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.
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
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.
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??
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.
We're going to find out soon.
This argues that there is no controlling legal authority, and that even if Obama is ineligible, there is nothing you can do about it.
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.
bflr
Special Prosecutor at the ready
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?
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.
...and the political tarball continues to roll down the hill.
I believe he is the paid opposition who throws out just enough to quiet the masses.
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.
“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?
Tomorrow from Rush and the other so-called “conservative” yappers:......CRICKETS!!!.....!
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.
"They" are questioning whether he is an American citizen a natural born citizen.
He's lying and hoping nobody notices.
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.