Today, Obama's lawyers, rather than commit felony fraud upon the Court in submitting Obama's stolen Social Security Number and forged short and long form Certifications of Live Birth, de facto and de jure stipulated by omission and refusal to submit under penalty of perjury into Evidence in a Court of Law, that Barack Hussein Obama II is INELIGIBLE to the US Presidency. In spite their failure to appear, Judge Malihi has granted the Obama Team 10 more days before rendering a decision.
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html
WND reports that Leo Donofrio believes that if Obama loses Georgia, he won't dare go to the Supreme Court lest his illegal Presidency be ruled void...but even if it were, he would still act so as to ignore whatever the Courts rule anyway.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/
Craig Andersen gives an inside the Court set of notes he took of how the proceedings went.
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138#comment-137675
The local Media gave a casual report on the happening:
Floyd Brown @ Western Journalism has a 6 part Youtube version of the hearing, but the audio leaves very much to be desired:
You can also access by using the link of
http://www.youtube.com/user/floydb310#g/u
and choosing from video selection starting at about the 30th video uploaded location.
On the day before the Court Session, Jablonski and his Obama Team tried to do an end run AROUND the Courts in whining and sniveling to the Georgia Secretary of State:
Jablonski letter in pinko, and my comments on the green.
January 25, 2012
Hon. Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
(vrusso@sos.ga.gov)
Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings
Dear Secretary Kemp:
This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless
[Here Jablonski is intentionally inaccurate. Only the status of personal Injury or Article III standing was considered as not met. They were not collectively ruled as baseless, only that specific concrete personal injury that was suffered by Plaintiffs above and beyond the general public at ge was not yet sufficiently met. -- Brianroy]
and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia - that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.
Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control
[Unnecessary and inaccurate hyperbole. No control means disbarment. Malihi specifically stated that he is following Georgia State Law on the books. De facto, it is Jablonski who has lost control, and is trying an Alinsky smear the opponent with the very sins and weaknesses you yourself are guilty of, and hope it taints opinion your way.]
For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly
[Obama and his political machine, if we count the cost to US taxpayers as well, has cost his political funds and the US Taxpayers a combined cost now nearing what is estimated to be 5.8 to perhaps 6 million dollars. Only an Independent audit would allow us to know for sure how much money Obama has urinated away rather than having spent a few thousand dollars in lawyers fees and less than $100 to produce all the necessary documentation at ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME that he chooses to. Again, Jablonski intentionally misrepresents the facts because he is NOT under oath under penalty of perjury in this letter.]
and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.
It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country.
[Again, Article III standing having been met, Jablonski infers that the US Constitution and meeting Eligibility requirements is not a legitimate issue because...? He won't answer this in Court, because he has a client so guilty, all Jablonski can do with his criminal client is stall and hope it all goes away.]
The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there;
[Fine. If that is so, do like the Judge asked, and produce them in Court under penalty of perjury. You can't and won't? That is a stipulation to the same effect as factually confessing to the Court that they are fraudulent. ]
the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website.
[Fine. If that is so, do like the Judge asked, and produce them in
Court under penalty of perjury. You can't and won't? That is a
stipulation to the same effect as factually confessing to the Court that
they are fraudulent. ]
“Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.
[This is a Congressional Researchers opinion and has no weight in consideration. Obama raised over 1 billion dollars in 2008, with some 600 million dollars alleged from foreign sources. Since Obama spent over 2 million dollars from 2008 to 2010 seeking to quash this issue, for less than the cost f one prime time commercial, he has the financial resources to submit and resubmit legal documents in all 50 states at the times he sends Joe Biden around the Country to act as his proxy to file. So even if it cost him another 2 million dollars, 2 million from 1 billion dollars leaves him 998 million to play with. Where's the injury to him or his campaign? It is non-extant.]
Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs.
[More of the Alinsky smear the opponent with the very sins and weaknesses you yourself are guilty of attempts.]
One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.
In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law,
[ Judge Land erred. As I list at the top of this blog: "The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States,or the prohibition of power to the States,is upon those making the claim."
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)
That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), - -
Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62
http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/
@ 54 : “The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”
that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….
As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.
All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response;
[That is exactly right as it applies to Obama and Jablonski...they have NO credible responses in legal citations, and in any refusal to comply with the burden placed upon them in US Supreme Court Decisions, such as Bute v. Illinois 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 and Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62 as cited above.]
perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).
The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.”) Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.
[In other words, you have the authority when you do what we tell you, and no authority to do what we don't tell you. If a Foreign National like Hugo Chavez decides to come to America, and run for President, or if a ten year old child is so represented by Jablonski, and his parents pay the fee to run for President, I Michael Jablonski say that it is illegal for the Secretary of State in Georgia to not accept their candidacies? Is this a fair assessment of your argument Mikey? I say it is exactly what your wording argues. So in your mind, no one is allowed to enforce the law upon an illegal candidate, and you are stipulating that your client is a fraud who has NO legal documents admissible into ANY Court of Law, even when lawfully subpoenaed by a signed order from this case's Judge.]
We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL JABLONSKI
Georgia State Bar Number 385850
Attorney for President Barack Obama
cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal (kbeal@osah.ga.gov))
Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)
Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com)
Mark Hatfield, Esq. (mhatfield@wayxcable.com)
Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq. (vrusso@sos.ga.gov)
Stefan Ritter, Esq. (sritter@law.ga.gov)
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov)
Darcy Coty, Esq. (darcy.coty@usdoj.gov)
Andrew B. Flake, Esq. (andrew.flake@agg.com)
http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf
Response to Obama Attorney by State of Georgia Attorney General came back with the warning to not do a "no show", and if he does a no show, he has only himself to blame if it backfires on him and his client.
Obama's Attorney Jaberwoki Slapped Down By Georgia SOS - 1/25/2012
So exactly why is it SO hard for Jablonski to submit Obama's identity documents into a Court of Law, that requires a no show? It can only be because they are forged or identity theft documents.
Even so, even in just the letter, if Jablonski were to use the same words in Court, it would be a clear 5 point act of Fraud upon the Court, it seems to me.
“Fraud on the Court is conduct:
1) on the part of an officer of the Court;
2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself;
3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under duty to disclose;
5) that deceives the Court.”
Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Circuit 2001) @ 852
1) on the part of an officer of the Court;
2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself;
3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under duty to disclose;
5) that deceives the Court.”
Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Circuit 2001) @ 852
It is my editorial opinion that if Jablonski were to make the same case to Judge Malihi that he makes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, clearly it could be ruled that Jablosnki fails on all 5 counts, and would have so committed Fraud upon the Court, even without the submission of Obama's fraud and identity theft documentation...which is why he will never submit any identity docs into Court.
It seems to me that formal complaints ought to be filed against Jablonski, moving for his disbarment so that he may no longer practice law.
But that's just my input.
{{{{{ Update from Attorney Orly Taitz as of January 27, 2012
Judge Malihi shortened the time to file any post trial trial pleadings. He moved the date from February 5th to February 1. He will issue his ruling shortly thereafter. I believe, he will issue his ruling by the end of the day on February 1 or on February 2 at the latest. I believe Brian Kemp, the Secretary of State of GA, will announce on February 2 or 3rd whether Barack Hussein Obama’s name will be allowed on the ballot in the state of GA as an eligible Presidential candidate.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
End of update }}}}}
0 comments:
Post a Comment