Breaking News: Obama's Attorney In Georgia Ballot Challenge Refuses To Appear At Hearing

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:

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.