Does Obama’s Attorney Michael Jablonski Know the Truth?

© Bridgette @ WTPOTUS 2012

 Attorney Michael Jablonski

What Does He Know?

Michael Jablonski, Barack Obama's Attorney in Georgia


Around January 25, prior to the hearings in Georgia,  there were some    questions raised that we wanted answers to.  As usual,  we find unusual connections when dealing with anything Obama.  As the hearings grew closer, we researched information about Michael K. Jablonski, the attorney representing Obama.

If you aren’t familiar with the name, he is the one who did not show up in court with his client, Barack Obama, nor was he there to represent his client in abstentia.    In a last-ditch effort to not have to attend the hearing, Jablonski went over the head of Judge Malihi,  and fired off  a letter to Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp,  the night before the hearing.   In the letter, he said that  he expected Kemp to toss  out the “baseless, costly and unproductive” case.    [We will see how baseless and costly it just might be for both of them or for the U.S. !]

In  response, the Secretary of State warned Jablonski and Obama  if they chose to skip the Ballot Hearing it would be  “at your own peril.”  Even though there were three lawsuits pending,  a court order, orders to produce documents,  subpoenas, and  a denial to their Motion to Dismiss from the judge,  they ignored the Rule of Law.    These two, one a practicing attorney, the other unable to practice law any longer, chose to thwart our U.S.  judicial system.   They did not appear in court.   They defied a Valid Court Order to appear.  Yes, Defied.  They expected the judge to give them a default judgment, instead he allowed all three plaintiff attorneys to enter evidence into the record.    In an article, it was reported that Obama was watching the Ballot Hearing from afar… can you believe that?  Can you envision him sitting in front of a computer or television with his feet on the desk or table?

According to reports in the blogosphere, the president’s schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

That’s right, he was tuned in and he was the one on trial to prove he was eligible to hold the office he has and wants again!   He tuned out, but was tuned in, amazing.  The gall.   The arrogance.  The disgrace for our country.

As Obama’s attorney, what does Jablonski know?  Can it be gleaned from the information provided in Obama’s Pretrial Submission Order?

Notice to all Americans:  Please be advised that the man sitting in the White House, who presently uses the name Barack Obama, through his attorney DID NOT STIPULATE HE WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.  Instead they tried to infer it from their evasive statement.  If he is not a natural  born citizen nor a naturalized citizen of the USA, what country holds his allegiance?  If he was a natural born citizen, he would have stipulated that very fact.   He did not so stipulate because he knows he is not a natural born citizen.  Do notice that his birth certificate reads “Barack Hussein Obama II” and yet, they use the name “Barack Obama” in the stipulation.  Are they talking about the same person we are?  Why didn’t Jablonski use his legal name  from the birth certificate in the stipulation or did he?

Defendants [Obama] Pretrial Order Submission

Page 4   (7)   The following facts are stipulated (if any):   Plaintiff did not ask counsel for the defendant about stipulations. In an effort to save time at any hearing, Defendant [Obama] offers the following stipulations of fact:
Page 5  18. The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission unanimously ruled that Barack Obama should stay on the primary ballot.
19. Barack Obama was born in the State of Hawaii.
20. Barack Obama is not a naturalized citizen of the United States

Will Obama and Jablonski  be held in contempt as well as have other charges brought against them?  We are waiting to see if the Executive Branch of our government is now above the law, or  if our constitutional form of government still exists.   Do we have a king or a pResident?  Will the Obama administration exert their will directly upon those involved  or through their connections?  What connections, you wonder.   So did we.

Prior to the hearing, one of our researchers, Leza,  found that Michael Jablonski  is  married to a Federal Bankruptcy Judge,  Mary Grace Diehl.  She was appointed to the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia in February 2004.  So now we have Obama’s attorney married to a Federal judge.

Judge Mary Grace Diehl
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Georgia
Room 1215 – U.S. Courthouse
75 Spring Street SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Such coincidences we find.  Could there possibly be more?  Some excerpts from Judge Diehl’s  biography at Canisius alumni website.

After graduating from Canisius in 1974, Mary Grace Diehl earned her juris doctorate at Harvard Law where she was active in moot court competition and the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau.

In 1977,  she married Michael Jablonski whom she met during his days as a college debater at Emory University. The couple has two daughters, Elizabeth and Rebecca.

The early years of Diehl’s career as a lawyer were spent on a wide variety of litigation cases including commercial real estate disputes, securities fraud litigation, contract disputes and, increasingly, debtor-creditor disputes. Over time, she came to concentrate primarily in the area of business bankruptcy and now heads the Bankruptcy and Financial Restructuring Practice Group of Troutman Sanders.

In 1998, Diehl was elected to the American College of Bankruptcy and is listed in both Best Lawyers in America and Chambers Guide to America’s Leading Business Lawyers.

How strange is that?  Obama’s  attorney in Georgia is married to a judge that went to Harvard.   No connection to Obama there, or is there?

Next, let’s review his relationship to fine, upstanding democrats.   Although much of the information about him has been scrubbed at the Wayback machine, there are still some tidbits  on the internet.  From his own website, he touts the following:

Michael Jablonski represents select clients in matters related to politics: campaigns with contract problems; candidates facing ethics charges;…and others that have been caught in the mire of campaign finance and ethics law.

Jablonski’s principal expertise is in the area of debate, where he has worked with Roy E. Barnes [Former democratic Governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter,  [yes, that peanut farmer and former democratic president ] Andrew Young and others. 

I don’t believe the Andrew Young he worked with was the aide to the 2008 democratic presidential hopeful, John Edwards.    Most likely,  it was  Andrew Young the former mayor of Atlanta and a former black civil rights leader.  He  was appointed United States Ambassador to the United Nations during the Carter administration.

The World Socialist (WS)  website has a 2007  in-depth article  of Young’s associates and his African connections.  Interesting that the WS  would feature an article on Young, isn’t it?   According to WS,  “it was Young’s organization, GoodWorks International (GWI), who was accused of dirty dealings with corrupt African governments, especially for his close relationship with General Olusegan Obasanjo, Nigeria’s former president.   WS  stated, “the principals at GWI represent a virtual “who’s who” of political and corporate Democrats,” and one name mentioned was Bill Clinton.  Would you be surprised to know about their lobbying and  involvement in African oil, energy,  and even blood diamonds?  Why does Jablonski tout his associations with Roy E. Barnes, Jimmy Carter, and Andrew Young?   Did he just teach them how to debate or do their associations run deeper?

One of our readers, Zenway, found this wedding announcement about their daughter, Elizabeth Jablonski-Diehl and Jeffrey Newcamp in the NY Times, August 17, 2008,  there is the following:

Her father, the general counsel of the Democratic Party in Georgia, is an adjunct professor of political communication at Georgia State University in Atlanta. Her mother is a judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court, with chambers in Atlanta. She is also a trustee of Canisius College in Buffalo .

As the hearing neared, I  wondered how many electoral votes Georgia has and how many were at stake if Obama was not allowed on the ballot.  It was found that  Georgia has 15  Electoral Votes that will be presented to the Electoral College for the presidential candidate.   At jeopardy for the Democratic party if Obama were to lose the three Georgia cases are 15 electoral votes.   Amazingly, Obama put his party at risk by not showing up with the requested documents to prove his eligibility to be on the presidential ballot.    Will they appeal the 3 lawsuits and say by asking for him to prove his bona fides that the Plaintiffs are all racists?

With 15 electoral votes at stake,  I wondered, who are the Presidential Electors in Georgia? From the list, there was one that caught my eye.

Michael K. Jablonski
260 Brighton Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30309 Party: Democrat
Age: 56
Occupation: Attorney

Could this be the same attorney who was representing Barack Obama in three different lawsuits in Georgia?  Yes, indeed, he is.  This raised another question.  Should Jablonski, who has acted as Obama’s personal attorney in the Georgia Ballot Hearing,  also hold the position of an elector for the Democratic presidential election?  Electors  are supposed to cast their votes for eligible candidates and uphold the Constitution, but with what Jablonski might know, will he?  Should he serve as an elector since he was involved in such a politically charged case?  What little information  I found was in Wiki.

The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the
United States.

The voters of each state, and the District of Columbia, vote for electors to be the authorized Constitutional participants in a presidential election.

In early U.S. history, some state laws delegated the choice of electors to the state legislature.   Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.

The Twelfth Amendment provides for each elector to cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a President and Vice President are elected.


I inquired of Mario Apuzzo Esq.  with the questions posed above, and he responded to my query.   It is with permission that I post his response.


Article II, Section 1 lists those who are expressly not eligible to be appointed electors to the Electoral College. They are Senators, Representatives, or persons holding an office of trust or profit under the United States.  The Article does not exclude a current President’s private attorney.

However, if you read The Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton), you will see that an elector is not supposed to have “too great devotion to the President in office.” An elector is not to have any “sinister bias” and is supposed to have a “transient existence” and be “detached” from the presidential contest. Under this standard of being an elector,  given that Jablonski is Obama’s private attorney and is arguing in a court that his client is a “fit person” and eligible for the office of President, it would appear that Jablonski does not fit the constitutionally intended character of an elector and should therefore resign as an Electoral College elector.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.,


The paragraphs to which Mr. Apuzzo refers are below, but may I suggest one read the entire article by Hamilton.

The Federalist No. 68
The Mode of Electing the President
Independent Journal
Wednesday, March 12, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?  But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.  The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.


Is  Jablonski’s “devotion” to Obama so great that he would save the con man instead of his country?   What oath has Jablonski taken as an elector?

To what nation did Jablonski take an oath if not to the U.S.A.?


Should Mr. Michael Jablonski be an Elector?

Anybody want to “help” him get to the right answer?


Photo: From WXIA Atlanta News Video


126 responses to “Does Obama’s Attorney Michael Jablonski Know the Truth?

  1. “These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

    “Foreign influence”— the most deadly adversary.

    “improper ascendant”-– Improper ANCESTOR (ascendant– n. ancestor– Websters Dictionary, 1813)

    “To raise a Creature of their own”— the solution to an “improper ancestor” (foreign ancestor) is to raise, from birth, a child of Domestic ancestry.

    “The most Provident and Judicious attention”— requiring that the President be a “natural born Citizen”, i.e one born in the US of US Citizen parents.

    Could “raise a creature of their own” possibly mean a child born to a foreign, never US Citizen father?

    • Thanks for providing those definitions Mick.

      Our government has guarded against having a foreigner attain a position of power by insuring that one be an NBC is the way that I would interpret the last sentence of yours. Even though NBC is not mentioned, it was understood that a NBC president was to guard our country against foreign influence. The electors are supposed to uphold the constitutional requirements and to ensure that the candidates are qualified. They did not do that in 2008.

      This is exactly what Malihi, who appears to be an Iranian himself, just wrote an opinion on in Georgia and who sabotaged the meaning of natural born citizen and blended it to have the same meaning as a naturalized citizen. Would an Iranian understand the importance of natural born citizen when its very definition has been totally blurred by the Left? Did he even read what the attorneys prepared for him as to the meaning? It appears doubtful.

      Jablonski is covering for Obama as can be seen in how he parses words.

    • Excellent parsing, Mick! The foreign power raising a creature of its own. Which foreign power? That’s the question we face today, at our peril. Creature was a good choice of words.

      “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”

      That first line says it all. EVERY OBSTACLE should be erected to oppose CABAL, INTRIGUE, AND CORRUPTION.


      Hats off, also, to our own cabal of researchers who helped shed light on the players in this charade.

      So Jablonski is ALSO an attorney for the GA DemocRAT party, and he’s Obama’s private attorney, at least for this hearing. AND he’s an elector who’s sworn to uphold the Constitution (and respect the laws of GA). AND he’s SUPPOSED TO BE “temporary” as an elector and enter “the task” of being an elector “FREE FROM ANY SINISTER BIAS.”

      In the course of his representation of “Barack Obama” (whoever that is) Jablonski likely LEARNED the reason why Obama would NOT produce records to prove his eligibility, as in another case this same judge Malihi claimed was required of any candidate–to prove eligibility.

      How else does one prove eligibility other than by providing proof of birth place, birth time, residency, and parentage? Obama has provided NONE; and, as Bridgette pointed out, Jablonski, in his stipulations, did NOT stipulate that his client is a natural born citizen. He ONLY stipulated that he was born in Hawaii and is not naturalized.

      So, Obama could be the son of a foreign diplomat. He could be the son of the Shah of Iran. He could be the son of Saddam Hussein. He could be the great-grandson of King Kamehameha. He could have been born technically in Hawaii, but on Hawaiian sovereign lands. Would that even make him a CITIZEN of the USA? Wouldn’t it also depend upon WHEN he was born? Nobody knows FOR CERTAIN when this person aka potus was born. We know ONLY that (provided the birth announcements are real and I suspect not) “a son” was born to “Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama”. WHICH SON would that be and WHICH WIFE would the Mrs. be? Not definitive.

      Whatever the TRUTH, it’s likely Jablonski knows it. Why did Jablonski not stipulate that his client is a natural born citizen? Why did the DNC not certify that Obama is a natural born citizen, back in 2008? Why does Obama say only that he’s a “native” citizen?

      If Jablonski knows why his client (who he apparently abetted in ignoring a LEGAL subpoena) blew off the hearing and DEFIED a subpoena to appear and produce documents, then isn’t there at least the PERCEPTION of a conflict of interest? Jablonski will (one can logically presume) vote as an elector for Obama for president in 2012.

      HOW can he NOT have bias in this situation? Yes, he should resign as an elector.

      • Good rant Miri.

        Yes it is Miri. Bridgette had figured out Jablonski was an elector I believe, if I remember right before the hearing even took place and posted the information on another link here. Great job Bridgette, great post, and TY for the hat tip!

  2. Excellent investigation into Jablonski background, and his wife’s, too. Also, the NYTimes wedding announcement is choice. The liberal elite wet their pants if they get this type of coverage and they tend to go on at length as to their credentials. I have a friend who is an adjunct prof at GA State in the Bus School, but he is a liberal and said he’d be voting for the candidate who can “do a mean Al Green,” i.e. BHO imitating Al Green the other night in Harlem (? I’ve forgotten it already;-) Cheers.

  3. America The Beautiful has been usurped.

    now, we will be conditioned to believe that Jesus “requires” us (new definition of “expected”) to provide the federal government our wages without complaint in order to conduct the Beatitudes ~~ instead of as individuals with free will to “give” our fair share as we desire.

    We The People, our terrain, our treasury, our traditions have been usurped. We The People are being dictated to. Right this minute.

    and, finally, its all on record in Atlanta.

    its time to say No Mas. its the only language they pretend to understand these days.

    No. Stop. Get off my back. and shove your sharia.

  4. very pretty, Renee. You have a beautiful way with words in depicting imagery. and we wander in the valley. life is a drop in the bucket of of time in eternity. we are here now. in a blip. we’ll be gone.

    • My blip isn’t ready to be gone, but we are just drops in the “comprehensive ocean” of time. Scary times.

      • yep, we are here and now. historical. we need to connect to those who have a direct hit on our lives presently.

        i would love to play the Ms. Steinem game. Let’s connect the surnames of the spouses and the in-laws of the people at the controls today. wow, who is hiding behind their father’s surname.

        e.g. 10 points: Clair Shipman* is married to:
        Bonus: any piece of trivia you can offer about them. (trivia = 3 roads)
        get out of re-education camp for a weekend…

        who is married to whom? Gloria, what a good idea. reject your husband’s surname and hide your Clan while you’re at it.

        fracture the family first.

        * hint:
        the carnies and the clowns. its as easy as ABC.

  5. What Miri says for me too.My blip isn’t ready to be gone.
    LOL ! Good one.

  6. Oh you are a good kitty to find this bit. I wil put on the lake post across the hall also. Do you know where the Morocco connection goes Kitty ? To Alioui (sp?) dynasty there. I have alot of ideas and work on Morocco…that French connection too.
    February 3, 2012 – The Day the Republic Died! (Open) | We the People of the United States February 5, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Reply
    I did search the name Malihi and on Linkedin. I found a bunch of Malihi just to get kind of an idea about that name. I found a couple of Malihis from Israel, a couple from Morocco, and a bunch from Iran.
    h/t Kittycat

  7. kittycat77: The conversation you started here was moved to the open thread.

    When you don’t know where to post something but suspect it’s off topic, just go to the home page (front page of the blog) and scan down the posts until you hit the first one labeled “Open Thread”. There should usually be one on the first page of posts.


    • Kitty posted on the judge’s name on the judge’s post so how is that off topic ? Glad I have my own post to move these things so they do not get lost from each other. I will keep it all over there too.

      • It’s a judgment call (pun intended). I didn’t think about it until I started putting so much there and all the research did detract from Bridgette’s post about Jablonski, so it seemed unfair, and I moved it all to the open thread, which is about the decision Malihi made, so at least somewhat connected. I wouldn’t have thought twice except kitty herself questioned whether it was in the right place.

        • I did post the second one over there, so must have flipped to it, but I did question putting it here. The second post was actually an afterthought.

        • I put all of the “judgement call” info at the lake too LOL ! . Miri, go over there and look at the possible connections…amazing. Like Lego blocks, it just fits I think…too well…all I can say at this point is amazing !

  8. I will, Miri. Thanks for moving it. I wasn’t sure at the time.

  9. This is too long to post in its entirety. I don’t see it on scribd yet. She says hers is the only appeal so far. She did send it to Jablonski.



    Dear Secretary of State Kemp,

    Obama did not show up at the proceedings, his attorney did not show up. Georgia statutes and precedents clearly state, THAT IT IS ENTIRELY UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY TO THE POSITION SOUGHT. The case of Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility. This holding relied upon O’Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008) “The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office” id. Not only Obama did not show up at the proceedings and did not provide any certified copies of his vital records, also, Director of Health of the state of Hawaii, Loretta Fuddy did not show up at the proceedings and did not provide any records. Orly Taitz, Counsel for Plaintiffs, flew to Hawaii 5 times at her own dime and served the director of Health with Federal and state subpoenas. Director of Health refused to cooperate, refused to appear and refused to provide access to any vital records for Obama, even though he posted an alleged copy of his birth certificate on line and privacy considerations no longer applied. Based on the above facts, it is clear that the Director of Health of Hawaii and the Registrar are being complicit in either releasing a forgery or guilty of criminal cover up, whereby they are aware, that Obama’s alleged copy of his birth certificate is a forgery, they have an affirmative duty to speak up and they did not do so.

    • Similarly Malihi’s reliance on a decision in Ankeny v Daniels, an obscure case in Indiana, brought by two pro se litigants with zero knowledge of law and without any input of any legal counsel, is a travesty of justice and an embarrassment to the state of Georgia.

      Defense did not provide Ankeny v Daniels at the hearing. Malihi was supposed to base his opinion on what is in the record. Ankeny v Daniels was not part of the record. The most basic rules of courtroom decorum and basic fairness, were supposed to preclude Malihi from even entering Ankeny in his opinion. This case was never cited by the defense. Plaintiffs had no opportunity to provide a rebuttal and explain numerous points, as to why Ankeny is erroneous and why it does not apply. A presiding judge cannot suddenly pull out of a hat some case, brought in a circuit court of another state by some truck driver, who could not even afford an attorney, and use this case as the basis of his final ruling in the case at hand, when it was never part of the record in the case at hand.

      Malihi abused his judicial discretion in ruling that Obama was born in this country without any evidence to this extent and in bringing some obscure nonbinding case from another state as a basis for his opinion.

      • Orly answered my earlier question as to whether the Ankeny case was in any of the Plaintiff’s pleadings, and the answer is it wasn’t.

        • I’m glad that Orly did emphasize that Malihi ruled that Obama was born in the USA on the basis of NOTHING! [I would copy and paste her most excellent, sardonic paragraph; but I can’t copy from her site, for some reason. If anyone has a tip, I’d be more than happy to try it. Sometimes, I can highlight the text, sometimes not. However, no sooner do I hit the button to “copy” than the highlighting goes away.]

          • I had the same problem and I don’t know why that is happening. I thought it was just my computer. I don’t know how I got what I did, but it was a pain.

          • 8:33 am —

            “… but I can’t copy from her site, for some reason. If anyone has a tip, I’d be more than happy to try it. Sometimes, I can highlight the text, sometimes not. However, no sooner do I hit the button to “copy” than the highlighting goes away.]”
            Try this:

            Print page as a PDF.

            Use a PDF reader to copy the desired text to your clipboard, then paste to a text document.

            Using Foxit:

            1)Left-click on ‘Tools’
            2)In the dropdown menu, left-click on ‘Select Text’
            3)Highlight text
            4)Right-click on highlighted text
            5)Click on ‘Copy to Clipboard’
            6)Paste to a text document
            Using this procedure, here’s a post from Orly’s site:

            Foxit Reader -freeware

            “Foxit Reader is a PDF document viewer, with incredible small size, breezing-fast launch speed and rich feature set.”


    • Here is the file for Orly’s Emergency Appeal that was sent prior to SOS Kemp’s ruling.

      Appeal to Secretary of State Kemp – Orly – Farrar

      Click to access Appeal-to-Secretary-of-State-Kemp1.pdf

      • Did she appeal to the superior court? I think she was imprudent in some of her comments. But so was Jablonski with no repercussions.

      • btw, did y’all notice that the Ankeny case DID mention Minor V. Happersett? I thought it was scrubbed and missed but MAYBE that was the case that initiated the scrubbing. At this point, I forgot when the scrubbing occured. Around the time this stupid decision came down?

  10. From the article that was cited in my article from the World Socialists about Andrew Young and his connections. Young is the one that Jablonski said he worked with for “debates”…and in lib language what might that mean? Just in case you didn’t want to read it on their site, some highlights.

    Andrew Young, bagman for US capitalism in Africa
    By Lawrence Porter
    30 April 2007 Snips

    Andrew Young, the former black civil rights leader and confidant of Martin Luther King Jr., has recently come under criticism for his dirty dealings with corrupt African governments, especially for his close relationship with General Olusegan Obasanjo, Nigeria’s former president.

    ~What changes have GWI [Good Works International] implemented? As the principal lobbying agent for the government of Nigeria in the US, it is making millions representing major companies like ChevronTexaco, General Electric, and Motorola seeking contracts from the Nigerian government.

    The company generally receives a commission equal to 1 ½ percent of a contract’s value. This is a tidy sum when GoodWorks consults on contracts such as General Electric Energy’s agreement to provide $400 million in turbines for Nigeria, as they did last year.

    The firm is a major shareholder in a Nigerian energy company, Suntrust Oil, which won a lease for offshore oil fields. According to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Nigeria provides as much as 40 percent of GoodWorks revenues, paying $1.75 million to the company since 2000, not including a retainer fee of $60,000 a month.

    GWI also specializes in relations with other oil-producing African states, including Sudan and Angola.
    Moreover, it represents other American companies among the most notorious for their slave-wages and environmental destruction in Africa, including Nike, Coca-Cola and the gold mining concern Barrick Gold, a company connected with the Bush family

    The principals at GWI represent a virtual “who’s who” of political and corporate Democrats. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Young set up GWI in 1997 with the help of Hamilton Jordon, President Carter’s former chief of staff. Foundation directors for GWI include President Bill Clinton, Alexis Herman, the former Secretary of Labor, and Maurice Tempelsman, a diamond merchant and fund raiser in the Democratic Party. Tempelsman has been implicated as an important figure in the DeBeers diamond cartel in Africa, now known as the “blood diamond” business.

    Actually, Obasanjo was a US operative, closely allied to the CIA, who took power in 1976 after his predecessor, Murtala Muhammad, was assassinated under unexplained circumstances. At the time, the US was still reeling from the OPEC oil embargo and was vitally concerned with Nigerian oil interests.

    World Socialist Web Site

    • So Jablonski’s most infamous former client has interest in capitalistic projects in Africa connected to GE. And Ann MALIHI McWhorter (who co-owned a house in Alpharetta with Michael Malihi) is or was a VP at two different GE corporate entities. And she went to Harvard Law, albeit a few years before Obama allegedly did. I wonder if she was there with any of Obama’s other personal or WH attorneys? I can envision a scene in the WH. Call in Ruemmler, maybe Bauer if he’s still hanging around. Ask, “Quick! Know any attorneys with GA connections who can find the “right” ALJ for this hearing?” Pull strings. Have it assigned to the “right” guy. Maybe even make a bipartisan deal with the Republicans who are running from this issue and the LAW and the CONSTITUTION nearly as fast as obots run. Write and rehearse the Kabuki Theatre Script to FOOL THE IDIOTS WHO STILL BELIEVE IN LAW AND ORDER.

      Remember how Dr. C teased that he knew all about the machinations, which he couldn’t write about at the time, a week before the hearing? Meaning the machinations behind how the hearing in GA was plotted and planned to go down? At least, that’s how I read what he wrote.

      Amazing how progressives love capitalism in the Third World, where they themselves can exploit and become billionaires using their inside information and money from the TAXPAYERS of the USA.

  11. One of the interesting things about Malihi and Jablonski is that there is relatively little information on the web. Very strange isn’t it that it has been 35 years since Michael K. Jablonski was first licensed to practice law, and the following information appears – 3 Web references, and everything about that strategy dot gov website has been scrubbed even on the Wayback Machine.
    How many employees at Google now do the Obot scrubbing at both Google and Wayback (since Google purchased the site)?

    3 Total References Web References [As the references appear]

    Michael Jablonski – Atlanta, … [all scrubbed at Wayback Machine]

    2 Mar 2001 [cached]
    Michael Jablonski – Atlanta, Georgia

    In 2001, Georgia Trend columnist Matt Towery, calls Mike Jablonski both the most unknown and the most influential strategist in the State of Georgia.For more than twenty years he contributed speeches, position papers, issues briefings and debate training to candidates as varied as Jimmy Carter, Andrew Young and Roy Barnes. Jablonski combines the ability to craft positions on issues with an understanding of how to effectively communicate those positions.

    Jablonski earned degrees in economics and in law at Emory University, where he also helped coach the debate team.He remains active in competitive debate at both the high school and college level.Jablonski helped establish the national Urban Debate League program.

    In the practice of law, Jablonski served as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Georgia before becoming a partner with Georgia’s current governor, Roy E. Barnes.

    Together they represented clients with political advertising problems, particularly overcharges by television stations.In this litigation he represented all the Georgia candidates for governor in 1990 (including Gov.Zell Miller, Johnny Isakson, Andrew Young, Roy Barnes and Bubba McDonald), all the candidates for Lieutenant Governor (including Lt.Gov.Pierre Howard, Matt Towery and Joe Kennedy) and various other Congressional and statewide candidates.The success of the Georgia litigation attracted national attention.The team eventually represented political advertising clients in Florida (including Gov.Lawton Chiles, former Gov….

    In 2000, Jablonski was commissioned by Gov.Barnes to chair the Governor’s Workers’ Compensation Advisory Commission.The 63-person commission held hearings throughout the state in an exhaustive examination of the workers’ compensation system.The study resulted in significant legislative and rules changes.

    Jablonski is the author of “Discovery and Trial Preparation In Civil Cases” in four revisions of Georgia Lawyer’s Basic Practice Handbook (Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993); and in 1994 wrote Service of Subpoenas Under Georgia Law for the Institute for Continuing Legal Education.

    He was Editor-in-chief of The Atlanta Lawyer, published by the Atlanta Bar Association, from 1989-1994. He has been on the Editorial Board of Georgia Bar Journal since 1995.He is President of the Barkley Forum Foundation at Emory and is on the board of the Kennesaw State University Foundation.

    Jablonski, 49, lives in Atlanta with his wife Mary Grace Diehl and their daughters, Elizabeth and Rebecca Jablonski-Diehl.

    Return to Team Page

    How often does George Anderson go after Democrats? — Peach Pundit [cached] [No longer a working site!]

    • Economics at Emory, sounds familiar…….age aproximatiely 49 ,like Mark Ndesandjo. with his bachelors in economics from Emory……..such a small world. Isn’t Georgia and Florida and Tennessee where Judge Clay Land (who had some issues of his own concerning properties and a step daughter) and possibly something to do with Mark Ndesandjo and some property. Then Jablonsky’s wife’s name Mary GRACE-DIEHL. Man , this is a small world afterall. Hey, wonder how well Jeb Bush knows Jablonsky,since he did litigation for prominent politicians in Florida as well?

    • He wrote a handbook about how to practice law and then he penned that screed to Kemp? And then he allowed a client to blow off a legal subpoena issued by a judge in GA? How ironic! He wrote “Service of Subpoenas Under Georgia Law”!!!! Don’t make me laugh, Jablonski. OMG. You can’t make this stuff up.

      His next book should be “HONORING SUBPOENAS UNDER GEORGIA LAW”.

      Let’s not forget Mark Ndesandjo, Barry’s brother, is an alumnus of Emory, too, although he’s younger than Jablonski. But likely these DemocRATS all travel in the same circles in GA.

  12. This is a post at ORYR. March 1st is the day Sheriff Joe will release the findings. This does not sound good given he is under investigation and the two re tied together I am sure. I agree with this comment:
    If Sheriff Joke had any info that was not known or was not in Corsi’s book, he would make it known right away if it was a game changer. He has nothing folks but a bunch of “indepth” research and analysis.

    Obamas birth records and adoption records must be located and made public as that is the only way this issue makes it. Most people dont have a clue about what an NBC is and see it as just a racist term used by a bunch of bitter white folks. Of course Obama is not eligible but the truth dont make it so.

    We need the BC and adoption records and it never should have been stipulated to by the lawyers in GA that Obama was born in HI. You eliminated one issue that is vital to his eligibility. Who says he was born in HI? Make his commie ass prove it. Those lawyers messed up and gave that corrupt Judge an out.

    We need the BC or adoption records to show who this guy really is and where hes been in his life. Without it, this issue is dead because if NBC mattered, someone in Congress would have done something to stand up for our constitution. Do you think anyone is going to say anything when the truth puts very powerful people in jail for 7 years for misprison of treason and executes some others for being traitors. Wont happen folks. Our SC wont even say he is not nbc becuase then Roberts goes to jail for swearing in Ocommie.

    We have been had by our own people and the only way to fix it is to find the BC or unseal the adoption records. At the very minimum, we need his college applications to see if claimed to be a foreign student to get breaks on admission or tuition.

    Joe didnt find it so his report will be filled with fun facts, but nothing that gets this usurper thrown from office.

    Romney aint beating him guys and the next 4 years will be some Hitler type hell for us.

    • Is there any doubt that a coup occurred when BHO was installed. Any doubt whatsoever?

      Well, let’s hope that Joe’s posse has something. Will he release the information sooner now?

      All that has ever been asked for has been minimal. And what were the citizens given? Nothing. Zero. Nada.

  13. Comment from :

    It looks like Orly’s Plaintiff David Farrar put down the ORLY-AID..!

    It looks like Plaintiff David Farrar put down the ORLY-AID..!

    Honorable Brian Kemp
    Secretary of State of Georgia
    214 State Capitol
    Atlanta, GA 30334
    via e-mail to Vincent R. Russo Jr. ESQ and via Federal Express overnight delivery

    Dear Sec. Kemp,

    Please allow me an opportunity to disassociate myself from any and all criminal allegations made by my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, against Judge Malihi in her EMERGENCY APPEAL motion now before you. They were not only unauthorized, but unsupported.

    In looking back over Judge Malihi’s recommendation, it seems apparent he may have erroneously combined the testimony and evidence submitted from all threes cases into one to arrive at his recommendation, when such is not the case. We do have a separation order signed by Judge Malihi just for that reason. We have different case numbers and we are three separate and distinct cases. This is the reason many leading jurists around the country are confused at just how the judge arrived at his recommendation given the evidence and testimony submitted, most notably, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. When he recently wrote:

    “But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.”…Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    For more click here, but the point is clear: somewhere Judge Malihi assumed that Dr. Taitz had allowed candidate Obama’s birth certificate to come into evidence in our case, when it did not, as it did in the other two cases. For this reason, you should set aside Judge Malihi’s recommendation and insist candidate Obama, at the very minimum, enter a certified copy of his Official Hawaiian birth certificate, with the embossed/impressed certification seal visible, into evidence in our case.

    I am sure, like Judge Malihi, Mr. Secretary, you do not condone the action of the defendant in this case. Part of the action undertaken by Mr. Jablonski, I am lead to believe, was an attempt to supply you with a copy of his client’s birth certificate on an ex parte basis, in a brazen attempt to enter this document into the court file without giving the Plaintiffs access to either the records this document was created from, nor an opportunity for the Plaintiffs to offer any rebuttal. If this is true, it would represent a patently unfair process and cause all our efforts to date for a fair hearing on the issue to be questioned. Such action, if true, only serves to demonstrate candidate Obama understood only too well the key element in this case was the submission of his birth certificate to judicial scrutiny. Without proper submission of this document into evidence, all our efforts to clearly establish candidate Obama’s presidential qualifications will have been in vain.

    The purpose of this lawsuit was simply to have candidate Obama’s birth certificate properly examined and reviewed in a court of law. Sadly, it seems, candidate Obama’s has been able to bamboozle your efforts in this regard if you accept the recommendation of Judge Malihi.

    My recommendation is to stand firm and insist candidate Obama’s name will be taken off the Georgia ballot until such time as he can properly submit a certified copy of his birth certificate for judicial review. This course of action will send a clear message to candidate Obama, and to anyone else who would so insult the conscience of a Georgia court in such a flagrant manner, that such action should be taken only at one’s own peril.

    Moreover, Mr. Secretary, the rest of the states are closely watching Georgia to see if it can preform this much needed function of vetting presidential and vice-presidential candidates at the state level rather than at the national level through the candidates own national political party.


    • I guess his letter is moot! Georgia SOS caved.

      • but its an appealable issue, apuzzo’s on the right track.

        Orly drives me crazy – she’s so over the top and emotional with the language in her pleadings that she immediately loses credibility. Pleadings should be clear statements of law and fact.

        Btw, a judge can rely on cases that weren’t brought up by the parties. Caselaw is not considered evidence, so the judge isn’t confined to the record for caselaw. Judges (or their research attorneys on staff) research caselaw on whatever the issue is to see if there is any binding precedent (decisions from a higher court in the same jurisdiction, e.g. Georgia supreme court, SCOTUS) or persuasive precedent (decisions from any other courts), so he has the discretion to bring in the Indiana case.

        • A good judge may do his own search fora case law. It is merely to help support or substantiate and argument or claim. The rulings or findings in the cases are important but not evidence . In fact sometimes using a case can screw up ones case, because a judge may not have thought to look to a particular case at all. As another matter of fact, sometimes lawyers use caselaw decievingly because they may only make small references to a case and unless the judge does his homework the lawyers can pull one over on him. Or, if you’ve got an incompetent judge this can work in a lawyers favor too.

  14. Does anyone else get emails from Patriot Update???
    Welll…..good news!!! (Sarcasm if anyone isn’t paying attention)

    • Well, just allow Rubio to run for president. Then if the liberals throw a fit because he’s not an NBC, I mean, what can they say?

      So we can tell them, we’ll show you Rubio’s BC if you show us BO’s papers.

    • I believe I read that earlier. Didn’t it refer back to another article that was a year old? Those that aren’t aware of the real situation will take it as truth. Well, considering what happened in Georgia, it just might be the way it is now.

  15. Oh, I don’t know where it was earlier. I’m sure others have said it as well. I mean, maybe it would force them to show us BO’s papers, and if so, they would both be out.

    • It won’t work now Kitty if the Georgia ruling stands. Now with the help of Kemp, every Tom, Dick, and Harry and whatever other nationality can be VP or President. Why would they do this? So they all won’t go to jail! Where are the presidential nominees and why aren’t they talking? Well, they probably haven’t heard the news because of a totally inept, silent media.

      • First off, I can’t see how this so-called judge’s ruling can change the NBC thing. And it is the truth in the constitution of what an NBC is. I don’t think any judge can just change it like that. Although he’s tried, I know. But his ruling is nonsense anyway. So what that’s being fought and appealed, do the other. Throw them into mass confusion.

        The brain-dead, brain-damaged libs won’t understand anything else. You almost have to play tit for tat with them so that they get it.

    • The original article was on American Thinker last July, but Patriot Update posted it today, or maybe yesterday (and just sent out the emails proclaiming the good news ) The last email they’ll be sending me

  16. Hey Ellen your smrstrauss is showing! This is one notorious husband and wife team that like to spam rightwing blogs. Readers, please post this following information wherever you visit so the blog owners are aware this is her new name and their current IP. They have a dozen names and can blog from different IP’s. They may know her as Ann, Annie, Ellen, Granite, Express, Ohio Born, and others. Then they also use numbers after the names as in Ellen 1, Ellen 2. They haven’t visited here for awhile, and I doubt they will come back. Adios Ellen!


  17. Who the heck is Ellen?

    • An obot troll. Been plaguing us for the longest time. Reappears every so often in another incarnation. Doesn’t get through moderation because we’re onto her and her husband.

  18. I’ve been looking all over for the Ellen person, or the Mrs Strauss person, and haven’t found her. Except I’ve seen a Mrs Strauss post at various places, still don’t know her or him.

    I’ve been posting here for months. Are you thinking because I posted that about Rubio, that I’m a liberal? Not so! I’m thinking that we almost have to play their goofy game to win. Don’t know how, though. They have problems understanding “common sense.” So if someone thinks with common sense, then they can’t grasp it.

    Look, if Sheriff Joe comes up with some good stuff, maybe someone will listen. Except, and this is a huge EXCEPT now, no one is listening anyway. So what do we do?

    Do the courts listen? NO!

    What about the FBI?

    The only ones that are listening are some of the sheriffs (a good thing), a few politicians, but not that many.

    So, do you have a better idea? I don’t. The worthless media sucks, so does Fox. Needless to say, we have been taken over with worthlessness.

    Here’s the thing, and you can trust me or not trust me. It’s up to you to find out. We have ONLY a few good years left in our country. Things will start falling apart sometime between 2016 and 2017, maybe a little bit before that. Don’t know. So knowing this could happen, what do you-all suggest? Honestly, I may not be alive to see this. I’m getting older by the minute. And if you mock me, so be it. I’m telling you the truth. Not much time left, we have an extremely sick country, so sick that in time people will want to leave it, and they will.

    • I think you are right.

      2016-2017 tops.

      • Well, Papoose, more to it than that, but I can’t explain it right now. I can’t even explain it in a quick way. One has to understand the covenants in the Scriptures, then the celestial event in 2017.

    • Kittycat77 – check out Bridgette’s comment ^^^ about strauss/ ellen thingy.

      they are lice and they lay nits everywhere. they have been pests for years.

    • Not to worry kittycat77. Ellen, Ann, Mrs. Strauss is just an obot troll. Not you! Certainly not you. IF you see Mrs. Strauss elsewhere, that’s because she’s one of those paid trolls (and other blogs aren’t onto her yet). She and hubby. A committee of two, at least. Ellen, say hi to your boss from us! 🙂

      We can’t play their game because we’re fundamentally honest people who can’t think deviously or can’t in good conscience lie and deceive others. It’s “our good” and their BAD!

      They grasp common sense; it’s just that their Alinsky rulebook teaches them to NEVER ever debate honestly, to only distract, annoy, throw out red herrings and erect straw dogs.

      kittycat 77! We’re not mocking you and we never would. As I said, not to worry.

      What do we do? Keep on keeping on. Work to defeat Barry AND work at the local level to defeat EVERY DEMOCRAT because NONE is to be trusted. EVERY ONE of them is either complicit or AFRAID of Barry and Company, which means that NONE can be trusted in DC or your state government, no matter how honest he or she seems. Once in power, the party will FORCE THEM TO KNUCKLE UNDER, IN LOCKSTEP.


      • Rut roooow! Kitty I’m guessing your first must be Ellen? Believe me in no way way Miri mocking you, your very well liked here and we enjoy your company 🙂

        • Thanks, you guys. I just couldn’t figure it out who the heck Ellen was. But I HAVE seen a mrsstrauss at places, and maybe here:

          I sure didn’t want you guys to think that I’m Ellen because of what I said about Rubio, but I’m getting so frustrated now. Also, I kind of wonder if Sheriff Joe has some goodies, and let’s say if he does have some extremely good and excellent goodies on BO, who is going to listen?

          And there’s got to be some way to break through to the liberals. Heck, in my early past, I was a liberal. Then I changed from that way of life later in my life when I figured out it was worthless. So if I can do it, so can they, and we really, really want them to change. I promise you that.

          • No, no, no. Bridgette probably trashed her comment that was in moderation, and it was only coincidental that she must have posted her comment to Ellen near one of yours. I know she didn’t think Ellen is you! I saw Ellen’s comment in moderation and I left it there for Bridgette to “enjoy”. We don’t post them because once they’re approved, then they don’t ever again automatically go into moderation, and then these trolls can say whatever they want until one of us finds it and deletes it. Ellen’s latest screed was a reprise of pages of the usual obot bull about Wong Kim Ark and what THEY BELIEVE the Constitution means when it says natural born citizen. Lecturing and hectoring. If you’ve seen Mrs. Strauss elsewhere, then you know what I mean. We have her number. Literally! 🙂

          • kittycat77: You’d be surprised how many of us used to be “liberals”. I marched against the Viet Nam war. I was a “hippie”. I marched for Civil Rights (but so did a lot of conservatives). What’s that old saying? Something like, when you’re young, if you’re not a liberal, you haven’t a heart; when you’re older, if you’re not a conservative, you haven’t a brain.

            We grew up. We realized that that ideal world is unattainable. It’s not realistic. Humans are flawed. Humans aren’t angels. That’s why our system is the best because of the checks and balances it places on human nature to ensure that we are free from tyranny.

            We grew up. Progressives didn’t and never will. Those are the well-meaning progressives. The ones who truly believe that they can create paradise on earth–a perfect world if only we all would “get along”, to quote Rodney King.

            The other progressives are the evil ones who USE the well-meaning ones to gain power. They want only power and to be among the elite that RULE OVER EVERYONE else. They’re beyond grown up. They think they’re gods.

          • Kitty, I think if Joe had something hot he would release it immediately. I don’t hold my breath there…

        • I agree with you Renee, except maybe Joe is waiting for Holder to get Axed over F&F. Drop the scoop on a new DOJ. I’m still hopping all though feeling defeated.

    • You don’t see Ellen or Ann or Mrs. Strauss because we either never let her out of moderation or, once we figure out it’s a new zombie, rising from the dead, we send her (or her husband’s) comments to the TRASH BIN OF WTPOTUS HISTORY. Where they belong. In the trash. With the rest of the obot garbage.

  19. Miri,
    I bet that I’ve seen here at the Puzo blog. I noticed that name somewhere, and I get that’s it.

  20. Yes, I have. It was at the Puzo blogspot. He is replying to her (or him) there calling that person this name: srmstrauss

    I think that I was saying Mrs Strauss, but that’s not correct.

  21. Second comment. Swipes from CW’s blog AND from ours, but look what blog it links to. I found nothing there about either Jablonski being an elector OR being on Kemp’s board for revamping their ballot procedures. But the freeper said “a post” there but didn’t link to the exact post. The writer of the FR post where this comment appears is “intangible soul”. What a coinkidink. And Leza, on the same post, butterdezillion gives one of her commenters credit for that presser about Sauder. I’m just sayin’. Check out that they do give credit to other “freepers”. A cozy little club. (I don’t mean butterdezillion. Note that she gave credit to her commenter.

  22. I was reading Mario Apuzzo’s blog and found this. It is about stipulations, and if you read my article, you see what Japlonski stipulated re Obama not being a naturalized citizen, but he doesn’t stipulate what he is. Obama’s name is written differently than on his BC and it says he was born in Hawaii. What I don’t know is if the stipulations must be made in court or if the stipulations stand if they are in a pleading.

    Apuzzo: A stipulation is binding upon the party or attorney who makes it and has all the legal consequences that attach to it as provided by applicable law or court order. A stipulation by an attorney or party only resolves a certain factual issue for sake of legal argument in the case in which it is made and not in any other case.

    A stipulation does not actually prove anything in the real sense. It only allows a case to move forward in a legal environment without the court itself having to resolve any given factual dispute before it can resolve the underlying legal issues. Courts are allowed to take judicial notice of not only laws and other generally accepted facts, but also of any facts established of “record” in its own court or that of any other court. Hence, real evidence in a court record (e.g. testimonial, documentary, or physical) can be used for any purpose that the rules of evidence allow which includes not only prejudicing or supporting the case in which the evidence is introduced but also other cases.

    But what one party and attorney stipulates to in one case cannot be used against some party and attorney in a different case. In other words, except to the extent that there exists already judicially established facts and binding law, each case sinks or swims on its own. …

    • If you go back and read some of my comments just before the hearing – i don’t remember which thread – I explained this a bit.

      Basically, a stipulation is something both sides can agree on in the controversy (case) at hand. Think of stipulations as “undisputed statements of fact.” The parties say that something is true and so, for the purposes of that case, it is, and the hearing/trial/pleadings, etc. address the issues that are the subject of the controversy – the ones the parties DO NOT agree on.

      That is why Obama’s attorneys did not and would not be expected to stipulate that he was natural born citizen, it is not a fact that BOTH sides would agree on because it is the actual issue to be adjudicated.

      • Okay, that makes sense that maybe Jablonski wouldn’t stipulate that Barry is natural born, but since he did stipulate that he was born in Hawaii and never naturalized, do those HAVE TO BE TRUE or else he’s in trouble? Or can he weasel out of any trouble by claiming that he thought, in good faith, that the statements are true because his client told him so?

        • yeah, if he can say he reasonably believed in good faith yada yada it to be true then he’s okay. but if he knew or should have known (which is a higher standard than it sounds- willful blindness rather than negligence or lack of common sense) then its a serious ethics breach, obviously.

    • In other words, since Orly didn’t stipulate that Barry was born in the USA, quite the opposite, in fact, then Malihi was wrong to combine the resolution of her case with that of the attorneys who did stipulate to that “fact”.

      I see now what they were trying to do by introducing that SFCOLB and LFCOLB (and I do think this “judicial notice” was used in another ineligibility case): They were trying to “establish” his birth in Hawaii as common knowledge–as a “generally accepted fact”–when it’s anything BUT. A generally accepted fact is something like, the sun rises in the east.

      Does this also mean that those who stipulated that he was born in Hawaii and isn’t naturalized better be correct or else they’re in trouble with the court?

      Or can a lawyer stipulate, for sake of argument, that the decider should assume the “fact”? If so, then mustn’t Malihi have to condition his ruling such that he said, “IF candidate Obama was born in Hawaii to a citizen mother, then he’s a natural born citizen?” He didn’t say that.

      And since Jablonski did NOT stipulate that Barry is a natural born citizen, then it seems Jablonski may know much more than he’s saying.

      It’s ENTIRELY POSSIBLE for a person to be born in Hawaii and NEVER to have naturalized and also NOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA.

      Did we ever resolve those questions we had way back in 2008 about Hawaiian land that was not considered part of the territory of Hawaii? What is the status of a person born on Hawaiian sovereign lands? Is that person ALSO a citizen of the USA or simply a member of the Hawaiian tribal nation?

      Here were are, 4 years later, and we’re no closer to the truth, or even to clarity about what might be the truth, than we were then.

      • And do still keep in mind that Jablonski said “Barack Obama” was born in Hawaii and never naturalized. Is Barack Obama the same person as Barack Hussein Obama II? Those facts not in evidence. YET. STILL. NEVER.

        • h/t Fred Nerks FR

          The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

          • What is this supposed to show Leza ? I cannot scroll down.

          • They were trying to “establish” his birth in Hawaii as common knowledge–as a “generally accepted fact”–when it’s anything BUT.

            Exactly Miri, just like they are trying to establish he was voted in as resident so he was accepted by the American people, to hell with what the Constitution says, he was accepted by the people, it’s all that seems to matter to them, that he was accepted. What people did not realize at the time though is he was NOT qualified, to run, nor to be voted in.

            He was NEVER vetted, period…

          • read the second paragraph in the blue box

          • Renee, did you click on the link? just wondering. it shows where when he was running in 08 his campaign had said he was a born in HI and was a native born citizen.

          • NATIVE….cha ching..
            I guess I thought there was more.

          • We haven’t had this here before?

          • Miri, I’m not sure if it’s here, maybe posted way back? I know the last time I’d ever seen it was back at TD’s.

      • I don’t remember any of the plaintiff attorneys stipulating he was born in hawaii but I haven’t read everything. I think apuzzo said they specifically requested to keep the cases separate and par of their appeal would be judge’s failure to do so.

        but as far as jablonski, i think your missing my point – there would be no reason to expect him to “stipulate” that Obama was a natural born citizen. stipulations are not statements that one side is saying is true, they are points that both sides can agree on so the judge can focus on the issue(s) that they don’t agree on i.e. the controversy. since, the plaintiffs filed suit arguing he is not natural born citizen, there would be absolutely zero expectation for the defense to include in their stipulations that he is. stipulations are solely proposed points of agreement between the opposing parties and the rest of the pleadings are for the points that they don’t agree on.

        the fact that jablonski did not stipulate that BO is natural born is not at all suspicious and entirely expected under the circumstances.

        As far as judicial notice, you are right it is for something completely undisputed like: the sun set at 5:36 on February 7, 2010 in Mayberry, AZ according to the Naval Astronomical Unit. It wouldn’t be appropriate for something that is the subject o controversy.

        • I said several hours ago that what you said made sense–about him not stipulating to the nbc thing because that was the issue being argued, so I got your point. I’m pretty sure that the first bunch of lawyers–the ones who argued he’s not a nbc because his father wasn’t a citizen–stipulated to his birth in Hawaii to the parents he claimed. Many are outraged because they feel that was a green light for the judge.

          But Orly did NOT stipulate to anything about him because nobody knows who he is. He’s NEVER presented any evidence of legal name, birthplace, parentage, birthdate, or citizenship(s).

  23. Very well done. I am going to refer to this for sure. So much corruption makes me sick to my stomach.

  24. Michael C. Voeltz vs Obama etc. Larry Klayman Attny – Florida lawsuit.

    I read this one last night. There are passages you will recognize. Some from Apuzzo, Donofrio, and he even mentions that Obama never says he is a natural born citizen and the quote from Apuzzo re Hamilton’s Federalist papers. All of these were on our blog, including the rules from the INS. Some were in the article above where Apuzzo gave me the answer about electors. (I wonder if they are all conferring on this lawsuit? When I opened Adobe it is the name of a different guy and not Klayman. Could be his clerk who typed it, but it seems it should have the attorney’s name. IMHO)

    It is accusing the Florida legislature of systematically changing their laws so that no one is responsible for determining if the VP or Pres are eligible. The duties were removed from the SOS having any duties and the people having no recourse if a person is not eligible.

    • Page 11 Declaratory Judgment and Equity

      The State Legislature of Florida has used its power to make law to expunge, exclude and impinge the right of We the People, the Florida electors, from concluding whether a Presidential candidate is constitutionally eligible for the office they seek.

      By the enactment of Florida Statutes 2011-Chapter 40 Florida Statutes (HB 1355), the Florida Legislature has removed the mechanism to place the burden on the Presidential candidates for their own eligibility. The bill also removes the provisions where a candidate can be removed by his own party from the ballot (Pre 2011 Fl ss. 103.101). While the Department of State says that “qualifying” is done by the Presidential Primary Selection Committee (Fl. ss.103.101), rather than by the Federal Candidate Oath (FL ss. 99.21(2)), there is no mechanism for removal and no “qualifying” actually done.

      While the Statutes of Florida allow for a “contest of election or nomination” in Fl. ss. 102.168, there is no mechanism in the statutes to actually annul the nomination or election of the winning candidate.

      This action is certainly judicial in nature, not political. The U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall” be a natural born citizen. To say that no one knows what natural born citizen means is patently ridiculous. Plaintiff will show the consistency of 250 years of thought on the matter of the meaning of the security clause in the requirements to be President, of which there are only three. To claim that requiring the Presidential candidate to follow the law of the Constitution is a political question is frankly a lie.

      • (HB 1355)
        Written Statement of Howard L. Simon, Ph.D.Executive Director,
        American Civil Liberties Union of Florida [ACLU]
        For a Field Hearing on “New State Voting Laws II: Protecting The Right to Vote in the Sunshine State”
        Submitted to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights
        U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
        January 27, 2012
        Tampa, Florida

        Click to access ACLUFL-SenateSuppressionHearingTestimony.pdf



        Click to access johnsonvbush.pdf

        • JOHNSON V. BUSH

          The Problem: Florida permanently deprives more than 600,000 state citizens of the right to vote because of a past felony conviction, even though they have fully served their sentences of incarceration, parole, or probation. Approximately 10 percent of voting-age African Americans in Florida are denied voting rights because of a prior felony conviction, more than twice the rate of the rest of the population. More than one in six African-American men have been disenfranchised.

          The Claims: Johnson v. Bush is a class action filed on behalf of 600,000 persons with prior felony convictions who have completed sentences of incarceration, parole, or probation but still cannot vote. The Complaint raises three claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal law:

          1. Equal Protection – The constitutional guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” protects against intentional racial discrimination. Plaintiffs claim that Florida originally enacted its disfranchisement policy in the 1868 state constitution with the intent to deprive newly freed slaves of political power and that the policy’s reenactment in 1968 did not cleanse it of this unconstitutional taint.

          2. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act – “The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law . . . interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Plaintiffs maintain that the challenged law interacts with bias in the criminal justice system and lingering effects of official racial exclusion to result in the disproportionate disenfranchisement of African Americans.

          3. Poll Tax – Florida conditions access to its voting rights restoration process upon payment of all restitution. Plaintiffs claim that those clemency rules act as a poll tax and wealth discrimination in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

          Progress of the Case: Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in September 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In July 2002, after extensive factual and expert discovery but before trial, the Court granted “summary judgment” for the State. The grant of summary judgment means that the Court concluded that there were no material facts in dispute and that the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court ruled that the State’s re-enactment of its felon disenfranchisement policy in 1968 purged the racially invidious purpose of the 1868 law. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claim on the ground that Plaintiffs had not proven discrimination in voting as opposed to discrimination in the criminal justice system. The Court reasoned that Florida did not impose a poll tax by requiring payment of restitution prior to civil rights restoration, because a poll tax was a fee to exercise an existing right to vote, and ex-felons did not have voting rights until their civil rights were restored. The case is now on appeal to the 11th Circuit, which will hear argument in Miami, on April 9, 2003.

          Plaintiffs’ Lawyers: Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School (lead counsel); Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; James K. Green, P.A.; Morrison & Foerster, LLP

          Click to access JvBush_Case_Summary_Press_Kit.pdf

          UN-Flippen BELIVEABLE!!

          • 38 states rigging voting rules for GOP
            Jesse Jackson September 13, 2011 1:36AM

            As Nation reporter Ari Berman summarizes, a dozen states now have passed obstacles to voting, with more considering them. They are requiring proof of citizenship for registration; they put groups seeking to register voters at legal risk.

            I dedicate this song to dumb ass Jesse Jackson, Ari Berman, AND the ACLU. Because, quite frankly your all dumb ass’ssss!

            Tom Petty Dumbass Song

          • It is unbelievable but unfortunately true. They will do everything they possibly can to eke out every “vote” they can. They’re also coming up with the lie that making voters identify themselves at the polls (something a vast majority of the people WANT) is deliberately disenfranchising voters, when not one person is forbidden from voting under these laws. The person is allowed to cast a provisional ballot, meaning the person is allowed to vote, pending proof of eligibility to vote.

            Where’s the discimination? If Polish-Americans are felons, they can’t vote. If Asian-Americans are felons, they can’t vote. If Irish-Americans are felons, they can’t vote. If Mexican-Americans are felons, they can’t vote. It’s consistent. It’s not the fault of the law, which treats EVERY FELON THE SAME, that more African-Americans CHOOSE to be felons. Thus, they and all other felons, “disenfranchise” themselves.

  25. Georgia attorney Mark Hatfield filed Motions [yesterday] on behalf of Plaintiff’s, Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, for EXPEDITED REVIEW OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY OF DECISION OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY ELECTION.

    Presidential primary is March 6th

    Obama’s attorney, DNC Jablonski, also requested from the Georgia, Fulton County Superior Court, to keep the four cases intact rather than severing as Attorney Hatfield has requested.

    Click to access PowellvObamaMotionforExpeditedRevieworAlternativelyforStayofDecisionofSecretaryofStateandforPostponementofPresidentialPreferencePrimaryElectionSuperiorCourtofFultonCounty2-21-2012.pdf

  26. Democrat Presidential Candidate Will Proceed with Eligibility Challenge Against Obama
    Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:03 AM


    by Sharon Rondeau

    (Feb. 21, 2012) — Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy has asked a Georgia court to allow him to proceed with a ballot challenge to Obama’s placement on that state’s ballot without an attorney. Judy had been a plaintiff on a challenge filed by Atty. Orly Taitz in Farrar v. Obama, but last week, Georgia Superior Court Judge Cynthia Wright stated that Taitz would not be able to continue the case pro hac vice, meaning without the involvement of an attorney licensed in Georgia.

    Judy told The Post & Email that he believes his motion contains “explosive” information which the court “will have to make a matter of record.” He also stated that as a Democrat contender for the presidential nomination, he possesses “competitive, legitimate standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility. Judy reasons that “I’m a Democrat candidate against Obama.

    Mr. Judy told The Post & Email that he plans to raise the matter of Senate Resolution 511, passed by the U.S. Senate on April 29, 2008, which declared John McCain a “natural born Citizen” with the assent of then-presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

    • I wish they wouldn’t tout this explosive information. Why not just reveal it?

      • To get media attention on the issue..what better way than to use attention getting adjectives.

        • Yeah, but all it does is frustrate those of us who’ve been paying attention for 4 years now. The media’s not going to pay attention. I hope he’s not blowing smoke with his explosive info. (pun intended.)

          Same with Sheriff Joe. He implied earlier that he found interesting stuff. I hope he reveals it and that it’s much more than we already know. Something concrete and conclusive.

    • Response to Motion to Dismiss Barack Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge
      March 2 (14 pages) A rebuttal to Jablonski’s motion to dismiss. He enters Sheriff Joe’s information in the Motion.

      Farrar v Obama

  27. It appears that Jablonski is continuing the lies! Now it is a political agenda and he continues with the meme that it is about being a plain vanilla citizen, rather than a natural born citizen. Poor Obama is being harassed! He is right – it is a political agenda to uphold the constitution. This is a fantasy in his opinion… yes, a fantasy created by the Left and includes the blurring of the NBC requirement. He is a sickening human.

    Obama’s Georgia Attorney Files Motion to Dismiss: Obama Being Harassed; Ignores Natural Born Citizen Requirement
    [Powell v Obama – Hatfield, attorney]

    Jablonski’s Brief – Respondent’s (BHO’s) Motion to Dismiss:

    The appeal from the Secretary of State’s decision finding that President Obama is qualified to appear on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot is one in a long line of persistent challenges filed across the country since 2008. Not a single challenge has ever been upheld.

    An effort to harass the President continues with qualification challenges filed across the country and in Georgia. Challengers ignore procedural and evidentiary requirements because their claims are without merit, based on fantasy, and offered in pursuit of a political agenda.

    See, for example, Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp.2d 1363, 1364 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff’d, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15, 2010) cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2830 (2009) (“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.”) [He used this one against Orly too!]

    President Obama was a United States citizen from the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have been met. “That’s all he needs is to have been born…what Malihi stated in his decision! when he used the Indiana court’s decision]

    Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App., 2009); see, United States v. Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir., 2011).

    There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office. Specially appearing before this Court, respondent show that petitioner’s actions should be dismissed as they have been in numerous cases for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, failure of service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

    Cont. at:

    Click to access PowellvObamaBriefinSupportofRespondentsMotiontoDismissFultonCountySuperiorCourt2-27-2012.pdf

    • Holding citizenship from birth is not what natural born citizen means. MANY people who are citizens from birth are INELIGIBLE to be POTUS. He knows that. My dad would call him a “shyster”.

      Hayden: A question about legal things, since you may know: Is this type of thing encouraged or discouraged in a motion/brief/whatever?

      “long line of persistent” “effort to harass” “based on fantasy”

      I know that in court testimony, being “argumentative” or presenting opinion, hearsay, etc., is frowned upon. How about in these motions? Is it like an opening statement, where the rules of evidence don’t apply and so nothing they say is supposed to be taken as evidence? Is the judge supposed to similarly, in his or her mind, sort out Jablonski’s unprofessional rhetoric from truth? Are lawyers encouraged or at least not discouraged from inserting emotional propaganda into motions? I’m just asking. I’m curious because to a layperson like me, Jablonski’s rhetoric seems unprofessional and unseemly.

      Is what Jablonski says taken to be true? For example, when he says, “There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office.” That seems, on its face, to be an outright LIE. There’s plenty of basis to question both. It can only be Jablonski’s OPINION and it seems to be a stupid one at that. Does a lawyer have to be truthful or try to at least couch suppositions AS suppositions?

      btw, since Jablonski took himself out of this case the night before the hearing, why is he back in it now?

      I thought that one example of a citizen from birth being ineligible to be POTUS might be Puerto Ricans, who are “statutory” citizens. I found this old article from 2003 (interesting timing there):

      “CASE # 3
      The year is 2010. Puerto Rico has become a state of the Union. Its senior Member in the U.S. Senate, Pablo Aponte, a native of Arecibo, enters the race for the Presidency. One of his opponents makes a campaign issue of the fact that Sen. Aponte is not qualified to become President, since he is not a “natural born” American citizen.

      QUESTION: Is Sen. Aponte’s opponent correct?

      ANSWER: Maybe yes and maybe no!

      No one seems clear on this issue. The Congressional offices of Hawaii and Alaska, both former U.S. territories turned states, have no definitive answer and, as yet, no one from those new states has made a run for the Presidency. In 1964 the late Sen. Barry Goldwater accepted the nomination of the Republican Party to run against incumbent President Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater was born near Phoenix in 1909, three years before the Arizona territory was admitted to statehood. The nature of his citizenship was never raised seriously as an issue and, had he won the election, all assume that he would have been seated.

      Perhaps Sen. Aponte would enjoy the same consideration.

      Interest in this question was raised earlier this month when the New York Times published an editorial in favor of current efforts by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Congressman Vic Snyder (D-AR) to rid the Constitution of the requirement that only “natural born” citizens be eligible to be seated as President of the United States. … Mr. Hatch’s amendment would make anyone who has been a citizen for 20 years, and a resident for 14, eligible for the presidency, while Mr. Snyder’s would require a 35-year waiting period.

      The Hatch-Snyder amendment makes no mention of Presidential eligibility for the many Americans whose citizenship is “statutory,” and maybe it should.”

      They have other examples. One would relate to McCain’s birth in Panama. Another to whether Puerto Ricans can run for POTUS. In that case, they also say “maybe”, but I think it’s clear that they cannot. They can’t even VOTE in presidential elections; how could anyone think they could run for the presidency?

  28. Obama’s tool of an attorney, Michael Jablonski, also filed a Reply Brief to Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Hearing. [Swensson v Obama]

    Petitioner’s motion should be denied for four reasons. First, if petitioner believes that the matters he raises will be moot upon commencement of the election then it is already moot as voting has started.

    Second, petitioner is not entitled to a hearing as the statute relied upon as justification for the appeal does not mandate a hearing; the only requirement is that the Court review the record filed by the Secretary of State.

    Third, petitioner filed this action against the wrong defendant. The challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State should be filed against the Secretary of State.

    Fourth, the Presidential Preference Primary is not an election, as no one is elected to anything, but, in the words of the statute, is simply an opportunity for Democrats “to express their preference for one person to be a candidate for nomination.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191. No one is elected, or even nominated, in the preference balloting.

    Fifth, neither this Court nor the Secretary of State can interfere with internal processes of a political party leading to the naming of individuals to appear on the ballot. Thus, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

    Click to access SwenssonvObamaReplyBrieftoPetitionersMotionforEmergencyHearingFultonCountySuperiorCourt2-27-2012.pdf

    • I knew they’d use the “moot” strategy. They all need to be ready (with all i’s dotted and t’s crossed) to challenge Barry being put on the general election ballots.

  29. Candidate for Judge files Criminal Charges against Members of Judicial Council of Georgia
    26 February 2012

    William M. Windsor, candidate for Chief Magistrate Judge of Cobb County Georgia, has filed criminal charges against the 25 judges who are members of the Judicial Council of Georgia.
    The Judicial Council of Georgia is a state-level judicial agency charged with allegedly developing policies for administering and improving the courts. There is no indication that the Judicial Council of Georgia does any such thing.

    It is very clear that the Judicial Council of Georgia commits obstruction of justice and misprision of felonies in its aiding and abetting of criminal activities by the courts and court personnel….

    I wiII not cover up the crimes and misconduct of any judge or Government official. I have found that this is a routine practice of judges in Georgia. It should be quite clear that in addition to performing my regular duties as Chief Magistrate Judge, I will seek to expose corruption everywhere that I find it.

    Judges charged with Crimes
    I charge the following judges with crimes specified above: [25 Named including] Chief Judge Cynthia D. Wright of the Fulton County Superior Court and the Atlanta Judicial Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Click to access Criminal-complaint-filed-against-GA-judges.pdf

    • This is not related to the Georgia Obama cases, but to information that this judge has. He filed the criminal charges and the Judicial Council dismissed it without investigation of his evidence. He presents his information in the case with evidence and statements of 15 witnesses who know that there are people involved in falsifying court transcripts.

      I was reading through other cases, and usually when the Judicial Council starts asking judges questions about ethical behavior they end up resigning rather than going through the embarrassment of an investigation. In fact once it is known that a judge is being investigated, more information comes forward from other lawyers and clients.

      • In 2010… in Georgia. Quite a record!

        Behind the flurry of judges’ resignations
        Fulton County Daily Report

        Since Alapaha Circuit Chief Judge Brooks E. Blitch Sr. resigned his judgeship in April 2008 rather than face an ethics trial in front of the state Judicial Qualifications Commission, at least 21 Georgia judges have been disciplined publicly by the JQC or have stepped down from the bench amid allegations of unethical conduct.

  30. the legality of this presidency . . . again
    March 2, 2012 · 3:36 pm Snips

    By Van Irion – So much has happened recently demonstrating the lack of honor in our judicial system that I’m now forced to review these incidents in bullet point format:
    The Georgia Superior Court Clerk refuses to file LLF’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction because $1 was not included with our filing. Then, when LLF hand delivers $1 to the clerk, the clerk sits on the motion for 10 days and mails it back to LLF claiming that the correct staffer didn’t get the $1. Our plaintiff gave the case number, name of the motion, and name of the staffer, who was literally pointed at in the room. Yet the clerk’s office still claims that that staffer didn’t get the $1. The motion had to be completely re-filed and was then delayed another two days before finally being filed.

    The Chief Judge of the Superior Court was made aware of all of the incidents occurring in her Clerk’s office, yet she did nothing to correct the situation.

    The President’s motion to dismiss was filed on his first attempt. After three days the Court notified LLF that the Court had shortened the time to file an opposition to that motion, giving us less than a day to file.

    Late that same day the Chief Judge signs an order denying LLF’s motion to have Van Irion admitted as a visiting attorney in this case, preventing LLF from filing the opposition that the Court had ordered us to file 6 hours earlier. (Note that I’ve been admitted as a visiting attorney in 5 states and at every level of court, both state and federal. I’ve never been denied admission before. Further, my local attorney sponsor was a sitting member of the state’s legislature, making this denial even more shocking.) Even more outrageous is the timing of the denial, made just hours before a Court-set deadline, after the Court sat on our motion for more than two weeks.

    The Georgia Secretary of State has, to date, refused to forward the record of the case to the Superior Court, despite Georgia law absolutely requiring this action and requiring that it be done as soon as possible.

    The Superior Court does nothing to require the Secretary of State to forward the record of the case.

    Only 90 minutes after our plaintiff files an opposition himself (because LLF was denied the ability to file it for him), the Chief Judge issues a three-page opinion granting Obama’s motion to dismiss our appeal. It seems obvious that the Court’s opinion was written before they asked us to file an opposition. Also, the dismissal was granted while the Court had not even received the record of the hearing held by the lower court.

    In other words, it ruled without even reviewing the record or reading our plaintiff’s opposition.

    BY Van irion

    • And all the screaming and yelling about the courts that Orly did was dismissed as her incompetence not that she was up against the corruption prevalent in the courts who are protecting Obama. I guess this tale by Irion exonerates her as these other attorneys are running into the same damn walls.

      Another pre-written court opinion!!

    • Treason.

    Pravda English Edition
    Will carry a story written by …. Orly Taitz
    about OUR
    Ilegitimate USURPER
    now that’s NEWS!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s