Have Obama campaign Attorneys given “Birthers” a foot in the door? January 26, 2012 By Staffwriter Have attorneys for Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign given “birthers” a foot in the door to challenge Obama’s eligibility to be President in of all places Georgia? It might look that way at first glance, but one has to consider what self proclaimed queen of the “birther” movement, Orly Taitz filed with Judge Michael Malihi during a hearing before the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings today in Atlanta. It is extremely important to point out that what is taking place in Georgia has NO effect on Obama’s currently holding the office of President, as the challenges in Georgia are made by Georgia voters who challenge Obama’s eligibility to be on Georgia’s 2012 primary ballot. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined. Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot. read more HERE We question what Orly Taitz filed with the court today for a reason, Ms. Taitz has a long documented history of filing fraudulent documents with both Federal and State Courts in her efforts to prove Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” as defined by the US Constitution. Ms. Taitz had documents filed with the United States District Court in the District of Columbia stricken from the record by the Courts Chief Judge. The Judge pointed out the documents filed by Taitz clearly were obtained through fraudulent and unlawful means. US District Court Judge Calls Taitz On Fraudulently Obtained Documents If Taitz went into the Georgia Administrative Hearings court and filed fraudulent documents representing them to be authentic as she has done in multiple courts across the country then she will have effectively destroyed any chance at all the citizens of Georgia would have had to challenge Obama’s eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot. Yet for now it appears that the actions of the Obama campaign attorney has given the citizens of Georgia a slim chance of making their case. Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp (left), notified Obama for America attorney refusal of the Obama campaign to participate in the hearing set before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings today would be at Obama’s own peril. Obama attorney Michael Jablonski sent a letter to Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp on January 25, 2012 demanding the SOS withdraw its original referral to the Office of State Administrative Hearings of challenges filed by a number of Georgia citizens challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot. In the letter Mr. Jablonski told the SOS the State of Georgia basically had no authority to determine Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the states ballot. 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 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) Georgia Secretary of State Kemp responded to Mr. Jablonski yesterday with the following: VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL Michael Jablonski 260 Brighton Road, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 michael.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 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 Georgia Secretary of State It is important to remind readers we have always held the position that a “definition” as to the “natural born citizen” phrase of the US Constitution is going to have to be made sooner or later. It will come up in the future and in some circles has already been mention as the reason why Sen. Marco Rubio will not be able to run for President. Perhaps the Georgia citizens who brought the challenge over Obama’s eligibility have been able to keep Taitz in line but from personal experiences of some here at LS News we seriously doubt it. Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the man never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of junior’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom. His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.” The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1975 Supreme Court opinion that states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.” The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling. Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo. He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient. “That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.” While some attorneys in the case presented exactly what the Court must consider in defining “natural born citizen,” the same report of the testimony given in the Atlanta hearing makes clear Taitz has continued to present documents and illegally obtained e Verify documents which have been thrown out of every other Court Taitz has brought complaints in challenging Obama’s eligibility to be present. Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenship’s, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah. She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number. Regardless of what any ones personal beliefs are on the eligibility issue as to Barack Obama being President, one thing is certain, the United States Supreme Court or Congress is going to eventually have to define the meaning of “natural born citizen” as it relates to the present time.
