GA – Farrar v Obama – Request for letter of rogatory denied
The judge is restoring some sanity to these hearings.
The hearing
Foggy and Dr Conspiracy were at the Court House. Foggy had to suffer with 20 or so birthers in an overflow room.
Orly spoke, the Judge cringed and finally asked her to submit the rest in writing. After about 2 hours and 30 minutes the hearing ended.
Jablonski was not present, and Orly did not attempt to enforce the subpoenas.
What a non-event…
IL – Meroni v Obama – Petition withdrawn?
Objection Withdrawn!
Today the petition challenge relating to voter registration was withdrawn because the records examination found the petitions contained the required 3000 signatures. That is very good news for the Obama campaign! Tomorrow, The Objectors will post more information on their website.
Source: Defend The Vote
The Illinois Elections Website still shows all three objections pending
Poll: High Marks for Obama’s State of the Union Speech
This year, 82 percent of those who watched the speech said they approve of the president’s plans for the economy, up from 53 percent who approved before the speech. Eighty percent said they approved of Mr. Obama’s plans for the deficit — in contrast to 45 percent before the speech. Eighty-three percent approved of Mr. Obama’s proposals regarding Afghanistan, which received only a 57 percent approval rating beforehand.
Now there is a but…
Americans who watched the speech were generally more Democratic than the nation as a whole. Forty-four percent of viewers polled were Democrats and 25 percent were Republicans. (Historically speaking, that is not an unusual statistic: a president’s supporters are more likely than his opponents to watch State of the Union addresses.)
GA – Farrar v Obama – SOS Kemp responds
Things are going to be so much fun
Reality Check Radio
There is a show tonight starting at 9PM EST. Tonight was to be the debate on the definition of natural born citizen. No Birther offered to debate so it will be a panel discussion with Steven Feinstein, Patrick Colliano and Frank Arduini. We will also discuss the latest from Georgia.
HI – Taitz v Fuddy – Orly’s sworn declaration
Mike Dunford reports that Orly has sworn, under penalty of perjury that she was given commission and subpoena to conduct deposition and examination of records. Does this mean that Malihi granted her request? Or is Orly bending the facts a little?
“I, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, declare under penalty of perjury, that I was given commission and subpoena (attached) to conduct deposition and examination of records of witness Loretta Fuddy…”
Jablonski letter to Secretary of State Kemp
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) [1]; Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).
The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued [2]. 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
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.
[1] We recognize that where the constitutional validity of a statute is challenged before an administrative hearing officer or board, such officer or board is powerless to declare the Act unconstitutional, and resolution of the constitutional question must await judicial review on appeal. Thus the making of such constitutional challenge before the hearing officer or board appears futile at the time of its making.
(1) A party requesting a hearing may withdraw the request for hearing at any time, in writing or otherwise, whereupon the Administrative Law Judge may enter an order of dismissal with prejudice.
(2) The parties may agree to settle the matters in dispute at any time, whereupon the Administrative Law Judge shall enter an order of dismissal with prejudice.Authority O.C.G.A. Sec. 50-13-40.
History. Original Rule entitled “Hearings for the Real Estate Appraisers Board” adopted as ER. 616-1-2-0.2-.17. F. Mar. 23, 1995; eff. Apr. 1, 1995, as specified by the Agency. Amended: Permanent Rule entitled “Withdrawal of Request for Hearing or Settlement” adopted.
F. June 30, 1995; eff. July 20, 1995. Amended: Rule retitled “Withdrawal of Request for Hearing; Settlement”. F. Dec. 12, 2003; eff. Jan. 1, 2004. Repealed: New Rule entitled “Withdrawal of Hearing Request; Settlement” adopted. F. Nov. 15, 2010; eff. Dec. 5, 2010.
IL – Jackson v Obama – Motion to Strike
Our foolish friends in Illinois have filed a complaint that under the dicta of Minor v Happersett, President Obama is not eligible. Such fools…
Obama’s attorney entered a Motion to Strike and Dismiss Objector Michael Jackson’s complaint at today’s hearing in front of the Illinois Board of Elections. Jackson, who is not represented by an attorney, was only given 48 hours to respond to this motion. Jackson filed the complaint because Obama is NOT a NATURAL Born citizen according to existing legal precedence under Minor v. Happersett (1875). Jackson is seeking legal assistance.
Sunahara v HI DOH – Motion to Dismiss
A sad case where the memories of a baby who died soon after her birth is violated by foolish people
Clinton v Jones 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
Contrary what some have come to believe, and contrary to the suggestions by Orly, the Supreme Court in Clinton v Jones did not rule that a President can be compelled to testify. What the Court observed is that:
1. This Court need not address two important constitutional issues not encompassed within the questions presented by the certiorari petition: (1) whether a claim comparable to petitioner’s assertion of immunity might succeed in a state tribunal, and (2) whether a court may compel the President’s attendance at any specific time or place. Pp. 689-692.
What they did rule is:
2. Deferral of this litigation until petitioner’s Presidency ends is not constitutionally required. Pp.692-710.
Second, our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place. We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so. [14]14 Although Presidents have responded to written interrogatories, given depositions, and provided videotaped trial testimony, see infra, at 704705, no sitting President has ever testified, or been ordered to testify, in open court.
First, because the claim of immunity is asserted in a federal court and relies heavily on the doctrine of separation of powers that restrains each of the three branches of the Federal Government from encroaching on the domain of the other two, see, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 122 (1976) (per curiam), it is not necessary to consider or decide whether a comparable claim might succeed in a state tribunal. If this case were being heard in a state forum, instead of advancing a separation-of-powers argument, petitioner would presumably rely on federalism and comity concerns, 13 as well as the interest in protecting federal officials from possible local prejudice that underlies the authority to remove certain cases brought against federal officers from a state to a federal court, see 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a); Mesa v. California, 489 U. S. 121, 125-126 (1989). Whether those concerns would present a more compelling case for immunity is a question that is not before us.
13 Because the Supremacy Clause makes federal law “the supreme Law of the Land,” Art. VI, cl. 2, any direct control by a state court over the President, who has principal responsibility to ensure that those laws are “faithfully executed,” Art. II, § 3, may implicate concerns that are quite different from the interbranch separation-of-powers questions addressed here.Cf., e. g., Hancock v. Train, 426 U. S. 167, 178-179 (1976); Mayo v. United States, 319 U. S. 441, 445 (1943). See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 513 (2d ed. 1988) (“[A]bsent explicit congressional consent no state may command federal officials … to take action in derogation of their … federal responsibilities”).
Woodman v. Corsi
Dr Conspiracy reports that Jerome Corsi has agreed to finally debate Woodman
This will be on Mark Gillar’s Tea Party Power Hour Blog Talk Radio programtomorrow, Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 3 PM Eastern Standard Time (9 AM at Barack Obama’s birthplace).
Follow the story on author John Woodman’s web site.
Birthersummit warns – HAS ORLY ACTUALLY WON!!! WON!!! WON???
Dean is spoiling Orly’s party but he has some good observations
Source: BirtherSummit
This is one of the issues I have already discussed—that everything from Orly seems to come with her own flavor of spin. And then, once the spin has been made, it is blindly believed by people (who just want so badly for it to be true), and it starts getting posted around the internet. Problem is, when it turns out that it wasn’t entirely true, the only recourse Orly has is to scream “corruption!”
Let me make a couple points to try to put this into context. First, because the first response to “birthers” by many in this country is simply to blow us off as conspiracy theorists, Michael Jablonski submitted a sloppy, weak Motion to Quash. I’m sure he thought it would suffice with the judge—since the opposition were birthers; however, Judge Malihi obviously regards his role and the legal process much more seriously than that. And, because I’m sure he wants to make certain that, at the end of these HEARINGS (not trials), there is nothing that could be viewed as procedurally improper, he’s not going to grant the professional attorney involved any special favors. He will hold somebody accountable to understand the law, and I’ll leave it up to you to figure out whom that might be.
Here’s what will probably happen: after Jablonski recovers from his blanket party, he will likely file an amended Motion to Quash; and it will probably be one of the most thorough Motions to Quash in the history of Motions to Quash, and Judge Malihi will probably grant that motion.
In the unlikelihood that Judge Malihi does not grant his amended Motion to Quash, there is something that is virtually guaranteed to happen: Obama not showing up to an administrative law hearing in the state of Georgia. Jablonski would appear on his behalf, and present a certified “birth certificate” and proof of residency for the past 14 years. As the certified “birth certificate” will be considered self-verifying by the court, nothing Orly will say will sway it. And remember, the end result of this hearing is a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary of State. So, no, Obama will not be handcuffed in Atlanta next week (he won’t even be there).
GA – Farrar v Obama – Emergency Request for Letters Rogatory
Finally, Orly seems to have learned how to properly proceed. But she still does not really follow the rules. Good that Orly has been following the Fogbow 
Why she wants to subpoena the records that will establish Obama’s birth on US soil is beyond me. Is it not funny that if she had done this in time, she would not have faced the unlikely scenario that the Courts will make their determination in time… What a major fail… She could have saved herself so much embarrassment… But that’s perhaps not the ‘Orly way’
PS: Orly claims that she “served the plaintiff on 01.20.2012 by and through his counsel Michael Jablonski”. My goodness sakes, President Obama is now the plaintiff?… Sloppy sloppy
Plaintiffs herein respectfully request letters rogatory and commission from Honorable judge Malihi to Honorable judge Rhonda Nishimura if the First Circuit court of the state of HI to order director of Health Loretta Fuddy to appear at the January 26, 2012 hearing in Farrar v Obama and produce a book of birth records with the original birth certificate of Mr. Barack Obama, as well as corresponding microfiche film.
IL – Meroni v Obama – Hearing dates
The State Officers Electoral Board will call the cases on January 24th at 11:00 a.m. Another meeting will be held on February 2 in the late morning for full hearing before the Board. An exact time has not yet been set.
GA – Swensson-Powell v Obama – Notice to Produce
Swensson et al must have gotten cold feet relying on their two-citizen parents complaint and are now forcing the President to attend with all his records. ROTL
AL – Farrar v Obama – Motion to squash denied
Now this is interesting. Orly thinks that she has won. Won what though? In the mean time, did the Judge invite Jablonksi, Obama’s lawyer, to file an amended motion to quash?
However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority.
CA – Noonan v Bowen – Complaint
Keyes v Bowen will surely be a nice precedent to be cited… ROTFL, thanks to Orly and Kreep…
A legal complaint was served on Obama for America (California) and the California Secretary of State Debra Bowen late Tuesday to keep British-born Barack Obama off the ballot for the Office of the President, because he does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a U.S. Natural Born citizen according to the Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett. The legal action was filed Jan. 6 in Sacramento Superior Court by a group of 7 ad hoc registered voters including an American Independent Party candidate for President.
The Writ requests a temporary restraining order of Respondent Debra Bowen (SOS) to bar Obama on the Democratic Party ballot in the primary and/or General Election until the matter of eligibility and ballot access for Respondent Obama is heard. The Writ also requested a temporary restraining order against Respondent Obama and or his agents associated with the Obama for America California from further fundraising in California until further notice by the court. A final demand was for a permanent Injunction against Respondent Obama and Respondent SOS as to Respondent Obama’s ineligibility, barring him from ballot access.
One of the seven California Petitioners is Edward C. Noonan of Olivehurst, Yuba County, CA. He is currently a 2012 Presidential candidate for the American Independent Party.
The other six California petitioners are Pamela Barnett (Director of ObamaBallotChallenge.com), Sharon Chickering, George Miller, Tony Dolz, Neil Turner, and Gary Wilmott. All seven petitioners are affirmed as Ad Hoc registered voters of California, each self represented without an attorney.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356
Borderraven argued that the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark required the parents to be permanently domiciled in the United States but the Court’s references do not lead to such a narrow interpretation. Remember that the requirement is ‘subject to jurisdiction’ and the Court referenced Yick Wo v Hopkins to observe that those who are resident (temporarily or permanently) are entitled to the protection of our Laws and thus ‘subject to our Jurisdiction’
Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are ” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356; Law Ow Bew v. United States144 U.S. 47, 61, 62; Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), 149 U.S. 698, 724;Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1893), 158 U.S. 538, 547; Wong Wing v. United States (1896), 163 U.S. 228, 238.
Miller v. Albright, 523 US 420 – Supreme Court 1998
The majority opinion observes that:
There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v.Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the 424*424 jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
I recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace, jus soli. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S., at 828; see also Weedin v. Chin Bow,274 U. S. 657, 669-671 (1927) (citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 674 (1898), and id., at 714 (Fuller, C. J., dissenting)). That lesser role reflects the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not mention statutes that might confer citizenship “at birth” to children of Americans 479*479 born abroad. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1 (stating that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens”). But that omission, though it may give Congress the power to decide whether or not to extend citizenship to children born outside the United States, see Rogers v. Bellei, supra, at 835, does not justify more lenient “equal protection” review of statutes that embody a congressional decision to do so.
AL – Sorensen v Kennedy –
The Fogbow reports on the latest developments where Sorensen, after the hearing where he was informed that the defendant would not collect fees and cost if Sorensen behaved himself, may have violated the agreement
Fleet Admiral Ragsdale reported that the letter was faxed to Chairman Kennedy well after the hearing. Whether merely sending the letter is enough to cause the Alabama Democratic Party to re-think it’s position on sanctions is the subject of some discussion.
AL – Sorensen v Kennedy – Transcript
Ragsdale: I agree with you, I don’t think it’s right. This is the second time you filed a lawsuit challenging the President’s qualifications, second time it’s been dismissed. I know you have been in communication with the other plaintiffs that have brought these lawsuits. This needs to stop, Mr. Sorensen. It needs to stop today. I wish you had a lawyer but in some ways I’m glad you do not because if a lawyer would have filed the motion to recuse that you filed, he and I would have more than words. Judge, that was scandalous. It was uncalled for. You owe this Court an apology.
GA – Farrar et al v Obama – Touhy request denied
Orly’s subpoena of a federal employee is not going too well…
I shared your Touhy request below with Deputy Inspector General Gerry Roy. He considered it and has decided to deny the request. The request does not address the required matters listed in 45 CFR Sec. 2.4. In particular, the request does not explain why the information sought is not available elsewhere and why the testimony would be in the interest of OIG, HHS, or the Federal government. To the extent that the testimony you are seeking is – despite what is described in the subpoena served on SAC Jackson – limited to authenticating the OIG report on birth certificate fraud which you forwarded to me, I would note that agency documents are self-authenticating under the Federal Rules. It is my understanding that the Georgia Administrative Rules of Procedure Sec. 616-1-2-.18 similarly provide for the self-authentication of agency documents. As such, because the OIG report is a document of this agency, testimony may not be required in this instance. If you require that this denial be in formal correspondence with the signature of the Deputy Inspector General, let me know and I will see that you receive it. Finally, please confirm, having received this decision from OIG, that you release SAC Jackson from any obligation under State law to appear at the time and on the date indicated on the subpoena.
Taitz v Fuddy – Orly’s confusion continues
Orly
she was served by certified mail, e-mail and fax, she admitted at the hearing that she was served, when she said that the subpoena with the latter motion is different from the prior as the first one stated date of trial 01.16 and the second one stated 01.26. The judge postponed the hearing from 16th to 26, but she admitted on camera that she was served with both. Real Einstein.
Being served is one thing, having been served properly, another one.
Taitz v Fuddy – Reply to Opposition to Reciprocal Subpoena enforcement
Orly’s motion that she read to the Court during her last hearing.
Recent Comments