CAN OBAMA BE ARRESTED FOR IDENTITY FRAUD BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?

Brian Kemp to Barack Obama’s attorney: Skip ballot hearing ‘at your own peril’

9:38 am January 26, 2012, by jgalloway

Below is the full text of the letter from President Barack Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta, declaring that he will no longer participate in administrative court hearings on a challenge to Obama’s spot on Georgia’s presidential primary ballot.

In essence, Jablonski is putting the onus on Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican, to intervene and bring a halt to the circus. Jablonski includes a copy of Obama’s live birth certificate.

Click here to read Kemp’s reply to Jablonksi, which was also released this morning.It includes this line: “If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the …proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Jablonski’s letter:

January 25, 2012

Hon. Brian P. Kemp

Georgia Secretary of State

214 State Capitol

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

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.

obamabirthcertificate

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.

[Signature of Michael Jablonski]

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

Source: http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/01/26/brian-kemp-to-barack-obamas-attorney-skip-ballot-hearing-at-your-own-peril/

BY LINDA BENTLEY | JANUARY 25, 2012

Watch Obama ballot challenge hearing live on streaming video

http://www.art2superpac.com/

Placing the burden of proof with Obama will assure he will necessarily put up his case for eligibility, or else be stricken from the Georgia ballot

The Article II Political Action Committee (ArtIIPAC) received permission last week from the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings to provide live streaming video coverage of three cases that will be heard by Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi (r), the first cases to address whether President Barack Obama’s is constitutionally eligible to appear on the Georgia primary ballot.

Streaming video with gavel to gavel coverage of three cases will begin at 7 a.m. Arizona time (9 a.m. EST) on Thursday, Jan. 26 at www.art2superpac.com.

ArtIIPAC Director Helen Tansey described the event as “The hearing of the century for the (alleged) crime of the century,” referring to the “breathtaking implications” that an illegal president could be occupying the White House or appearing on the presidential ballot.

The three cases being heard will begin with Attorney Van Irion, representing plaintiff David Welden; then Attorney J. Mark Hatfield, representing plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin Powell; and finally Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., representing plaintiffs David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas McClaren and Lauri Roth.

On Dec. 15, Obama’s Attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to dismiss all three of the challenges to Obama’s qualifications for office.

On Jan. 3, Malihi denied his motion to dismiss, stating Georgia law requires candidates for federal office to meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought and the plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for the defendant, timely filed challenges with the secretary of state before the Nov. 29, 2011 deadline.

While Malihi denied Taitz’s motion to take depositions, he also denied Obama’s motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the Jan. 26 hearing.

Jablonski argued the subpoena, if enforced, would require Obama to “interrupt duties as President of the United States” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Ga.

Malihi responded, “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 cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.”

On Jan. 19, Hatfield filed a motion for determination of placement of burden of proof, asking the court to make that determination prior to the Jan. 26 hearing.

Malihi ordered Jablonski to respond by noon on Jan. 23.

The procedures of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings require the burden of proof to be placed upon the agency, in this case the secretary of state’s office (SOS).

But, because the SOS was only involved as a matter of procedure, Hatfield was requesting that the court properly place the burden of proof to lie either with the plaintiffs (i.e., to prove the defendant ineligible) or with the defendant (i.e., to prove himself eligible).

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states, in pertinent part, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President …”

Hatfield argued Georgia statute requires “Every candidate for federal … office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

Citing Haynes v. Wells, Hatfield said the entire burden of proof is placed upon defendant “to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office,” and stated, “Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell are not required, and should not be required, ‘to disprove anything regarding [Defendant Obama’s] eligibility to run for office …’”

Referring to Jablonski’s argument in his motion to quash in Taitz’s challenge, Hatfield said he seemed “to somehow be contending that the fact defendant Obama currently occupies the presidency is, in itself, evidence of defendant Obama’s constitutional eligibility to that office.”

“On the contrary,” wrote Hatfield, citing Malone v. Minchew, "there is [no] presumption, at least not a conclusive presumption, that a person named or appointed to an office ... was eligible and qualified to hold the office. Such qualification or eligibility depends upon facts which, when challenged and drawn in question in a proper judicial proceeding, is a judicial question to be determined by the courts."

Hatfield also argued “basic fairness” would dictate the burden of proof should rest upon the individual seeking to qualify for the office being sought, not plaintiffs being placed in a position of trying to “prove a negative.”

Considering “[a]ll of the facts and evidence that one would naturally assume would be supportive of defendant's eligibility for office are in the possession and control of the defendant. Defendant should not be permitted to 'back his way into office' by withholding testimony and evidence which are necessary to a judicial determination of whether he is actually eligible to serve,” Hatfield said placing the burden of proof with Obama will assure he will necessarily put up his case for eligibility, or else be stricken from the Georgia ballot.

These three eligibility cases are the first to address Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president.

Ballot eligibility challenges are also pending in other states, including Arizona, in an attempt to prevent Obama from appearing on the ballot in those states.

Source: http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120125/frontpage-Obama.html

Georgia Judge Orders Obama to Appear in Court

Posted on Sun, Jan. 22, 2012

Georgia judge orders Obama to appear in Atlanta court

By CHUCK WILLIAMS, Ledger-Enquirer.com

A Georgia judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta Thursday for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.

Orly Taitz, the California attorney who brought the legal challenge to Obama’s name on the March Georgia presidential primary ballot, says this is what she has been working for over the last three years.

“This will be 100 times bigger than Watergate,” she said Saturday morning, referring to the scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974.

“There are high ranking judges and federal officials who are involved in this cover up. The ramifications of this trial will be enormous.”

Taitz said she expects the president’s legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court.

“But he’s in a catch-22,” she said. “If he is appealing this decision, then he looks guilty. The whole nation understands this man is a fraud.”

Taitz has led the “Birther” movement that insists Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. She is also familiar to Georgia courts.

Taitz represented two soldiers in U.S. District Court in Columbus who sought to avoid deployment by arguing Obama wasn’t the commander-in-chief because he wasn’t eligible to be president.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/01/23/georgia-judge-orders-obama-appear-court#ixzz1kJ0FO2qO

Source: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/01/23/georgia-judge-orders-obama-appear-court