First place, this is an administrative law hearing on an action initiated to get the Secretary of State to order delegates for the National Convention pledged to Zero off the ballot...
Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Who is the Boss? And why does he not want Orly to become aware of Georgia Administrative law rules 8-1-2.18 or compare the website images with the Original in Hawai’i DoH? And how is anyone going to be able to compare the website images with the Original in Hawai’i DoH when they are not available to anyone anyway?
Should have read further, apparently Sven’s comment was a quote from Fogbow.
Sven, please note when you are quoting something!
Thanks Red Steel.
The gist of the Soros command/desire was so blatantly obvious; (reverse psychology of juvenile proportions) read: Orly do this for us.
First place, this is an administrative law hearing on an action initiated to get the Secretary of State to order delegates for the National Convention pledged to Zero off the ballot.
The Ad Law Judge set a hearing.
There isn't any default in the technical sense. The Respondent just didn't appear for the hearing. He had notice and the opportunity to appear and be heard if he chose to do so--he just didn't. The judge might think the petitionor's didn't prove their case in which case he wouldn't enter the order kicking him off the ballot in which case, the failure to appear would not be a problem.
If the judge was convinced by what he had heard or did know, he issues an order based on findings of fact that support his legal conclusion. Assuming Zero's delegates are to be excluded by the order, Zero's position is further prejudiced because if he decides to seek judicial relief vacating the order, he can only rely on the record before the ALJ (at least in most jurisdictions); he doesn't get to put in additional or new evidence that the ALJ's conclusion that he is ineligible is wrong. Since he didn't put in evidence, all he has to rely on is that put in by the petitioners.
The appeal is then to the Secretary of State. How that works is dependent on Georgia Law. Absent a meritorious appeal, the Secretary of State says he will issue an order removing zero from the primary ballot and you assume he will do so.
In most states, the appellant would be required on any appeal to claim that the decision is contrary to law; and/or contrary to the factual record.
It isn't clear to me what the issues really are on eligibility. I view the argument for ineligibility on the grounds of citizenship of zero's father as without merit. I believe some of the petitioner's but not all, were there on the grounds that he was born outside the US. The Best Evidence on the issue and really the only evidence is Zero's statements that he was born in Kenya so presumably and hopefully Orly or our other counsel put in copies of affidavits affirming those statements.
It might also be wise to put in a claim based on information and belief, that there are valid birth certificates attesting the birth of Barack H. Obama II to have occurred in Kenya.
Other evidence of place of birth are the claimed Florida birth documents (the fake birth certificates; the announcement records; etc.). So counsel should also have put in evidence that the birth documents are fake.
If that is really the record, the ALJ's decision excluding delegates should be viewed as sound.
Presumably the Secretary of State affirms the decision.
Zero's remedy then would be to ask a state court to reverse the decision on the same grounds as he sought to have the SOS reverse it.
However in all of the states in which I have practiced, that appeal would be on the record as made before the ALJ--no new facts. The fact that the judge admitted digital copies of the Birth Certificates doesn't accept them as valid certificates but only proves copies were admitted. The judge might view them as valid; he might view them as fake depending on the factual record provided by the petitioners. But on this kind of appeal, at least in most jurisdictions, zero doesn't get to put in additional evidence.
I don't see a Federal issue here on these assumed facts and law. Georgia might elect delegates to the Dem Convention and it might not. Seating of delegates or what they are bound to do depends on the Convention Rules and on Georgia Law.
In theory, all that is at issue here is delgates to the Dem Convention. However if we get to a nomination of zero which I suspect we will not, a new action would lie against the Secretary of State to keep zero off the ballot.
Although findings of fact and conclusions of law in this proceeding would be relevant and introduced at a successor hearing, zero and his counsel would have the right to introduce evidence and reargue the law.
You can't predict how that kind of proceeding would come out because you don't know what facts zero would produce.
And there is at least a reasonable claim that in the case of an adverse decision by the Secretary of State on an appeal, zero would have a federal question and could proceed to federal court on those grounds or on a Bush v. Gore or other equal protection claim.
There is an Erie issue on the extent to which the federal court would review the facts--if the ALJ found he was born outside the US, can the federal court take new evidence on that question not presented to the ALJ? I don't know the answer to that--I think the answer varies by circuit.
My viscerial reaction to this is that the primary election ballot issue is only a dry run for a battle over eligibility to the ballot for electors to the electoral college. Although as one of you point out, getting a decision like this, even at the early stage affecting only convention delegates, will focus the country and the media on the issue as it has not been considered to date.
And it further seems upon a cursory look not supported by research, that the second battle may be more complicated than the first.
So at that point, you would want to have your legal effort prepared for an action in select states immediately following the Democrat convention, assuming that zero is likely to be the nominee.
Seems to me that you would challenge eligilibity in states where you would expect zero to be competitive but which you might win--Florida; Ohio; Pennsylvania; Nevada; Michigan; etc. You would want to know whether your appeal is to the state ballot officer or to a court; in some states, you might be able to start your court proceeding at the same time you started your administrative proceeding before the state ballot officer. You would be in on day one seeking to shorten time; and with an offer of proof which included everything you had.
One of the many things our side did wrong in 2008 was fail to see the need for a coordinated legal effort starting at the appropriate time.
Another avenue that could be considered would be an action by appropriate ballot officers against the Democrat convention and appropriate officers of that convention to enjoin nomination of an ineligible person on the theory that you might be able to pursue that action in federal court as early as this summer.
All that said, and the legal thoughts are only thoughts not supported by extensive legal research, I remain convinced that the only effective legal claim of ineligibility is based on place of birth; that in fact the place of birth is the United States (although not Hawaii); and thus I expect the ineligibility claim to fail as a legal basis for exclusionary relief long term.
I have not seen the actual documentation demonstrating place of birth and so the possibility exists that when such documents are obtained, they may turn out to be as fraudulent as the Hawaii birth documents we have seen. So at a minimum, it seems as though pursuit of an ineligibility case to a decision on the merits is a productive effort because it should ultimately force zero to come up with a description of his true birth situation and parentage.
OBAMA ACCUSED OF DISRESPECTING COURT, STATE, AMERICANS
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/
“I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that there are challenges going on in other states. Van Irion has one in Arizona and one in Tennessee. We have one in Illinois that is has gone under the radar. We’re going to be filing similar challenges around the country. We’ll be filing one within a week and another right around the end of the month,” he said.
ERATUM in #1104: Sb Hawaii birth documents, not Florida birth documents.
Both articles are good reads... the bottom one really speaks to me. Thanks.
Why don’t you two take your recipe collections and create a proper thread for them?
Thank you maggie!
There was more physical evidence introduced. Perhaps this summary was just during Orly’s turn?
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
The DNC nomination certificates issue by Pelosi with nbc eligibility language removed for HI was presented for example.
4Zoltan: “So are you say Gingrich won’t be on the General Election ballot in Virginia?”
In my opinion, these are two very distinct cases. In the case of Gingrich, he was not deemed ineligible nor was his elgibility challenged. He merely failed to meet a rule that was define by the state - not the federal govenment.
In Georgia, Obama is challenged on his ability to meet the qualifications for office, not some state imposed sanction, and hence he would have to somehow prove his elgibility before the general election (assuming he wins the Democratic primary - which is most likely).
Just my 2cents worth...
hearing
video #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rQT-FjoL3Lc#!
video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UanNlP0VY9g
video 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6YK9tUQM&feature=player_embedded
video 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeRTRogZxZI&feature=player_embedded
video 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Txf-G0Ob0Y&feature=related
video 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lYw9b3MT6ow
Who is Mike Berlon, and how did he indicate that Obama will sue when the GA SOS keeps him off the ballot?
Valid? The judge would be lacking sense to accept or view these Internet pictures of dubious origins as 'true copies' and certianly not certified documents as true from any issuing authority.
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strunk.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Vogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
My impression is that somebody's goose is about to be placed upon the spit.
I give credit first and foremost to the wondrous divinely inspired minds of the founders. They knew fully well that this situation was a possibility and gave us certain mechanisms to stop it in it's tracks.
Father time, moral corrosion, bad legislation, improper judicial rulings, foreign influence, public apathy, etc., have taken their toll to weaken our foundations, yet patriots of many pedigrees rise to the defense of the greatest experiment in history.
Accornero Arpaio Apuzzo Corsi Berg DeLemus Donofrio Drake Farah Hatfield Hollister Irion Keyes Kerchner Kreep Lakin Martin Pollard Rhodes Robinson Shulz Swensson Taitz Trump Titus
PS Please feel free to add to this list, as it is more or less being pulled from memory.
PSS Disclosure: Now using search engines for help in amassing a list of primary actors.
PSS Please feel free to add to this list, as others are recalled in the fight for dare I say... truth, justice AND THE AMERICAN WAY!
But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.
We shall see.
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.
