Is Obama’s Goose Cooked? UPDATE #3

©Bridgette @ WTPOTUS 2012

OBAMA COMMANDED TO APPEAR

IN GEORGIA COURT

TO PROVE ELIGIBILITY!

Come one, Come All, We Are Having a Barbeque!

 January 26, 2012, 9:00 a.m., Atlanta, Georgia

Orly Taitz  won in the battle of the Georgia  Motions to Quash where Obama’s Attorney,  Michael Jablonski,  said Obama didn’t want to appear because he was to busy being pRresident!   Jablonski and Obama believed he  was above the law and because Obama was already elected, he didn’t have to prove his eligibility.   Judge Malihi disagreed  and said bring those documents too!  See you on January 26th!

Imagine the Secret Service escort to court and Obama walking in to see Sheriff Joe Arpaio standing there!   Will Sheriff Joe be taking his Cold Case Posse evidence with him to show to the judge?  Will Loretta Fuddy Duddy  think she is above the law too?  Thus far, Hawaii stated they don’t have to appear in court.   So did the person asking for an out from the Inspector General’s office.

The judge appears to be the real deal…can it be true that Obama’s  eligibility issue will finally be heard on the evidence and its merits?   Six more days will tell, until then, pray really hard for Judge Malihi to withstand all the threats and intimidation  that may be coming his way.

The judge’s decision will be posted as soon as it is available.

This is what we want to see next.

Lots of Geese!

4

Note:  To catch up on all the Georgia news, read the Georgia thread.

UPDATE #1:

January 21,  2: 48 a.m. CST

People, this issue  has gotten traction.  I just checked and searched Google with the terms, ” Judge in Georgia Orders President“,  and believe it or not … there are thousands  of articles.  The search showed “About 49,100,000 results.”  Using the title of the article below, the results were shown as “About 4,370,000 results.”   Try it and see if the numbers have increased.

The first mainstream one seen was from the AP and published by ABC News of all places, and I assume that that others picked up the wired news from the AP to print.  NBC News is carrying the identical story.  Note the date error of the 21st instead of the 26th for the court date.

Ga. Judge Orders President to Appear at Hearing.
Atlanta, January 21, 2012

A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.

Ga. Judge Orders President to Appear at Hearing ATLANTA January 21, 2012 (AP)

A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court  in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.

It’s one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the  country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama’s name off the state’s
ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge.

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

*******

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Order on Motion to
Appear, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge – 1/20/2012

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the
Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the
United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena
compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that “if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing.

This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).

Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena.

However, the Court’s rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party’s counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.

SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

UPDATE #2:  January 25

Is this proof that Obama has no records?  His attorney wants to defy the judge’s subpoena! Not that something like this wasn’t expected. Orly posted the letter.  Emphasis is mine.

January 25, 2012

Hon. Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
(vrusso@sos.ga.gov)

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 (c/o Kim Beal (kbeal@osah.ga.gov))
Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)
Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com)
Mark Hatfield, Esq. (mhatfield@wayxcable.com)
Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq. (vrusso@sos.ga.gov)
Stefan Ritter, Esq. (sritter@law.ga.gov)
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov)
Darcy Coty, Esq. (darcy.coty@usdoj.gov)
Andrew B. Flake, Esq. (andrew.flake@agg.com)

#######

UPDATE #3  January 25   7:44 pm

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp decisively put down Obama’s sleazy attempts to suppress the hearings.

The hearings are ON!

Their non attendance is at their own peril!

Ballot Challenge
Below is a screenprint of the letter.

Emphasis Added

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 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. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State