Obummers attorney's letter to the court

[divemaster5734]

Here is a copy of the letter barry's lawyer sent to the court for tomorrows hearing.

What kicks my butt is they don't even address the core issue, they simply act like they expect the judge to dismiss everything and they are just going to be patient and wait until he does.

WHAT FREAKING ARROGANCE!!!!

Here's the letter,

if you just ate you might not want to read it, it could make you toss your cookies...

Letter from Obama’s Georgia Lawyer Regarding Court Tomorrow

Posted on January 25, 2012

MICHAEL JABLONSKI

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

260 BRIGHTON ROAD, NE

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309

404.290.2977

815.846.0719 (fax)

michael.jablonski@comcast.net

___________________________

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 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

Man, so much for giving a crap about Americans.

[divemaster5734]

Just found the Judges response.

Heh, that guy is a hero.

finally, someone is standing up to the corruption.

214 State Capitol

●

Atlanta, Georgia

●

30334

●

(404) 656-2881

●

(404) 656-0513 Fax www.sos.state.ga.us

The Office of Secretary of State

January 25, 2012

VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

Michael Jablonski260 Brighton Road, NEAtlanta, Georgia 30309michael.jablonski@comcast.com

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of StateAdministrative Hearings ("OSAH") has handled the candidate challenges involving your client andadvising me that you and your client will "suspend" participation in the administrative proceeding. WhileI regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative 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 thereferring agency, the Secretary of State's Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearingsscheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, Ido 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 judgeto report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of thereport, 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 myreview of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in theOSAH 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 thismatter.Sincerely,Brian P. Kempcc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal - kbeal@osah.ga.gov)Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com

[Abarvets]

WOW.

[pattyangel]

Well I just lost my cookies....

Just like any American, if we were summon to show for Court we would have to abide by the law.

Not being present just makes him looks...I just can't say it, its not very nice.

Now I wouldn't call that a leader, maybe more of person trying to hide when an issue comes up.

I like this Judge :D Hope he stands firm.

[Redwizard]

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.

If the Judge has any balls he will say "bite me" and have the hearing. But every Judge in the past that has tried this, has retired before the hearing and the hearing was dropped. Big money will always win, just buy yourself out of trouble. Dont you wish we could write a letter to the judge and tell him/her to "forget it"

I know the Barry lovers here will (-) me, that is ok, I can live with that.

[Markinsa]

Looks like someone has to take a plane ride!

-

[littlefeet]

Way to go Judge!!!!!!!!!! might get a little sticky for him......need to keep an eye on this..............

He'll be retiring South of the Border REAL SOON...........

[Redwizard]

Way to go Judge!!!!!!!!!! might get a little sticky for him......need to keep an eye on this..............

He'll be retiring South of the Border REAL SOON...........

Littlefeet, I have to agree

[wpsmit]

And if he fails to show a bench warrant should be in order. Go my fellow Georgian. Show the country your cajones.

[DinarMillionaire]

I absolutely pray this Judge doesn't back down. Obama has to be afraid of something. That's why he does the legal system shuck and jive.

What gets me is, McCain had to be put through the Constitutional eligibility ringer. Why not Obama. He has not proven anything, yet. All he has done is duck, dodge and weave.

More people than just the ones that are filing the lawsuits want a definitive answer. And, we , the American people, deserve one.

Edited January 26, 2012 by DinarMillionaire

[sportfisher]

I absolutely pray this Judge doesn't back down. Obama has to be afraid of something. That's why he does the legal system shuck and jive.

What gets me is, McCain had to be put through the Constitutional eligibility ringer. Why not Obama. He has not proven anything, yet. All he has done is duck, dodge and weave.

More people than just the ones that are filing the lawsuits want a definitive answer. And, we , the American people, deserve one.

AMEN!

[primalnick]

Rest assured however this ends it will be appealed. That may well be where it could get interesting. One hypothesis is that Obama or his attorney will not show on purpose thereby most likely losing by summary judgment. It seems (I could be wrong) they will then appeal this to the US Supreme Court, and well, we can guess how that will likely turn out. If your in favor of Obama being outed then it is best to hope the Judge does not in fact do this, but chooses to further investigate eligibility using his own authority. There is no telling what that could or could not uncover.

I am impressed that this State Judge has the cojones to go forward with this. That tells me one of two things might be likely:

1. There is some merit or interest to the arguments

or

2. He has a nice pile of cash to retire on somewhere

I truly believe, we as Americans have the right to uncover any truths or lies, and they should be investigated.

One MAJOR disappointment is the fact that almost zero media attention has been given to this subject. I mean we are talking about a sitting President being possibly denied to have their name on the ballot. This is potentially a ground breaking case and possibly the case of the millennia. Wouldn't that, or shouldn't that be headline news? Isn't that a little more important than sinking cruise ships or weather?

[yota691]

Rest assured however this ends it will be appealed. That may well be where it could get interesting. One hypothesis is that Obama or his attorney will not show on purpose thereby most likely losing by summary judgment. It seems (I could be wrong) they will then appeal this to the US Supreme Court, and well, we can guess how that will likely turn out. If your in favor of Obama being outed then it is best to hope the Judge does not in fact do this, but chooses to further investigate eligibility using his own authority. There is no telling what that could or could not uncover.

I am impressed that this State Judge has the cojones to go forward with this. That tells me one of two things might be likely:

1. There is some merit or interest to the arguments

or

2. He has a nice pile of cash to retire on somewhere

I truly believe, we as Americans have the right to uncover any truths or lies, and they should be investigated.

One MAJOR disappointment is the fact that almost zero media attention has been given to this subject. I mean we are talking about a sitting President being possibly denied to have their name on the ballot. This is potentially a ground breaking case and possibly the case of the millennia. Wouldn't that, or shouldn't that be headline news? Isn't that a little more important than sinking cruise ships or weather?

I called my local talk radio station an they didn't even wanna talk about it on the Air, Then I called one of the big boy station an talk to the lady an beg her to broadcast it. Never heard them talk about it.

[Redwizard]

And since the supreme court is picked by the president and ok'd by the senate, I think the cards will be stacked. Like I said earlier in the post, people cant touch him. What a damn shame!!