UPDATE FROM GEORGIA: David Farrar, a two citizen parent Birther who frequently posts comments here, is continuing his struggle in Georgia. While I disagree with his theories, good journalism requires openness. Here is his latest communique from the front lines, in full:
Honorable Brian Kemp
Secretary of State of Georgia
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
via e-mail to Vincent R. Russo Jr. ESQ
VRusso@sos.GA.gov and via Federal Express overnight delivery
Re: FARRAR V OBAMA OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALHI
Dear Sec. Kemp,
Please allow me an opportunity to disassociate myself from any and all criminal allegations made by my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, against Judge Malihi in her EMERGENCY APPEAL motion now before you. They were not only unauthorized, but unsupported.
In looking back over Judge Malihi’s recommendation, it seems apparent he may have erroneously combined the testimony and evidence submitted from all threes cases into one to arrive at his recommendation, when such is not the case. We do have a separation order signed by Judge Malihi just for that reason. We have different case numbers and we are three separate and distinct cases. This is the reason many leading jurists around the country are confused at just how the judge arrived at his recommendation given the evidence and testimony submitted, most notably, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. When he recently wrote:
“But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.”…Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
For more click here, but the point is clear: somewhere Judge Malihi assumed that Dr. Taitz had allowed candidate Obama’s birth certificate to come into evidence in our case, when it did not, as it did in the other two cases. For this reason, you should set aside Judge Malihi’s recommendation and insist candidate Obama, at the very minimum, enter a certified copy of his Official Hawaiian birth certificate, with the embossed/impressed certification seal visible, into evidence in our case.
I am sure, like Judge Malihi, Mr. Secretary, you do not condone the action of the defendant in this case. Part of the action undertaken by Mr. Jablonski, I am lead to believe, was an attempt to supply you with a copy of his client’s birth certificate on an ex parte basis, in a brazen attempt to enter this document into the court file without giving the Plaintiffs access to either the records this document was created from, nor an opportunity for the Plaintiffs to offer any rebuttal. If this is true, it would represent a patently unfair process and cause all our efforts to date for a fair hearing on the issue to be questioned. Such action, if true, only serves to demonstrate candidate Obama understood only too well the key element in this case was the submission of his birth certificate to judicial scrutiny. Without proper submission of this document into evidence, all our efforts to clearly establish candidate Obama’s presidential qualifications will have been in vain.
The purpose of this lawsuit was simply to have candidate Obama’s birth certificate properly examined and reviewed in a court of law. Sadly, it seems, candidate Obama’s has been able to bamboozle your efforts in this regard if you accept the recommendation of Judge Malihi.
My recommendation is to stand firm and insist candidate Obama’s name will be taken off the Georgia ballot until such time as he can properly submit a certified copy of his birth certificate for judicial review. This course of action will send a clear message to candidate Obama, and to anyone else who would so insult the conscience of a Georgia court in such a flagrant manner, that such action should be taken only at one’s own peril.
Moreover, Mr. Secretary, the rest of the states are closely watching Georgia to see if it can preform this much needed function of vetting presidential and vice-presidential candidates at the state level rather than at the national level through the candidates own national political party.
Mr. Secretary, you, and by extension, the great State of Georgia, are at a unique point in election history where progress can be made, not to mention good law, with determined action on your part to insist candidate Barack Obama submit a certified copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate to the court, as a minimum requirement for placing his name on Georgia’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot.