Obama issues last-minute plea to halt Jan. 26 ballot-eligibility hearing in GA court

[Little-Acorn]

I have long predicted that these charges (ineligibility) would be unprovable, if for no other reason than Obama completely controls all possible documented "proof" and opposing attorneys would be unable to produce enough data to compel a trial.

And that it was likely that documents establishing Obama's eligibility WERE available.

And that Obama was likely to play with his opponents' heads for a very long period of time, refusing to produce the documents, forcing them to waste their time and resources for months or even years. And if it ever DID get to a court where a judge actually issued a formal order for him to produce them, he (or his attorney) would wait till the very last minute, then walk into the courtroom, lay the authenticated documents on the table, and walk out laughing, leaving his opponents stewing in their juices.

Well, it has played out pretty much as I predicted. Suit after suit has been dismissed, not on grounds of frivolity, but on grounds of "insufficient evidence", or "lack of standing", or "lack of identifiable harm to the private plaintiff even if true", etc. In other words, on a host of legal technicalities skirting the issues, that even Bill Clinton could admire.

And now a real judge has finally issued a real order for Obama to produce the documents. My prediction was, now is finally the time for him to walk in, drop them on the table, and walk out laughing.

So... why this sudden, last-minute plea to call the whole thing off? It strikes a jarring note.

----------------------------------------------

http://georgiaslate.com/democrats-to-boycott-effort-to-remove-barack-obama-from-georgia-ballot.html

Democrats to boycott effort to remove Barack Obama from Georgia ballot

by Jim Galloway, Political Insider
6:35 pm January 25, 2012, by jgalloway

Democrats, including the attorney representing President Barack Obama, have made a last-minute decision to boycott the Thursday hearing to consider a “birther” effort to remove Obama from the March 6 presidential primary ballot.

“They can tilt at windmills on their own,” said state Democratic spokesman Eric Gray on Wednesday night.

Last week, in a surprise ruling, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse on a challenge to strike him from the Georgia ballot this fall on claims he is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Read more background here from my AJC colleague Bill Rankin.

Among tomorrow’s no-shows will be Michael Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney serving as counsel to Obama. He’s written a letter to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican, asking him to intervene and bring the circus to a halt.

Among those pressing the action is state Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross. But many ranking Republicans are doing their best to keep their distance.

Here’s the statement just released by Mike Berlon, chairman of the state Democratic party:

----------------------------------------------
“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.

“This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.

“In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.

“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.

“In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases. Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”
--------------------------------------------------

Letter sent by Mihael Jablonski, President Obama's lawyer in Georgia:

--------------------------------------------------


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.



(Full text of the letter can be read at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30746)

[ConHog]

I have long predicted that these charges (ineligibility) would be unprovable, if for no other reason than Obama completely controls all possible documented "proof" and opposing attorneys would be unable to produce enough data to compel a trial.

And that it was likely that documents establishing Obama's eligibility WERE available.

And that Obama was likely to play with his opponents' heads for a very long period of time, refusing to produce the documents, forcing them to waste their time and resources for months or even years. And if it ever DID get to a court where a judge actually issued a formal order for him to produce them, he (or his attorney) would wait till the very last minute, then walk into the courtroom, lay the authenticated documents on the table, and walk out laughing, leaving his opponents stewing in their juices.

Well, it has played out pretty much as I predicted. Suit after suit has been dismissed, not on grounds of frivolity, but on grounds of "insufficient evidence", or "lack of standing", or "lack of identifiable harm to the private plaintiff even if true", etc. In other words, on a host of legal technicalities skirting the issues, that even Bill Clinton could admire.

And now a real judge has finally issued a real order for Obama to produce the documents. My prediction was, now is finally the time for him to walk in, drop them on the table, and walk out laughing.

So... why this sudden, last-minute plea to call the whole thing off? It strikes a jarring note.

----------------------------------------------

http://georgiaslate.com/democrats-to-boycott-effort-to-remove-barack-obama-from-georgia-ballot.html

Democrats to boycott effort to remove Barack Obama from Georgia ballot

by Jim Galloway, Political Insider
6:35 pm January 25, 2012, by jgalloway

Democrats, including the attorney representing President Barack Obama, have made a last-minute decision to boycott the Thursday hearing to consider a “birther” effort to remove Obama from the March 6 presidential primary ballot.

“They can tilt at windmills on their own,” said state Democratic spokesman Eric Gray on Wednesday night.

Last week, in a surprise ruling, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse on a challenge to strike him from the Georgia ballot this fall on claims he is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Read more background here from my AJC colleague Bill Rankin.

Among tomorrow’s no-shows will be Michael Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney serving as counsel to Obama. He’s written a letter to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican, asking him to intervene and bring the circus to a halt.

Among those pressing the action is state Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross. But many ranking Republicans are doing their best to keep their distance.

Here’s the statement just released by Mike Berlon, chairman of the state Democratic party:

----------------------------------------------
“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.

“This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.

“In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.

“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.

“In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases. Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”
--------------------------------------------------

Letter sent by Mihael Jablonski, President Obama's lawyer in Georgia:

--------------------------------------------------


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.



(Full text of the letter can be read at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30746)


Umm, okay surely they realize the court can simply rule in favor of one party if the other party doesn't even show up, but MORE importantly I found this sentence interesting........


We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.


Well sir, you're wrong. Each political party MUST confine their candidates to those who meet the requirements as set forth by the COTUS.

And I think this entire thing is bullshit, but boycotting a court hearing and declaring you can do whatever you want is just as wrong.

[Little-Acorn]

boycotting a court hearing and declaring you can do whatever you want is just as wrong.

In last night's SOTU address, Obama said he wanted a government where everybody plays by the same rules. "No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs" were his exact words.

And now he says neither he NOR HIS ATTORNEYS will obey the subpoena issued by the Georgia judge?

What would happen to you or me, if we refused to obey a subpoena issued by a state Judge?

When, exactly, did Obama mean this "playing by the same rules" was going to start? Not tomorrow, apparently.

[ConHog]

In last night's SOTU address, Obama said he wanted a government where everybody plays by the same rules. "No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs" were his exact words.

And now he says neither he NOR HIS ATTORNEYS will obey the subpoena issued by the Georgia judge?

What would happen to you or me, if we refused to obey a subpoena issued by a state Judge?

When, exactly, did Obama mean this "playing by the same rules" was going to start? Not tomorrow, apparently.

did you buy that shit last night? Remember this is the same jerk that last year told us all we needed to tighten our belts and then turned right around and sent his gorilla on a SECOND European tour financed by US in a year's time.

[Little-Acorn]

Uh-oh. Looks like the Georgia Secretary of State turned down Obama's request to cancel tomorrow's hearing.

And check out the last sentence in the third paragraph: "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

Could the last usage of the word "your", be in the plural?

The Georgia SecState just might be getting a call from the Secret Service....?

------------------------------------------------

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79405341/Obama-s-Attorney-Jaberwoki-Slapped-Down-By-Georgia-SOS-1-25-2012

Office of the Secretary of State
Brian P. Kemp
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 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

[ConHog]

Uh-oh. Looks like the Georgia Secretary of State turned down Obama's request to cancel tomorrow's hearing.

And check out the last sentence in the third paragraph: "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

Could the last usage of the word "your", be in the plural?

The Georgia SecState just might be getting a call from the Secret Service....?

------------------------------------------------

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79405341/Obama-s-Attorney-Jaberwoki-Slapped-Down-By-Georgia-SOS-1-25-2012

Office of the Secretary of State
Brian P. Kemp
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 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


No, it's just a hearing, Obama himself isn't required to be and can't be compelled to attend. His attorney of record however better be there.

[Gaffer]

I'm not as concerned about his birth certificate as I am about his numerous social security numbers, college funding, numerous alias, drug use and or sales, things like that.

[ConHog]

I'm not as concerned about his birth certificate as I am about his numerous social security numbers, college funding, numerous alias, drug use and or sales, things like that.

Pretty sure the statute of limitations is up on anything he may have done so what is the point now other than to embarass him politically? You can't really believe the Dems are going to remove him from the ticket?

I say let him keep it all secret it will just further convince voters that he thinks he's above them.

[Little-Acorn]

You can't really believe the Dems are going to remove him from the ticket?
No, the voters are, this November. IF they know the truth about him. Truth is never good for Democrats.


I say let him keep it all secret it will just further convince voters that he thinks he's above them.
It was already being kept secret in 2008. How's that working out for you?

[Little-Acorn]

Well, I predicted earlier that Obama's lawyer(s) would walk into a hearing like this one, drop the documents being sought on the table, and walk out laughing.

Any news from the hearing? Did Obama's lawyer(s) show? What did they do, and what dids the judge say?

Anyone know?

[Little-Acorn]

The following article just appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

It says that no ruling was issued.

Does that mean that no ruling will be issued in the future too?

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html

No ruling in ‘birther' challenge

by Bill Rankin
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.

Insider: Kemp warns Obama attorney skip hearing ‘at your own peril’

Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing.

"It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.

"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied.

Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote.

Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.

In response, Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril," Kemp wrote.

Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge.

.

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/dynamic/01269/012712birther_ba01_1269319c.jpg
Bob Andres, bandres@ajc.com Around the Plaintiff's table Kevin Powell (from left), Thomas Hatfield, Carl Swensson, John Sampson, and Mark Hatfield greeted each other before the hearing. The plaintiffs contend President Obama is not a natural-born citizen and not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot.

.

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/dynamic/01269/012712birther_ba02_1269318c.jpg
Bob Andres, bandres@ajc.com The defendant's side was empty as the Obama camp decided to boycott the hearing.

[fj1200]

Stupid.

[gabosaurus]

Why is this still an issue? The whole "birther" thing has been debunked multiple times. Even the Republican majority wants to move past it. The only people still on the "birther" train are radical right-wing hardliners who still have their heads buried in the sand.

[Little-Acorn]

Why is this still an issue? The whole "birther" thing has been debunked multiple times. Even the Republican majority wants to move past it. The only people still on the "birther" train are radical right-wing hardliners who still have their heads buried in the sand.

Well, that takes care of the Oh-my-gawd-please-don't talk-about-this faction. :D

[Little-Acorn]

Several different accounts of what went on at the hearing, from people who were in the courtroom:

(presented under Fair Use)

--------------------------------------------

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html

(written by Carl Swensson)

UPDATE: From Plaintiff, in one of the Georgia challenges, Carl Swensson: To all my friends in battle,

The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. ..... ......

Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment. - Carl

----------------------------------------------

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html

(written by Dean Haskins)

Update: Obama's Georgia Ballot Hearing: Judge Wanted To
Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama
Dean Haskins on the Scene at Hearing

As we are trying to get a quick lunch, and then do some interviews, this is just a very brief synopsis of what happened today. Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. At that point, Irion estimated he would need 20 minutes, Hatfield estimated he would need 30 minutes, and Taitz estimated she would need 2 hours.

Van Irion and Mark Hatfield made their arguments, and left. Taitz then presented her argument, calling several witnesses, until the judge asked her to make her closing statement. As her closing statement began, the judge asked if she was testifying, and, in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand to testify. The judge finally asked her just to make her closing statement, which she did.

We believe that the default judgment automatically translates into the judge's recommendation to the Sec. Of State being that Obama should not appear on the ballot in Georgia.

Back to work . . . more to come!

--------------------------------------------------

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/obama-challenge-hearing-gavel-to-gavel-live-video-stream-coverage-from-atlanta-ga/

(written by Cdr. Charles Kerchner (Ret.))

Obama Ballot Access Challenge Hearing – Gavel to Gavel Live Video Stream Coverage from Atlanta GA

Update 12:45 pm : Based on watching the live feed. Obama’s attorney was a no show. Hearing was conducted without him. At least one of the attorney’s pointed out to the judge that Obama’s attorney not showing up was showing contempt to the court and to the entire judicial system. There was a short private meeting in the Judge’s chambers prior to the start of the hearing. The hearing ended after about two hours of presentation by the various lawyers for the plaintiff’s side including getting testimony from witnesses and presenting the court exhibits and Supreme Court case law covering the issue of natural born Citizenship and that Obama is not “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus is not eligible to be on the GA ballot. Atty Taitz also introduced evidence and witness testimony regarding Obama’s identity fraud activities regarding the Connecticut SSN and the forged online birth certificate. The judge is allowing some additional time for the both sides to submit written briefs to him before he makes his decision. As I understand it, he will decide the outcome sometime in early February. More details will be posted as additional information is provided by those who physically attended the hearing.

Update 1:05 pm: Per telecon between G Wilmott and Dean Haskins which was relayed to me. Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama’s name not be on the Georgia ballot! All the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed. How does the mainstream media spin this? The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge’s recommendation. Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia! Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

written by Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.


Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

[fj1200]

BO should say, "screw you Georgia, I'll win without you." He won't win the state regardless and would win a PR coup.

[Little-Acorn]

BO should say, "screw you Georgia, I'll win without you." He won't win the state regardless and would win a PR coup.

If the Georgia SecState rules that Obama is not eligible and is therefore off the Georgia ballot, that opens the door for more states to do the same.

It's a long way till November.

[ConHog]

If the Georgia SecState rules that Obama is not eligible and is therefore off the Georgia ballot, that opens the door for more states to do the same.

It's a long way till November.

This case isn't going to go anywhere.

PS Thomas Jefferson's mom was born in England.

[fj1200]

If the Georgia SecState rules that Obama is not eligible and is therefore off the Georgia ballot, that opens the door for more states to do the same.

It's a long way till November.

Sure, if they pass actual laws and stuff. Not to mention surviving appeals.

[Missileman]

This case isn't going to go anywhere.

PS Thomas Jefferson's mom was born in England.

Jefferson's eligibility was "grandfathered" in by the Constitution. Show me where Obama's was.

[ConHog]

Jefferson's eligibility was "grandfathered" in by the Constitution. Show me where Obama's was.

No his eligibility wasn't grandfathered in, because the COTUS never EVER dictated that both parents must have been US citizens to qualify as POTUS. So there was nothing to grandfather in. Obama and Jefferson BOTH had to meet the exact same requirements. And have.

[Missileman]

No his eligibility wasn't grandfathered in, because the COTUS never EVER dictated that both parents must have been US citizens to qualify as POTUS. So there was nothing to grandfather in. Obama and Jefferson BOTH had to meet the exact same requirements. And have.

Would you like to wager a thousand bucks on it?

[Little-Acorn]

There's now a video accompanying the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article. No changes to the article itself, but a video has been added, a short piece apparently from a local TV news station. An OK summary, nothing earth-shaking.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html

[ConHog]

Would you like to wager a thousand bucks on it?

Here is the relevant section of the COTUS

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Where does that

A) say anything about both parents having to be US citizens
B) say ANYTHING about grandfathering in?

[Missileman]

Here is the relevant section of the COTUS

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Where does that

A) say anything about both parents having to be US citizens
B) say ANYTHING about grandfathering in?

Jefferson couldn't have been a natural-born citizen of the US...it didn't exist when he was born. Jefferson was eligible based on meeting the highlighted requirement. A different requirement than that needed by Obama. Jefferson's mother's place of birth was irrelevant to Jefferson's eligibility.

As to what does or doesn't make someone a natural-born citizen, I believe the requirements have changed over the years, and that has helped fuel the contraversy. It seems the lame-stream media is pushing the idea that it's simply born in the US. I'm sure they're drooling to elect the first "anchor-baby" Prez.

[ConHog]

Jefferson couldn't have been a natural-born citizen of the US...it didn't exist when he was born. Jefferson was eligible based on meeting the highlighted requirement. A different requirement than that needed by Obama. Jefferson's mother's place of birth was irrelevant to Jefferson's eligibility.

As to what does or doesn't make someone a natural-born citizen, I believe the requirements have changed over the years, and that has helped fuel the contraversy. It seems the lame-stream media is pushing the idea that it's simply born in the US. I'm sure they're drooling to elect the first "anchor-baby" Prez.

As is OBama's father's place of birth to Obama's eligibility.


You sqwak at TJ as an example. Hmm. Do you know Herbert Hoover's mother was born?

Or here is even a better one, do you know where BOTH of Andrew Jackson's parents were born? That's right, NEITHER of his parents were born in the US. Both born in Ireland.

James Buchanan , Chester Arthur? Oops their dads were born in Ireland to.

Guess it's only when one of their parents was born on the dark continent that you have a problem.

[logroller]

As is OBama's father's place of birth to Obama's eligibility.


You sqwak at TJ as an example. Hmm. Do you know Herbert Hoover's mother was born?

Or here is even a better one, do you know where BOTH of Andrew Jackson's parents were born? That's right, NEITHER of his parents were born in the US. Both born in Ireland.

James Buchanan , Chester Arthur? Oops their dads were born in Ireland to.

Guess it's only when one of their parents was born on the dark continent that you have a problem.

Were neither parent a citizen it might be a worthy controversy, not legally that i know of; regardless, I don't see why it would matter where the parents were born, only the pres. I assume the reasoning behind the law is that We wouldn't want a president who may have primary loyalty to another country.

Regardless, Obama's mom was a US citizen and Obama was born in the US. Case should of been dismissed

[Missileman]

As is OBama's father's place of birth to Obama's eligibility.


You sqwak at TJ as an example. Hmm. Do you know Herbert Hoover's mother was born?

Or here is even a better one, do you know where BOTH of Andrew Jackson's parents were born? That's right, NEITHER of his parents were born in the US. Both born in Ireland.

James Buchanan , Chester Arthur? Oops their dads were born in Ireland to.

Guess it's only when one of their parents was born on the dark continent that you have a problem.

YOU brought up Jefferson, I only pointed out that the COTUS had a provision that made where Jefferson's mother was born a moot point. Since we're on the subject, same applies to Jackson's parents...both of them.

How about waiting until I MAKE a racist comment before you accuse me of being a racist? I've been more than patient with your personal attacks on me but it's becoming more and more apparent that you aren't capable of civil discourse and my patience has been wasted.

[ConHog]

YOU brought up Jefferson, I only pointed out that the COTUS had a provision that made where Jefferson's mother was born a moot point. Since we're on the subject, same applies to Jackson's parents...both of them.

How about waiting until I MAKE a racist comment before you accuse me of being a racist? I've been more than patient with your personal attacks on me but it's becoming more and more apparent that you aren't capable of civil discourse and my patience has been wasted.

That wasn't a personal attack. it was a question.

If however, you felt it was an attack on your person I apologize, wasn't my intent.

[Little-Acorn]

Judge Malihi has moved up the deadline for lawyers to post their final briefs, from Feb. 5 to Feb. 1, 2012.

He has also stated that his court does not have the jurisdiction to request documents from the State of Hawaii.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79613378/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-Denying-Taitz-s-Letters-Rogatory-for-Hawaii-Documents-Related-to-Obama-1-27-2012

[Little-Acorn]

Short video of a post-hearing statement by Mark Hatfield, attorney for the plaintiffs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_kAnzbxbbFQ#

[Little-Acorn]

Transcripts for the Georgia court hearings on Jan. 26, have been released.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854011/Georgia-Farrar-et-al-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb
(46 pages)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854466/Georgia-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb
(20 pages)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb
(19 pages)

[Little-Acorn]

Today is the day the judge gave as a deadline for all parties to have their briefs etc. on file. He said that he would send his recommendation to the Georgia SecState "shortly afterward".

The SecState must make his decision in this matter pretty soon. Early Voting for Georgia's March 6 "Super Tuesday" primary election, begins on Feb. 13. And there must be time to print the ballots and distribute them to voting centers, before that.

Will Obama be on those ballots, or not?

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/elections/2012-01-23/absentee-voting-begins-georgias-super-tuesday-primary

[Little-Acorn]

A conversation that never happened:

-----------------------------------------------------

[rrrrring]

[rrrrring]

"Hello, Mr. Kemp? Secretary of State Kemp? "

"Yes, speaking."

"This is David Axelrod."

"I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage, Mr., um, Axrod."

"Sorry, sir, it's Axelrod, and I work for President Obama. I just wanted to drop you the word that we in Chicag - I mean, Washington, are very impressed with your decision to keep Mr. Obama on the Georgia ballot for the coming election. Thank you, sir."

"Umm, but, I haven't yet made any decision in that matter, Mr., um, Axelrod. I am awaiting the recommendation of the Associate Law Judge, Mr. Malihi."

"Oh, that's quite all right, Mr. Kemp. Judge Malahi just mentioned to me that he would be recommending that you keep Mr. Obama on the ballot. I just got off the phone to him, in fact. So I'm sure you won't mind my prompt consideration and thanks to you, sir, for doing so."

"Well, young man, you may have the wrong idea here. I cannot and will not make any decision on this matter before I hear from Judge Malihi myself. And from what he had mentioned last week, I had the distinct impression that he was not impressed with Mr. Obama's failure to send any representatives, or briefs, or anything else to the hearing. He had mentioned that if that did not change, he would likely enter a summary judgement against Mr. Obama. So I'm sorry, but I cannot make any decision here, before hearing Judge Malihi's recommendation based on the events at the hearing."

"Yes, Mr. Kemp, I had heard that myself. But after talking to Judge Malihi just now, we were able to come to an understanding, taking into consideration some new information I was able to provide him. So I'm sure you will be hearing favorably from him, any time now. By the way, Mr. Kemp, do you recall Janelle Fredricks, that cute girl you were so, shall we say, familiar with in High School? She is a charming conversationalist, too, and her phrasing can be quite descriptive.

"... yes, Mr. Kemp, I see you know who I mean... never seen her since high school, you say? Yes, she said that, too, until we were able to talk to her a little more. You know, it's surprising what girls like that can remeber when properly motivated.

".. 'girls like that'? Well, yes, Mr. Kemp, surely you know that she now works for the Kitten Club, an interesting place in Chicago, not far from where I live, in fact.

"....why should you care where she lives and works now, you say, thirty years after you last saw her? Well, Mr. Kemp, in light of the airline ticket receipts we happen to have here, showing a passenger with her name flew from Chicago to Atlanta eleven times just last year, staying over a full weekend each time at a hotel for which we also have receipts. Combined with certain restaurant tickets, signed in your name and handwriting, they do make an interesting story, I'm sure you would agree, wouldn't you, Mr. Kemp?

"....Now, now, Mr. Kemp, words like "hoax" and "forgery" aren't very nice. We prefer terms like "creative" and "artistic". Yes, it's really amazing what can be done with Photoshop and a medium-sized printer, isn't it? Anything from airline tickets to birth certificates to even ballots themselves, yes...."

"Oh, Mr. Kemp, how can you say such things? Of course no person with any expertise in computers, especially a disinterested person, would believe these things for even five minutes, I'm sure they would find artifacts and signs that reveal the nature of these documents. I'me very sure that no member of the general public will ever even see these documents. But tell me, Mr. Kemp, does your wife have any experience in computers?

"....I thought not. In fact, I knew she didn't. And would you call her 'disinterested'? But she does know your handwriting, doesn't she? Well, sir, so do we....

"Yes, in fact, that is exactly what he said, too. ...yes, the Tyson-Holyfield thing was a slip, but these things happen. Notice she said nothing more after that little, shall we say, faux-pas. Yes, in fact, he was from Georgia too, what an amazing coincidence....

"Now, Mr. Kemp, don't get excited. Please calm down. I'm sure we can reach a reasonable accommodation here....

"Yes, Mr. Kemp, now that you mention it, that would be very nice indeed, if you were to make such a decision. You practically read my mind, sir. My, it's nice to be able to deal with a truly intelligent man, and especially such a reasonable one.... Yes, thank you, sir. ...what? An incoming call? Yes, Mr. Kemp, that's just what I expected, too. Well, I'll take no more of your time, sir, and thank you again for the decision you made regarding Mr. Obama in this case. Yes, goodbye, sir. And please give Judge Malihi my regards."

[click]

[Little-Acorn]

Judge Malahi's secretary: Judge likely to make decision Fri evening or Mon morning

-------------------------------------------------------

http://anniefields.com/saltusa/?p=3846

No Obama GA Verdict from Malihi YET, But…

Feb 03 2012
via Patricia Walston writing for the Atlanta examiner.com

The decision of Judge Malihi regarding the eligibility of President Barack Obama to be on the Georgia Presidential Preference Primary ballot on March 6, 2012, could be sent to the office of Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp soon.

In a phone conversation with Ms. Ruff, the Judge’s secretary, she stated that her impression was that the Judge would be making his final decision; and forwarding the case on to the Secretary of State’s office as early at this evening – or Monday morning.

(snip)

Matt Carrothers, Press Secretary at the Secretary of State’s Office, stated as of noon today, they had not yet received a decision from the Judge.

(snip)

Valerie Ruff, secretary to the Judge, stated a few moments ago that the word from the Judge is that his decision is likely to be sent to the Secretary of State’s office either this evening or Monday.

[ConHog]

A conversation that never happened:

-----------------------------------------------------

[rrrrring]

[rrrrring]

"Hello, Mr. Kemp? Secretary of State Kemp? "

"Yes, speaking."

"This is David Axelrod."

"I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage, Mr., um, Axrod."

"Sorry, sir, it's Axelrod, and I work for President Obama. I just wanted to drop you the word that we in Chicag - I mean, Washington, are very impressed with your decision to keep Mr. Obama on the Georgia ballot for the coming election. Thank you, sir."

"Umm, but, I haven't yet made any decision in that matter, Mr., um, Axelrod. I am awaiting the recommendation of the Associate Law Judge, Mr. Malihi."

"Oh, that's quite all right, Mr. Kemp. Judge Malahi just mentioned to me that he would be recommending that you keep Mr. Obama on the ballot. I just got off the phone to him, in fact. So I'm sure you won't mind my prompt consideration and thanks to you, sir, for doing so."

"Well, young man, you may have the wrong idea here. I cannot and will not make any decision on this matter before I hear from Judge Malihi myself. And from what he had mentioned last week, I had the distinct impression that he was not impressed with Mr. Obama's failure to send any representatives, or briefs, or anything else to the hearing. He had mentioned that if that did not change, he would likely enter a summary judgement against Mr. Obama. So I'm sorry, but I cannot make any decision here, before hearing Judge Malihi's recommendation based on the events at the hearing."

"Yes, Mr. Kemp, I had heard that myself. But after talking to Judge Malihi just now, we were able to come to an understanding, taking into consideration some new information I was able to provide him. So I'm sure you will be hearing favorably from him, any time now. By the way, Mr. Kemp, do you recall Janelle Fredricks, that cute girl you were so, shall we say, familiar with in High School? She is a charming conversationalist, too, and her phrasing can be quite descriptive.

"... yes, Mr. Kemp, I see you know who I mean... never seen her since high school, you say? Yes, she said that, too, until we were able to talk to her a little more. You know, it's surprising what girls like that can remeber when properly motivated.

".. 'girls like that'? Well, yes, Mr. Kemp, surely you know that she now works for the Kitten Club, an interesting place in Chicago, not far from where I live, in fact.

"....why should you care where she lives and works now, you say, thirty years after you last saw her? Well, Mr. Kemp, in light of the airline ticket receipts we happen to have here, showing a passenger with her name flew from Chicago to Atlanta eleven times just last year, staying over a full weekend each time at a hotel for which we also have receipts. Combined with certain restaurant tickets, signed in your name and handwriting, they do make an interesting story, I'm sure you would agree, wouldn't you, Mr. Kemp?

"....Now, now, Mr. Kemp, words like "hoax" and "forgery" aren't very nice. We prefer terms like "creative" and "artistic". Yes, it's really amazing what can be done with Photoshop and a medium-sized printer, isn't it? Anything from airline tickets to birth certificates to even ballots themselves, yes...."

"Oh, Mr. Kemp, how can you say such things? Of course no person with any expertise in computers, especially a disinterested person, would believe these things for even five minutes, I'm sure they would find artifacts and signs that reveal the nature of these documents. I'me very sure that no member of the general public will ever even see these documents. But tell me, Mr. Kemp, does your wife have any experience in computers?

"....I thought not. In fact, I knew she didn't. And would you call her 'disinterested'? But she does know your handwriting, doesn't she? Well, sir, so do we....

"Yes, in fact, that is exactly what he said, too. ...yes, the Tyson-Holyfield thing was a slip, but these things happen. Notice she said nothing more after that little, shall we say, faux-pas. Yes, in fact, he was from Georgia too, what an amazing coincidence....

"Now, Mr. Kemp, don't get excited. Please calm down. I'm sure we can reach a reasonable accommodation here....

"Yes, Mr. Kemp, now that you mention it, that would be very nice indeed, if you were to make such a decision. You practically read my mind, sir. My, it's nice to be able to deal with a truly intelligent man, and especially such a reasonable one.... Yes, thank you, sir. ...what? An incoming call? Yes, Mr. Kemp, that's just what I expected, too. Well, I'll take no more of your time, sir, and thank you again for the decision you made regarding Mr. Obama in this case. Yes, goodbye, sir. And please give Judge Malihi my regards."

[click]

Oh please, as if anyone in the White House knows how to use PhotoShop.

:laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

Judge Malihi in Atlanta, GA, has made his decision. He did not commoent as much on the evidence presented, as on the people doing the presenting. He said that the person presening evidence of a fraudulent Social Security number was not, herself, a court-recognized expert on Social Security fraud. And the person who presented evidence of forgery on a birth certificate was not, himself, proven to the court as an expert on birth records, forged douments, or document manipulation.

So, Judge Malihi ruled, the challenge to Obama's eligibility that was heard on Jan. 26, 2012, has failed, and he will recommend to the Georgia SecState that Obama be left on the Georgia ballot.

See the full text of the order at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html