Georgia Courts and The President - Live Feed today 9am, letter from attorney Jan 25th

Regardless of how you feel about the situation, and disregarding the entirety of the insanity that abounds from the "birthers" regarding Obama being born in Kenya etc., one question does remain for many, many people. *Is* Obama Naturally Born?

This issue has been horribly clouded from day One by people that for whatever reason wanted Obama out of office. This was never about him being born in Kenya, or all of the other garbage that has been used, whether willfully or not, to cloud this issue. For the people that understood the real issue, it has been soley and purely about being Naturally Born and all that it pertains to, and what that means. What some people felt it really meant to our forefathers, and what it still means to many people today.

I do believe that he was born in Hawaii. I doubt that we have seen a real birth certificate, on paper, showing this. Digital images do not count, just as digital images would not have merit in a court of law for most of us. He stated in his book that he found his birth certificate in his mothers' belongings, so just out with it already. To those who say he probably lost it, I say, pishaw.

Being an American Citizen does not instantly make you "Naturally Born" as many people argue was the intent of our forefathers when they founded this nation. As in, having allegiance to this country, and this country only. In his own words, our President has stated his father was a British Nationalist and never became an American Citizen.

Fight The Smears has now become www.attackwatch.com... Even archived pages have vanished.

The quote from the now unreachable link was as follows:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

Read more: newsbusters.org...

This is not an attempt to *remove* the President from office, so don't get swayed by the "anti-birther" arguments and insults leading in that direction.

This is not a "race" issue, as many that dislike Obama would have voted for Herman Cain.

This is a question of eligibility, simply put, of patriotism, of wanting to know that the person that is sitting there doing the things we have mostly all come to shake our heads in disbelief at - is really someone who would die for this country?

Some of us seriously, seriously doubt that, and want, and according to the Georgia Court, have the right, for ONCE, to know. As is stated at the link below, the "time is ripe" for a people with standing to... take that stand, when a normal citizen has the right to ask. Not at a time when it is too late once again, and a normal citizen doesn't have standing.

Link to live feed for those wishing to watch the proceedings:

www.art2superpac.com...

www.therightsideoflife.com...

Georgia Obama Ballot Challenge Hearing Tomorrow; Fox 5 Atlanta Video; Kemp Admonishes Jablonski

January 25th, 2012 Lots of late-breaking news happening down here in the great State of Georgia.

From the top:

Art2SuperPac.com will be hosting a live feed of the hearings tomorrow. I’d recommend using Internet Explorer to view the Windows Media Player plugin.

Next, it must be freakin’ for real, as the following video (via BirtherReport.com) from Fox 5 Atlanta, demonstrates. They’re merely the latest of local media stations reporting that Obama’s being required to show up for this thing:

(video from Fox 5 Atlanta News embedded at link)

I will be following this with two more posts enclosing the letters in their full text for both posterity reasons, and for reasons of argument on the real basis for the case without all of the obfuscation that usually overcomes all the the so-called "Birther" threads.

This way, the real legal issues are at hand, right there in real text from Obama's attorneys, and from the Judge himself, so no one can put words in their mouths.

Like it or not, this is a real legal issue, and it's outcome may be shocking to some people. If the proceeding finds against President Obama, it could set precidents that spread throughout many states like wildfire. There is much potential here, and this Judge is serious, and so far, the legal dogs that Obama has sent in have treated it "like any other birther case", which it clearly is not.

He is playing a very dangerous game that could have possible ramifications. This remains to be seen.

I will now follow this with two email letters, one from Obama's attorneys sent Jan 25, 2012, and one from the Judge in reply.

reply to post by Libertygal


Today, Obama’s Georgia attorney assigned to the challenges, Michael Jablonski, wrote the following letter to Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, essentially asking him to cancel the hearing (money lines emphasized):

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.

Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Secretary Kemp:
This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia – that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.
Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.
For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.
It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.
Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.
In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….
As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.
All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).
The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.”) Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.
We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL JABLONSKI
Georgia State Bar Number 385850
Attorney for President Barack Obama

cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal)
Van Irion, Esq.
Orly Taitz, Esq.
Mark Hatfield, Esq.
Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
Stefan Ritter, Esq.
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq.
Darcy Coty, Esq.
Andrew B. Flake, Esq.

The Office of Secretary of State

January 25, 2012
VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:
I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5. As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning. In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril. I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Kemp

cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal)
Van Irion, Esq.
Orly Taitz, Esq.
Mark Hatfield, Esq.
Stefan Ritter, Esq.
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq.

Both letters courtesy of:

www.therightsideoflife.com...

Was unable to add ex and link due to not enough space to center post being out of space.

Well this ought to be interesting. Hope I get home in time to see it.

Originally posted by Manhater
Well this ought to be interesting. Hope I get home in time to see it.

I have to work 12 hours tomorrow night and the next 3 nights, so I hope my staying up to see it doesn't mess me up too bad. IE: I have to stay up all night and sleep all day tomorrow! I slept in some tonight so hopefully I can stay awake in the morning.

I am very interested to see what comes of this, however. Could be nothing, but...

I still can't believe it even got this far, he never should have been on any ballot, everyone knows his father was not born in the US. that is a fact and now they are going to argue what natural born is....the founding fathers did not want British subjects in particular to be able to get into office. it is like the anchor babies of today, they are not natural born, but now because of what O got away with, anyone from any country can have their kid here and they can run for president. that leaves our country even more open to infiltrators in the gov't. I believe the founders wanted to make sure that the pres and his family were entrenched in American and owed no allegiance anywhere else. of course...that's crazy talk, all this alligence and constitutional crap, right?

I still don't believe he will turn up at court, and when he doesn't I think nothing will come of it either, it will all just be forgotten, those who are Obama supporters will make up any excuse to say how it was right he ignored the summons, and those against how it is just more proof of what a fraud he is. And the arguments will continue on and on.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


The point is that he can be barred from being on the Georgia ballot for the election...which would be a small win, especially since other states have similar proceedings ongoing.

Originally posted by timetothink
I still can't believe it even got this far, he never should have been on any ballot, everyone knows his father was not born in the US. that is a fact and now they are going to argue what natural born is....the founding fathers did not want British subjects in particular to be able to get into office. it is like the anchor babies of today, they are not natural born, but now because of what O got away with, anyone from any country can have their kid here and they can run for president. that leaves our country even more open to infiltrators in the gov't. I believe the founders wanted to make sure that the pres and his family were entrenched in American and owed no allegiance anywhere else. of course...that's crazy talk, all this alligence and constitutional crap, right?

edit on 26-1-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

You bring up a very good point about British subjects in particular, and you are exactly correct.

The reason it got this far to begin with is because by the time he was on the ballot, and elected, people were told they had "no standing". The media didn't properly vet him, and in fact did everything they could to get him elected, and have thus far even gone so far as to come right out and admit it. We are in for another repeat of that, if in fact, no one took a stand to attempt to do something about when they had the chance.

Even the Supreme Court refused to touch the many cases that were filed. All them being dismissed not on merit, but on "standing", though some of them have simply been "tabled", meaning when someone of standing *does* happen through with a case, the case can then be heard based not only on standing, but on merit. This will happen, I feel certain, well after Obama is out of office, I am sure.

Which, is of course, the whole idea behind these suits now. The people have standing now, to have him removed from the ballot, so that even write ins will not be counted. Just because he may have gotten away with it once does not mean he will again. With the potential that this carries, it may well set a precedent for other states to do the same thing, thereby making him unelectable. If he is not on the ballot, he cannot be made president. Period.

And no, it doesn't mean that other people can ride his coat tails and do the same thing, it means that the loophole that has been exposed can now be shuttered closed, and the possibility of this ever happening again can be ruled out. However, it is up to the states, each, individually, to assure this. Not Federally, but each state has to accept the responsibility for who ends up on their ballots.


Sadly, some of the youth in our country have a tendency to cry, "So what?!" when it comes to the Constitution and what it was intended to stand for, but as they grow older and wiser, we can only hope that the reasons become more clear.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
I still don't believe he will turn up at court, and when he doesn't I think nothing will come of it either, it will all just be forgotten, those who are Obama supporters will make up any excuse to say how it was right he ignored the summons, and those against how it is just more proof of what a fraud he is. And the arguments will continue on and on.

You are correct, he will not show up, this has been made quite clear to the courts. Doubtful that his attorney will show either. This is what will make the hearing interesting, because by not appearing, the person bringing the suit wins by default. He conceeds, in other words.

Interestingly, one has to ask if Jablonski does not appear, why? Potentially, it could be for any number of reasons, but lets propose for one moment that the birth certificate really is not real. He would be the one person to *know* this. Would he choose a contempt of court violation over being disbarred for filing a false document? Of course he would!

Remember, a subpoena was filed with the Hawaii court in which they were demanded to not only hand over the birth certificate files, but the microfische as well, which they refused to do. This same Judge has the power to order the HA health official held in jail for contempt of court. Will he? This remains to be seen, as with the remainder of the case. As I said, it has a lot of potential here.

Of course, Obama supporters will have many reasons why he should not show, or why his attorney should not, but again, ask yourself why Jablonski would not show. The reasons are few, but one thing you can be sure of is that you can already see the bus tire marks on his nice suit jacket as another one bites the bus.

As can be seen in the enclosed letters, simply screaming about Orly Taitz isn't going to fix this problem for them this time. Bringing her up in that letter is yet again more obfuscation thrown into the mix, and thankfully, the courts didn't buy into it this time.

I do have the feeling this Judge wishes to answer the question once and for all, but if he has a no show, which appears to be the case, then a default judgement will be entered, and he will simply be off the ballot in Georgia. Which sets a precedent for the other 56 states.

reply to post by Libertygal


Well put...it is up to the citizens and the states to stay vigilant. I guess what I meant was, if the loophole isn't taken care of now, it could be used later on again. like you said, there is so much apathy in this country and a general feeling that the constitution is just "the old way" and that it needs to be changed or fixed. Obama wants to change it or do away with it, so far he is the right track there. but anyway...the bottom line is an uneligible man was handed an office he doesn't deserve, illegally and that should not be allowed to continue.

thank you for this thread, it was needed.


if you don't count Illinois, they will always protect him.....55 to go!

reply to post by Libertygal


Thanks for the info, the sad part in all this is, that the very thing your founding fathers were against, the tyranny of people who were above legal recourse is being trampled all over and swept aside.

Its funny, when Obama was elected president, I thought finally, finally a POTUS that will stop the wanton murder and attacks on other sovereign nations, well I guess we know how that turned out, I used to think I was a good judge of people but obviously not.

It is interesting that he can be barred from running in Georgia over this, something I did not know, and would become even more interesting if it happened in other states too, although I doubt it would happen in traditionally strong democratic states and not affect the future election much, where it will have a huge effect is on his creditability, how can he justify his stance on not showing his documentation when it is affecting his ability to run for election?

It never occurred to me he may not be entitled to be POTUS until these questions were asked, and the ONLY thing that made me take them seriously was his constant refusal and squirming to avoid answering and proving his eligibility. Then the PDF faked document (I work with scanned documentation all the time, I know it was faked) was the final nail in the coffin for me, I shall watch today's events with great interest.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Libertygal

 

thank you for this thread, it was needed.

Glad you are enjoying it thus far. Hope that you check back in the morning!

if you don't count Illinois, they will always protect him.....55 to go!

edit on 26-1-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


I think a lot of people felt the way you did, that he gave them hope. The sad thing was, he never defined what that hope was, and some people were able to see through it from the start.

I think one of the early wake up calls for me was Joe the Plumber, though I was dubious to begin with. I had read early on about his questionable and mysterious background, and basically asked the same questions I have been asking all along. Who *is* this man?

The answers I have found are not solid, not defined, and uncertain. They felt somehow contrived and left me uncertain as to the person we had elected. Things were avoided, obfuscated, hidden. The more I looked, the less I was able to find, and it was nothing to do with skin color, again, but allegiance. The very fact that this has happened in our past history left the possibility open that it was about to happen again, and I simply couldn't stop asking questions.

This angered a lot of people, as has been witnessed oh so evidently on this site, but anger and feelings aside, the question still stands relevant, and for many people, still as of yet, really unanswered. People can say he has shown this and that and really, no he hasn't. Lets be honest. If he has and can confidently say so, then why not go to court, or send his attorney, and simply just do it. Has to be a reason, and blaming Orly Taitz isn't working anymore.

It could happen in Democrat states if someone files a case and it goes to trial and he again refuses to show. This is why this case is Georgia could be potentially so important. Winning by default sets a precedent by which he would be compelled to appear in other states, every state, in which a case is filed, to answer the very same questions. In each state he fails to appear in, a default win could potentially find him off the ballot. Democrat or not, the SOS has to abide by the court ruling.

The same thing you thought, about his unwillingness to just come out with it, is the same thing that drives so many to know the real meat of the matter.

Glad to have your interest, and hope to hear more from you after the hearing, regardless of the outcome. People juust want answers, and mostly, people just want it to be over and done with. Regarless of whether the BC is real or not, he cannot take back his own words, that his father was a British citizen. This Judge aims to disregard, basically everything else, and simply answer that question.

Is he Naturally Born?

The Judge doesn't think so, and that is why it is so imprtant that he show for the hearing.

reply to post by Libertygal


I think what he is hiding, and i do believe he is hiding something is not that his father was Kenyan, he has already admitted that (I know you think of him as British, but here in Britain we would not consider him so) There is something much deeper to this, something he really does not wish to be seen. But that is just my opinion

reply to post by Libertygal


What this needs is more publicity. The media, NONE OF THEM, will talk about this on the air. Only online do we see it mentioned at all. What SHOULD happen, is that he should appear in court, but he will defy the law, believing himself above it and not show. Ideally, this should mean he's jailed for contempt of court. Ideally, this should mean that all 49 other states demand the same proof. No proof, no ballot, no re-election. Then, with no proof he can be removed from office. We all know, logically, if he had proof, he would have shown it in court before, to end the discussion. Online doesn't do it.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I totally get what you are saying, but the thing that people don't seem to understand is, no matter what he does or shows at this point, it won't matter, because he has already stated in public, that his father was born a British citizen. The court hearing is to compell him to testify to this as fact, and to show the BC as evidence to back it up.

If he failed to do so, his testimony therefor stands as fact, which is in the public forums in his own words. Regardless of what he does or says or shows, nothing will change this, as the BC he has presented as factual names his father, who is known to be a British Citizen. It is all really very simple, and not as complicated as so many have made it out to be.

In his own words and actions, disregarding all the clouding and obfuscation, side arguments, etc., his father was not ever a US Citizen, therefor he is not, and can *never* be Naturally Born.

A US Citizen? Certainly. Naturally Born? Not.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors, and exactly why he has played it out for so long. Exactly why.

Originally posted by Libertygal
his father was not ever a US Citizen, therefor he is not, and can *never* be Naturally Born.

very wrong actually, he is a naturally born US citizen, which is why he is the legal POTUS.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Libertygal
his father was not ever a US Citizen, therefor he is not, and can *never* be Naturally Born.

very wrong actually, he is a naturally born US citizen, which is why he is the legal POTUS.

Who couldn't predict you coming from a mile away.

Well, I suppose it remains to be seen at 9am today what the Judge deems appropriate. Till then, dear Obama Supporter, and thanks for that in depth and well thought out rationalle.

We now return you to the thread....

Good morning fellow patriots, just checking in.