance and then went to the Secretary of State without court authorization. This should result in a hefty fine and disbarment proceedings.

Special Prosecutor at the ready

110 posted on 01/25/2012 4:28:34 PM PST by spokeshave (Mitt will release his tax returns when 0bambi releases his Birth Certificate and grades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter

Thanks for your answer and for the link. I happen to be a lawyer and in my 22 years of practice, including a fair amount of time in court, years of research, brief writing, etc. one of the pillars of our system is a preference for judging cases on their merits. Now some will laugh because we have lots of anecdotal evidence that cases get tossed on flimsy procedural technicalities all the time. This is true, but still, decent fair minded judges I’ve appeared before are loath to throw something out completely on procedural grounds unless the rules, statutes or other procedural dictates leave no room to do otherwise.

Which is where I’m going with these questions. This lawyer letter is filled with smoke, half-truth, venom, vilification and procedural obstacles.

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?


111 posted on 01/25/2012 4:32:07 PM PST by JewishRighter (Anybody but Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter

It’s guerilla disruption at the legal level. I do agree that the legal strategy seems to have Obama’s fingerprints on it.

Obama is playing chicken with the court system and relying (improvidently, IMHO) on the prestige of his current office to save his neck.

At this point, IMHO, even this should be more than obvious to the media, and the media should be digging like crazy into Obama’s background.

Things were getting out of control from the Obama camp’s perspective when all the news media indicated interest in covering the hearing. Obama is trying to limit the damage by telegraphing to the media via Jablonski’s letter to Kemp that the hearing is a farce and not worth covering. It will be interesting to see just which news media withdraws coverage. By doing so they play their hand as being in essence under the influence or control of the Obama camp.

It is patently unfair IMHO to the opposing parties that all the hearings should be suspended pending gathering responses to this letter. As I understand it, it is primarily a letter to the SoS and not strictly speaking a formal filing to Malihi’s court hearing docket (right? wrong?).

Note that in order to have the hearing canceled, Kemp would have to go through chief Administrative Law Judge Max Wood, who has already announced that he would not get involved in the matter:

Obama Subpoena Has Macon Ties
Jan. 24, 2012
Randall Savage

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/article/163773/153/Obama-Subpoena-Has-Macon-Ties

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

Anyway I think Obama and the GDP at a minimum have written off Georgia and disenfranchised GDP voters rather than cough up a $10 certificate of birth that Obama has publicly admitted is already in his possession...

IOW Obama is either a crook, or just a certified looney and selfish person who does not seem to care how much damage to the country he causes for his personal ambition.


112 posted on 01/25/2012 4:33:27 PM PST by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

...and the political tarball continues to roll down the hill.


113 posted on 01/25/2012 4:35:16 PM PST by RetSignman (I take responsibility for what I post not for what you understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter

I believe he is the paid opposition who throws out just enough to quiet the masses.


114 posted on 01/25/2012 4:38:03 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant

That’s exactly right. Obama’s lawyers has got Georgia backed into a corner now. Apparently the plaintiffs over looked the case Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S which states apparently, there is no requirement that the candidate be “eligible” to be President in the state of Georgia. Primary winners do not take office. The outcome of a primary merely determines the composition of a slate of delegates to a party convention — again, by internal party rules. The Georgia Superior Court would have to ignore its own ruling in Terry v. Handel in order to find anything other than that Kemp has no power or discretion whatsoever to exclude Obama from the ballot base on eligibility claims.


115 posted on 01/25/2012 4:38:53 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

“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.” - Letter to Sec of State of GA, Joblonski

Um - then why don’t they submit a Birth Certificate (LF COLB) they have a couple of certified copies handy, right?


116 posted on 01/25/2012 4:40:07 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
At this point, IMHO, even this should be more than obvious to the media, and the media should be digging like crazy into Obama’s background.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tomorrow from Rush and the other so-called “conservative” yappers:......CRICKETS!!!.....!

117 posted on 01/25/2012 4:40:25 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: halfright
Only a legitimate president can be impeached. Usurpers must be arrested and tried for their crimes.
118 posted on 01/25/2012 4:41:31 PM PST by wintertime (I am a Constitutional Restorationist!!! Yes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

If I understand you correctly, it is legally irrelevant that Obama is the president, only that he is a candidate in the upcoming election.


I’m not a lawyer but as I understand it, Yes, that’s true.

A candidate for an office has to meet the requirements for that office. The holder of that office is assumed to have met the requirements otherwise they wouldn’t hold it. (So the Federal Courts have told us.)

But when the holder of the office in question runs to keep on holding that office they can be both ‘PERSONAS’. That is the Candidate and the Office holder are not necessarily the same person. They can be but they do not HAVE to be.

And it is the Candidate for the Office of the President that is being asked to prove that they meet the legal requirements for the office. That is the SAME for ALL of the candidates. Each and every one of them must meet those requirements.


119 posted on 01/25/2012 4:42:30 PM PST by The Working Man (The mantra for BO's reign...."No Child Left a Dime")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
...questioning whether he is an American citizen...
BWAHAHAHAHA

"They" are questioning whether he is an American citizen a natural born citizen.
He's lying and hoping nobody notices.

120 posted on 01/25/2012 4:56:55 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The "ultra vires" was addressed to the GA SoS, not the judge. If Jablonsky had not changed in his thinking (though this new letter probably originated with Perkins-Coie sources, not Jablonsky), a forthright Jablonzky would have properly placed a (supported) statement to the judge that the ALJ didn't have jurisdiction in the Motion to Quash.

This is indeed the bum's rush at the GA SoS, hoping he'll recind his request. If that were the result, I'm sure we could safely say the process has been illegally been tampered with.

The ALJ will perfunctorily appear tomorrow just to give Obama an opportunity to appear and be responsive, but I trust he'll have spent the most time on the scenario contemplated by Jablonzky's letter of this afternoon. Hence, default judgment to Plaintiff, with no further evidence to be considered on appeal. That's probably OK with Jablonsky, as his being an officer of the court would only nature display aversion to submitting a fraudulent document.

I think it was aruanan upthread, who pointed out the flawed logic displayed by Jablonzsky as he cast aspersions both on Taitz and previous legal procedings as if they had already covered the ground of whether Obama was entirely and Constitutionally eligible to be placed on a GA ballot for president. GA SoS would really have to feel an inappropriate threat not to see through that tissue of lies.

Although Jablonsky obviously pointed his bat to the court's right field, the judge won't truly have been tangibly insulted until the non-appearance tomorrow. After all, Zero could (theoretically) have a change of heart (if he had one). Assuming the GA SoS could recind based on an awareness that what his office was doing was "ultra vires", it's conceivable the judge would have nothing left to say. However, Jablonszky's claim is ludicrous on its face. The SoS is surely empowered to vet candidate eligibility, as evidenced by many quotes on FR from GA statues to that effect.

HF

121 posted on 01/25/2012 4:59:03 PM PST by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer; All
"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!

If this has been brought up already further down in the thread, my apologies.

122 posted on 01/25/2012 5:01:52 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

He can’t be president of 50 states, if he is shown to be illegal in one of the 50.


123 posted on 01/25/2012 5:02:39 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: holden

The default judgement with no further evidence is exactly what they (Obama) wants.
Here is why:

It creates a decision on weak circumstances (no evidence from the defense), thus creating the weakest possible judgement against Obama.

AND

Obama is now not required (or even allowed) to submit his official birth records to the court. Submitting these records, and opening them up to legal verification is something Obama cannot afford to do, in my opinion.


124 posted on 01/25/2012 5:10:01 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: holden

The default judgement with no further evidence is exactly what they (Obama) wants.
Here is why:

It creates a decision on weak circumstances (no evidence from the defense), thus creating the weakest possible judgement against Obama.

AND

Obama is now not required (or even allowed) to submit his official birth records to the court. Submitting these records, and opening them up to legal verification is something Obama cannot afford to do, in my opinion.


125 posted on 01/25/2012 5:10:02 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Well, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I think all this would prove legally is that he failed to make the ballot in Georgia. Candidates sometimes do so, for one reason or another, but that doesn’t disqualify them from winning if they get enough electoral votes.


126 posted on 01/25/2012 5:16:02 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Doesn’t provide a definition of Natural Born Citizen


127 posted on 01/25/2012 5:19:46 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

There are three separate cases:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79088747/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Amicus-Brief-From-Attorney-Donofrio-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-1-23-2012

I think two cases deal with whether he is a natural born citizen. Orly’s deals with fraud.

Anyone have a summary of the three cases?


128 posted on 01/25/2012 5:29:16 PM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer; holden
Defense counsel may have done more than just point his bat; he may have already performed “his role” in tomorrow’s hearing.

Worse case result, the SOS may decide there is no need for proceeding with tomorrow’s hearing. In which case, one can ask WTH was plaintiff’s counsel thinking?

Best case, plaintiff’s counsel is prepared with arguments that will defeat the defense position. And, defense counsel may regret his lack of civility.

Defense has cited two Georgia cases that stand for the proposition that
1) the ALJ does not have jurisdiction over constitutional issues (two parent citizenship which one plaintiff counsel Orion stipulates is yet undecided) law (Flint River Mills v. Henry, 1975);
and, the even broader issue
2) 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. to be named on the ballot (Terry v. Handel, 2008)

Tomorrow could easily produce another disappointing outcome similar to that in NH.

129 posted on 01/25/2012 5:33:10 PM PST by frog in a pot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
There are I believe eleven states where challenges have been filed.

If he is willing to write off over 20% of the states right off the bat then he does not plan on being re-elected.

130 posted on 01/25/2012 5:36:25 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (In the good times praise His name, In the bad times do the same, In everything give thanks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Put the attorney in cuffs.


131 posted on 01/25/2012 5:40:02 PM PST by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple; Obama Exposer
I think you're right, Triple, however much more is in play.

The GA SoS could rescind if he's convinced the GA court's Handel decision means his setting this process in motion excedes his authority. As was mentioned earlier, however, the GA SoS would be taking all the risk personally without hearing from the opposing parties at this late date. He therefore won't do that I don't believe.

The procedings will return a rather bland result against Obama, which his minions and the media will be able to portray in the most Obama-favorable way.

However, a finding based on the merits presented in court--I think--will have legs, first in the alternate media, then also with the MSM as other states jump on the "bandwagon."

Defensibly the GA SoS is holding this proceding not merely on the basis of the primary, but also on the general, if not ONLY the general (to avoid having to quash this on the basis of the Handel precedent, which I give default credence by ObamaExposer's representation).

HF

132 posted on 01/25/2012 5:41:56 PM PST by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; All; Obama Exposer; holden; edge919; DiogenesLamp; bushpilot1; philman_36; ...

OBots and their lawyers gets the slap down from the Secretary of State. LoL!

“The Office of Secretary of State
January 25, 2012
VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

Michael Jablonski260 Brighton Road, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309michael.jablonski@comcast.com
RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings (”OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,Brian P.
Kempcc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal - kbeal@osah.ga.gov)Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com)
Brian P. Kemp”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-attorney-jablonski-slapped-down.html


133 posted on 01/25/2012 5:48:09 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Breaking News: The Georgia Secretary Of State Brian Kemp Slaps Down Obama’s Attorney And Responds To His Letter.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79405341/Obama-s-Attorney-Jaberwoki-Slapped-Down-By-Georgia-SOS-1-25-2012

Here is the Sec Of State Response:

VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

michael.jablonski@comcast.com

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:

I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of StateAdministrative Hearings (”OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client andadvising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. WhileI regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As thereferring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearingsscheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, Ido not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judgeto report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of thereport, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to myreview of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in theOSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to thismatter.

Sincerely,

Brian P. Kemp


134 posted on 01/25/2012 5:49:16 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Obama Exposer said:

Obama’s lawyer basically stated in his letter that Judge Malihi has lost control. This will infuriate Malihi

It will most likely not infuriate Justice Malihi. He has seen this tactic before. All judges have. Any justice will tell you these legally-mischeveous attempts are very revealing. They sometimes perform a "squeeze play" to get a feel for guilt, and the implied admission thereof.

Malihi now knows there is merit to the plaintiffs' cases. His superiors also know, and I am sure they have discussed the issue with the Secretary of State already.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

135 posted on 01/25/2012 5:51:32 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I got to hand it to ya Red Steel. You beat me by 1 minute posting Kemps letter to Jablonski lol.


136 posted on 01/25/2012 5:51:32 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Again the obots claim the cases question the pres__ent's American citizenship, instead of the actual question of his meeting the Natural Born Citizenship requirement of the Constitution.

Too bad, nobody has ever found the video from his Illinois Senate Debate, in which Alan Keyes told him "you don't meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement" to which O replied "doesn't matter, I'm not running for President of the United States, but for Illinois Senator for the next 6-years"

I believe it was videotaped by CBS Chicago station.

137 posted on 01/25/2012 5:52:04 PM PST by A_Niceguy_in_CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Nice response...


138 posted on 01/25/2012 5:53:26 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Peril” is an appropriate word for Obama and his “legal” team.


139 posted on 01/25/2012 5:57:21 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

I’m everywhere. ;-) That OBot Paul from Foggy la la land dislike me intensely. LoL.


140 posted on 01/25/2012 5:58:20 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

there are MANY REASONS he is not eligible

including not being born in this country

yes, I know both parents were not citizens either

I want to chase EVERY THING WE CAN to bring this guy down


141 posted on 01/25/2012 5:59:55 PM PST by Mr. K (Physically unable to profreed <--- oops, see?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; Obama Exposer
Good evening. Welcome oe.

I know you are new and learning but do you have a link, please?

5.56mm

142 posted on 01/25/2012 6:00:34 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Could it be that when the Sec of State says this in the letter:

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision”

is a invitation for Jablonski to enter the COLB into the record for Obama as evidence? It sure seems like it!!!


143 posted on 01/25/2012 6:01:39 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: devattel
Malihi now knows there is merit to the plaintiffs' cases. His superiors also know, and I am sure they have discussed the issue with the Secretary of State already.

GA SOS Brian Kemp's letter to Michael Jablonski tells me Kemp's been informed just like you said.

144 posted on 01/25/2012 6:02:27 PM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Chance Hart; Obama Exposer
A disturbing vision of the future. As Jay of Jay and Silent Bob fame would say, not on my watch! (language warning!)
145 posted on 01/25/2012 6:02:45 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Yes, that was my thought too.


146 posted on 01/25/2012 6:03:25 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
The Internet works fast. Thank you.

5.56mm

147 posted on 01/25/2012 6:03:40 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict

thanx


148 posted on 01/25/2012 6:05:16 PM PST by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

You don’t need to be a Constitutional lawyer.

How can a man be president of 50 states, if he is illegal to be president in one?

Or does Georgia get to secede again? Clearly he cannot be president of a state where he is illegal to run.


149 posted on 01/25/2012 6:06:45 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Send Raylan in to get him!

150 posted on 01/25/2012 6:08:29 PM PST by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next 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