© Bridgette @ WTPOTUS 2012
Attorney Michael Jablonski
What Does He Know?
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
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
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
Wednesday, March 12, 1788
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