As He Lay On The Mat, Mario "The Mangler" Apuzzo Pondered How He Could Spin This Loss
On Friday, February 3, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Malihi aka Triple M, clobbered the two-citizen parent Birthers with his decision in the Farrar, Welden, Swensson, & Powell v. Obama presidential eligibility suit. Here is the decision, from the Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored blog, which is a very good place to get legal information on the Birther issues:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/ga-farrar-v-obama-the-verdict-is-in/
No real surprises to anybody who can read. Minor v. Happersett was properly NOT recognized as PRECEDENT for resolving the issue in language lifted straight from the Ankeny decision, stating:
The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.
This finding left Leo “The Paraclete” Donofrio figuratively in the following position:
After His Signature Wrestling Move, The Minor Happersett Atomic Butt Buster, Proved A Dud, The Paraclete Foolishly Decided To Head-Butt The Metal Folding Chair
Relying mostly on the Ankeny v. Governor decision from 2009 and by extension, Wong Kim Ark from 1898, the Malihi Court pretty much told the two-citizen Birthers the same thing myself and others have been telling them for quite some time. To wit:
Relying on the language of the Constitution and the historical reviews and analyses of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Indiana Court concluded that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”
916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth.
For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,
CONCLUSION
President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
SO ORDERED, February 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
Plaintiff David Farrar seemed to have accepted the loss with the most calmness and serenity of any of the Plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, the other plaintiffs, and most of the Birther “legal experts,” are exhibiting various degrees of oral frothing, ill-tempers, and paranoia. To be on the safe side, I am reviewing and updating my Zombie Plan.
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note 1: The judge’s name is Michael M. Malihi. Sooo, Triple M is a word-play on Triple H, a well known professional wrestler.
Note 2. Folding Chairs in Wrestling. Wiki says:
Many items are used as weapons in professional wrestling. Some of the more common weapons used include chairs, guitars, folding tables, title belts, “kendo sticks”, and trash cans. While picking up the upper half of the ring steps for use as a weapon is illegal, slamming an opponent into the ring steps is not considered illegal, though it is frowned upon. However, these weapons are legal in hardcore matches.
Chair shot
A wrestler simply hits the opponent with a chair. In modern wrestling steel/metal folding chairs are used with the strike being performed with the flat face of the chair to slow the swing and distribute the impact, to prevent injury.
The Birther Think Tank 
February 6th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“Tee hee!” pretty much sums up my feelings about this one, too. Welcome back. However, in defense of the birhters, the empty chair was a pretty formidable opponent…
February 6th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
Respectfully submitted,
February 6th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Hi David F!!!
I am going to go ahead and post this as an Internet Article here. Are you firing Dr. Taitz or just disassociating yourself from her???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
February 7th, 2012 at 1:29 am
Hi Squeeky,
I am disassociating myself from those reckless and unfounded allegations she has made in representing my case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 6th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Except there were not three separate case numbers.
Just saying…
February 6th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Nor was this admin. hearing a court of, law. Too bad for David that Mario’s ramblings carry no weight nor are admissible.
February 7th, 2012 at 1:10 am
GreatGrey:
We have the motion granted by Judge Malihi to separate the three cases. We have three separate case numbers. There really isn’t any dispute these where three separate cases.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
I am curious. What would make you imagine that separating the cases makes evidence that has been submitted in one case suddenly disappear in another? The court knows the law, and the court may take judicial notice of anything that is judicially noticeable, to include evidence presented elsewhere.
This is not a high school debate. A judge does not award a “win” to the best rhetoric. A judge rules in conformance with the law.
February 7th, 2012 at 1:31 am
Jack Norman,
We did ask for and was granted a motion to separate our cases by Judge Malihi.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 6th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
David Farrar seems to be under the same mistaken impression that Mario holds that the ALJ had to decide the cases independently. The OSAH web site always showed them as a single case and Judge Malihi came to one recommendation based on the evidence from the hearing and other case materials. Even his own attorney introduced a copy of the birth certificate then paraded up a crew of discredited amateurs who failed to impeach the authenticity of it.
Also does he realize that Vince Russo as a law student helped author an article together with his professor at Emery University that directly contradicts the the two parent citizen definition of natural born citizen? I hate to be the party pooper. Well, actually, I don’t.
February 7th, 2012 at 1:35 am
Reality Check,
Yes, we all were under that impression, according to the motion to separate our three cases indicates.
I think what happen was whoever wrote Judge Malihi’s decision for him was unaware that a separation order had been previously granted. But that’s just me.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 6th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
David Farrar writes:
“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.
========================
I wonder where David got the idea that the Georgia law requires a candidate to satisfy the curiosity of Georgia voters?
I wonder where David got the idea that Georgia law requires a candidate to submit documentary evidence in an administrative hearing in order to give objectors a chance to review the materials?
I wonder where David got the idea that Georgia law requires a candidate to submit documentary evidence for “judicial scrutiny.”
I wonder where David got the idea that, under Georgia law, that the SOS cannot consider documentary evidence submitted by a candidate, even if the evidence was not submitted in the context of an administrative hearing?
??Anyone have a citation to authority for these positions David’s now taking?? I can’t seem to find them ………………….
February 7th, 2012 at 1:39 am
Tesibria,
You can’t be serious. The answer to your questions are contained in Georgia statutes, and the well established rules of Discovery and rules of Evidence required to be followed in a ALC hearing.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Were that true David, I would have expected you to answer Tes’s questions. But as that response stands, it looks pretty much like a dodge.
February 6th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
David seems to be under the impression that we are playing a sort of game, and that the judge can rule that Pres. Obama has a birth certificate for the purposes of rounds one and two of the game but doesn’t have one for round three.
This is not a game. It is a search for the truth. If the judge is convinced that there is a birth certificate and that it deserves the legal deference which is normally due official state documents, that is simply a fact that cannot be true concerning one complaint and false concerning another.
February 7th, 2012 at 1:54 am
Doubtful,
I certainly agree with your assertion that this is not a game, and that this is a search for the truth. And I agree, “If the judge is convinced that there is a birth certificate”…once that document has been properly introduced into evidence.
The point that you are missing is that we were quite prepared to address the “legal deference” normally due “official state” documents, as Defendant Obama, and his attorney, well knew, which is why we were never given the opportunity to address that issue in the normal course of moving a certified birth certificate into evidence. Instead, Defendant Obama chose to try and enter this document behind our back and was soundly dealt with by Sec. Kemp, if not the Malihi court.
Your last point is quite wrong in your belief that what is not true in one complaint can somehow be true in other complaint.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 7th, 2012 at 9:43 am
David: “Your last point is quite wrong in your belief that what is not true in one complaint can somehow be true in other complaint.”
You do agree, don’t you, that Malihi was required to give Kemp a single recommendation based on whether or not he found Obama to be eligible for office?
What did you expect him to say — that he knows that Obama’s father wasn’t a citizen because he has a reliable BC that says so, but he doesn’t know where Obama was born because there’s no reliable BC to tell him that?
February 7th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Doubtful
I would have expected him to recommend candidate Obama’s name should remain off the Georgia ballot until he places his birth certificate into evidence.
In the other two cases, since they stipulated to candidate’s Obama’s birth certificate, that issue wasn’t before the judge.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 6th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
@David Farrar
If I were Brian Kemp I would ignore your letter after reading the first paragraph because although you dissociate yourself from the absurd accusations made by your attorney you imply that she is still representing you in this matter by failing to follow that with a clear statement that she is not. As long as you retain Orly Taitz as your attorney what she says is said on your behalf. You cannot have it both ways. Either Orly Taitz is your attorney or she is not.
February 6th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
I should point out that this is the third “smack down” in as many weeks for the “two citizen parent” theory. The first was in a federal court in Virginia in the Tisdale case (citing Wong and Perkins v. Elg), the second was a Hearing Officer recommendation and election board decision in Illinois last Thursday, followed by Malihi’s decision last Friday (citing Ankeny).
I can appreciate the passionate attachment some folks have to this two citizen parent theory of presidential eligibility, and I doubt any argument I could make would be persuasive in the face of such strong emotional and intellectual investment; nevertheless, you should be prepared to deal with an unbroken string of loses in court for as long as this theory is litigated.
February 6th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Hi DrC!!!
Thank you for pointing this out. I am working on a new Internet Article about the Virginia Tisdale thingie. I am trying to do it along the lines of “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. . .”, you know like “Yes, Viginia, there is NO two citizen parent clause”. . .but it is requiring some real work not to strain the metaphor. (Or is it simile???) You have to keep this stuff interesting IMO (which means In My Opinion)
I did not know about the Indiana thingie, sooo I will look it up. I have a had a two month vacay from the whole Birther thing, and it is hard to get back in harness. Which I am determined to do, though. Plus, I am going to try to read thru Mario Apuzzo’s whole Internet Article and refute his legal theory. (With my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq.’s help)
I hope you had a nice Christmas and New Year, and all the other Obots did, too.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
OH, plus, here is you a haiku about the Georgia decision
Warm, the Winter winds
Termites wake in empty chairs
Choking on shellac
February 7th, 2012 at 2:03 am
Dr. Conspiracy,
My most passionate attachment isn’t to this case, but to the belief that ultimately the truth will triumph over…well, everything which is less true.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 6th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
@ David Farrar
I am not able to summon any rationale for calling Mario Apuzzo a “leading jurist” nor am I aware of anyone reasonably fitting that description having expressed confusion over Judge Malihi’s decision.
I can only imagine Brian Kemp saying “who the hell is Mario Apuzzo?” and when he finds out, just rolling his eyes as he prepares to dismiss the birthers forever from being taken seriously.
February 7th, 2012 at 5:10 am
Dr. Conspiracy,
Yes, perhaps you are right. I may have gone a tad overboard on that one. Maybe, “leading ‘birther’ jurist”.
Give it time…they are just beginning to try and connect the dots in Judge Maihi’s ruling.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 7th, 2012 at 8:00 am
@David Farrar
“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”
Yes, it did, David, as I pointed out to you over at the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Taitz did introduce Obama’s birth certificate into evidence, together with Linda Jordan’s affidavite proving its entire provenance. I don’t know how you can continue to assert otherwise. Here’s the link to the 208 pages of evidence Orly entered:
Go down to pg. 41 and there it is. Further, on pp. 51-55 she entered Linda Jordan’s affidavit which lays out the entire provenance of the birth certificate.
February 7th, 2012 at 11:33 am
David seems to be under the continuing misapprehension that a certified paper birth certificate must be entered into evidence so that his side will have an opportunity to challenge it.
But the evidence that Orly herself introduced by way of Linda Jordan’s affidavit bypasses the need for a physical document. The affidavit shows that Hawaiian officials have attested to the veracity of the contents of the .pdf posted on the White House web site. Once such officials have attested to the President’s birth data, there is no need for a paper document saying the same thing.
February 7th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
BTW, the decision is now final. No surprises.
February 7th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Nathanael
I see, so let’s go back to Mario Apuzzo, Esq take on your point:
“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.”
I guess, if we can’t find where Sec. Kemp and Judge Malihi connected the dots to arrived at a properly entered birth certificate, we will have to appeal.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 7th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
David —
Isn’t the intellectual dishonesty in Mario’s comment obvious to you?
ALJ Malihi did not say that any of the documents was “insufficient.” What he said was that the documents, taken together, were “wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.”
That does not mean that he didn’t rely on any of them for anything. All it means is that they were not remotely sufficient to support your claims.
February 7th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Doubtful,
I suppose if you want to find an excuse, you can always make one up. But unless a certified birth certificate was entered into evidence, the one where the raised emboss seal can actually be felt, Judge Malihi doesn’t know, as matter of a proven fact, where candidate Barack Obama was born.
ex animo
davidfararr
February 7th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
No, David, that’s not true. If he is aware that the appropriate Hawaiian officials have attested to the President’s birth data based on their personal inspection of Hawaii’s official records, then he does know as a matter of proven fact when and where the President was born.
February 8th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Remember also David, that the standards of proof vary depending on the nature of the proceeding. While this was not an Article 3 court, it is clear at least to me that the standard here is the civil standard… i.e. “the preponderance of evidence.”
Given the evidence before him, how could you possibly maintain that the preponderance of evidence available to him was not indicative of a a Hawaiian birth exclusively? Did any one in any of the three cases make even the bald assertion that he was born anywhere other than Hawaii?
February 7th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”
It appears that it’s you and the Ankeny court who can’t read. The Minor court left open the question of whether or not a child of aliens is a “citizen”. A “citizen”, period. In addition, we all know that they did in fact answer that question anyway because they defined NBC as “born on the soil to citizen parents”. It’s right there in black and white. Can you read? Just because you and the Ankeny court make shit up to support your position doesn’t make it true. If anything it proves you wrong.
February 7th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Hi ChillyDog!!!
For some reason your comment went to the spam thingy here. Anyway, on Minor Happersett. . . what you say is just YOUR opinion. My opinion, and the opinion of all the judges who have read the case is that the Minor Court left the issue open period. There are numerous Internet Articles here which explain this.
In short, your main argument boils down to the fact that the Ankeny disagrees with YOUR opinon. It is past time for you and the other two citizen parent Birthers to face facts- – – you’re just wrong. That is why all the courts are ruling against you and the course of history is at odds with your interpretation.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
February 8th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the Minor court else they would not have included it in their decision. Whether or not the definition of NBC given in Minor is dicta or precedent is for the SCOTUS to decide, but for the case in Minor it is the pertinent definition. Ankeny is clearly a case of selective reading. They emphasize the “doubts” quote, which only talks about “citizens”, while ignoring the NBC definition. You can not say that Minor left the issue open because at least for that one case they did define NBC and it does not include the children of aliens. Basically Ankeny inserts the words “natural born” were they do not exist.
February 8th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
@ChillyDogg — “You can not say that Minor left the issue open because at least for that one case they did define NBC and it does not include the children of aliens.”
__
This is logical double-talk. They did not define NBC. They acknowledged the NBCship of a particular individual who had two citizen parents. They explicitly said that they would leave the question of whether two citizen parents were required for NBCship for another court at another time, and it is widely understood in the legal community that the question was settled by Wong Kim Ark.
February 7th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
I know it’s gotta be hard birfing after such a painful loss to an empty chair, but that’s just lame.
The dicta in Minor left the issue open–the holding in Wong Kim Ark closed the issue.
February 8th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
The “dicta” in Minor did not leave the question open IN THE MINOR CASE! Whether or not the definition in Minor can be applied elsewhere is for the SCOTUS to decide, but for the Minor case the definition absolutely excludes the children of aliens as NBC.
February 8th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
@ChillyDogg — “but for the Minor case the definition absolutely excludes the children of aliens as NBC.”
__
I am sorry to say it, but that is an outright lie. Minor did not “absolutely exclude” anything. What it in fact said was, “[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
February 8th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
@ ChillyDogg
You are committing among the most elementary of logical fallacies; denying the antecedent.
There is a statement that if p then q.
But that does not imply that if not p, then not q.
For example:
If it’s raining, then the streets are wet.
It isn’t raining.
Therefore, the streets aren’t wet.
There are other reasons a street might be wet than because it is raining.
There are other ways a person can be an NBC than because they were born on US soil to two citizen parents.
There is no definition, and specifically no exclusive definition of natural born citizen in the MvH decision.
February 7th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Ahh, Squeeky, you are slipping in the snark department.
A better metaphor would have involved a Jovian lightning bolt because:
It came from on high.
It splattered idiot birther heinies all over the countryside.
The never saw (or even heard) it coming.
February 7th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Ankeny is a 2009 wedge case designed by the Team Obama from the start to create facts where none exist as to the Minor decision, Wong Kim Ark and the nbC rule. It is completely dicta.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 12:18 am
I was under the impression that your complaint with Obama was that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, even though there’s no evidence to suggest that.
But now you’re saying that, mirabile dictu, he’s doubly ineligible, because of the completely unrelated NBC argument?
That’s quite a coincidence, isn’t it?
February 8th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Doubtful,
We think we have brought enough evidence and testimony to the table to seriously question candidate Obama internet posted evidence. If this was not so, Jablonski would have never bothered to stuff his client’s birth certificate into his letter of non-participation envelope. I think the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders now to produce his birth certificate in a court setting.
The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those delegated powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers.
The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
We, and the nation are still waiting for candidate Obama to establish his qualifications instead of running away from this responsibility.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 11:16 am
David — Lots of luck with Bute!
But you have ignored my question. Doesn’t it seem like a really remarkable coincidence to you?
I mean, here’s a President of the United States who went through grueling primaries, a hard-fought general election, a resounding victory in both the popular and the electoral votes, the unanimous approval of the Electoral College’s vote by both houses of Congress, numerous legal challenges, etc., etc.
And not only do you claim that he is ineligible in a way that, surprisingly, has completely failed to keep him from reaching and holding office — but, in fact you claim he is ineligible in two completely unrelated ways, both of which have completely failed to keep him from reaching and holding office!
I mean, honestly, doesn’t it seem like a really remarkable coincidence to you?
February 8th, 2012 at 1:52 am
Mr. Farrar,
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt–the lack of integrity, intelligence, and knowledge that you are showing in your pathetic attempt to overturn the Constitution make it clear what a contemptible person you are. What a loser–I hope you are aware that the only things you accomplish by continuing your Quixotic crusade are to hurt Republicans politically and to entertain us obots with your moronic incompetence. Yes, we are laughing AT you–because you richly deserve far more ridicule and scorn than we could ever give.
February 8th, 2012 at 8:20 am
Slartibartfast
If I do appeal, it will be only to do what you and I have agreed upon should be done: send the case back to the trial court setting for further proceeding, namely; to have candidate Obama submit his birth certificates into evidence properly by going through the normal process of discovery.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
How can any decision in any case be “completely dicta?”
It’s a pickle.
February 8th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Ankeny is a 2009 wedge case designed by the Team Obama
Huh? President Obama caused the plaintiffs in Ankeny to sue the Indiana governor?
Perhaps Farrar can answer these questions: Does he intend to seek judicial review of Kemp’s decision? If so, who (if anyone) will be representing him in court?
February 8th, 2012 at 7:58 am
Yes, I know, bob.
Here was Team Obama taking a couple of pro sa litigants and using them, to get create a wedge case against the Minor’s case precedent-setting decision.
ex animo
davidfarrar
.
February 8th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Here was Team Obama taking a couple of pro sa litigants and using them,
You, of course, have evidence that President Obama was “using” these pro se litigants.
We think we have brought enough evidence and testimony to the table to seriously question candidate Obama internet posted evidence.
Your lawyer had the opportunity to do that, and she lost. There is no do-over. There will be no further proceedings. You are, again, making things up.
President Obama’s long form birth certificate (and other evidence that also indicated Hawaiian birth) were also admitted into evidence, without objection
February 8th, 2012 at 5:32 am
@ChillyDogg
“The Minor court left open the question of whether or not a child of aliens is a ‘citizen’. A ‘citizen’, period.”
That little word “include” is the ringer, and the point at which your whole argument fails.
Minor is talking about natural-born citizens. It says so right there in the first sentence of this paragraph. Specifically, it is asking the question, “who are natural-born citizens?”
Common law is quite clear, Minor said, that all those born within US jurisdiction of citizen parents (i.e., jus soli+jus sanguinis) were natural-born citizens. All agree on that.
“Some authorities go further and include as” NATURAL BORN “citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship oftheir parents.”
To claim Minor means at this point anything else than natural-born citizens is to strain the logic of the passage beyond breaking: What are natural-born citizens? Jus soli/jus sanguinis folk, by everyone’s account, are. Some go further and also inlcude jus-soli-only folk as natural born citizens, though others dispute that.
And of course all that ignores the more fundamental problem, which is that Minor v. Happersett is, at this point, dicta, not holding, and is therefore NOT precedent.
February 8th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
You can’t just add the words “natural born” were they do not exist and claim victory.
February 8th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
You can’t just add the words “natural born” were they do not exist and claim victory.
Oh, the irony.
February 8th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
If they were not speaking of natural born citizens, then how would that be going “futher?”
It would instead be going not as far.
February 8th, 2012 at 8:02 am
Slartibartfast
If I do appeal, it will be only to do what you and I have agreed upon should be done: send the case back to the trial court setting for further proceeding, namely; to have candidate Obama submit his birth certificates into evidence properly by going through the normal process of discovery.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 9:29 am
Mr. Farrar:
Are you familiar with the concept of “confirmation bias”? This cognitive process is, I believe, the best explanation for the ability of folks who dispute the eligibility of President (Candidate) Obama to question the validity of his Hawaii Birth Certificate, the 1961 birth announcements, the congressional certification of the electoral college vote, etc. The wishful thinking which precedes every “birther” court case, despite the 0-99 loss record is the hallmark of “confirmation bias”. The long form and short form birth certificates have been released and certified by the State of Hawaii. What additional evidence would a rational individual require to accept the assertion that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
February 8th, 2012 at 9:51 am
@David Farrar
Following up on Doubtful’s line.
“I see, so let’s go back to Mario Apuzzo, Esq take on your point:”
I’d rather not, thanks. I’d prefer a more reliable source. To wit, here is what Malihi’s ruling actually said:
“1. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al.
Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth content that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. To support this contention, Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Obama maintains a fraudulently obtained social security number, a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, and that he does not otherwise possess valid U.S. identification papers. Further, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Obama has previously held Indonesian citizenship, and he did not use his legal name on his notice of candidacy, which is either Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama Soebarkah. (Pl.s’ Am. Compl. 3)”
It continues on to describe the evidence your case presented, then continues in the third paragraph:
“The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”
The answer is simple: Malihi is stating that your evidence was of little probative value specifically with respect to proving the claims you made. Your claims were that Obama maintained fraudulent SSNs, a forged BC, was an Indonesian citizen, etc., etc. The judge did not say your evidence didn’t prove anything; merely that it didn’t prove your claims.
February 8th, 2012 at 10:18 am
Nathanael,
yes, I think your take is correct. But remember, Judge Malihi also made a finding earlier in the case that said candidate Obama must met the qualifications required to hold the office sought.
One of those qualification is to be born in the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I love the way Mr. Farrar’s attorney was kind enough to ask him if he actually wanted to participate in his own appeal even though she was already planning to go ahead with or without him. Then she posted the private attorney/client email on the internet. That’s quite an attorney you have there Mr. Farrar!
February 8th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Oh, Taitz doesn’t need Farrar; she’s got four other clients! (None of whom are Georgian citizens, or on the Georgia ballot.)
Of course, Farrar doesn’t need Taitz: He’ll lose his judicial review with or without her.
February 8th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
bob,
win or lose, at least we tried to get Obama to prove he has met his Constitutional qualifications, not simply accepting a jpg on an internet site, and calling that proof.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Yes, you tried to get the President to prove something, and the judge and the Secretary of State concluded that he had already proved it.
In the United States, we don’t normally require people to continue to prove things that they’ve already proved. And we don’t require them to prove it to the satisfaction of anyone who still happens to have questions. There are legal definitions of proof, and the outcome of your case shows clearly that the President is considered to have met those standards.
February 8th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Doubtful
February 8th, 2012 at 11:16 am
“And not only do you claim that he is ineligible”…But I am not claiming candidate Obama is ineligible. I am claiming I don’t know if he is or he isn’t, and a lot of other people don’t know either. The fault isn’t mine, or the others, but Obama’s, himself, and the rest of the political elite, apparently.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
The fact that “you don’t know if he is or he isn’t” is completely irrelevant. As an individual you have the right to hold whatever doubts you like. The law depends on evidence.
As I said a few minutes ago:
“There are legal definitions of proof, and the outcome of your case shows clearly that the President is considered to have met those standards.”
February 8th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Doubtful
Yes, indeed, the law depends on evidence, which will be reviewed again by others.
“There are legal definitions of proof, and the outcome of your case shows clearly that the President is considered to have met those standards.”
He hasn’t met any standards other than posting an internet pic up and calling it proof. A pic where the embossing seal is completely missing, thereby causing even more people to question his qualifications than his leadership at this point.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
Actually, that’s not true. A certified copy of his birth certificate has been on file at his campaign headquarters since 2007. So, the people who are responsible for presenting him as a qualified candidate have had the proof they needed to ensure he met the requirements. That copy was certified by the state of Hawaii, and is accepted as proof of birth for any purpose under the full faith and credit clause. (Though this is irrelevant, the certified paper copy was inspected by factcheck.org, as I’m sure you know.) All discussion of the internet copies presented for the general public’s information are completely irrelevant. You have been allegedly searching for something that has already been proven to exist and has been at the place it needed to be since 2007 — campaign headquarters — bearing the seal. http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ (Note that factcheck.org has merely verified that the actual certificate is on file where it needs to be.)
You state President Obama is required to present it in court to satisfy your curiosity, but you give no reason why you think that is true. It simply isn’t true. He provided the official copy in 2007, provided a copy of it for the public’s information in 2008, and provided yet another copy of his long form BC in 2011. The last two internet copies were never meant to be “official” proof of his birth for any purpose. The “official” proof resides at campaign HQ. It’s possible Kemp has another “official” copy now, but as long as he is satisfied of the information contained in either his “official” copy (if he has one) or the copies in the court record, the case is closed. You may attempt to appeal, but the result will be the same. No attempt to discredit the online copies will change the fact that the people that need to be assured of his birth in Hawaii, via his actual paper certified copy, are already assured of that simple fact.
Just because YOU haven’t seen and inspected an official copy doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor does it mean you have a right to see it. Malihi and Kemp are satisfied that he was born in Hawaii, largely because the BCs were introduced as evidence in your cases (yes, yours, too — see Orly’s document dump, page 41 and Powell’s affidavit.) As stated above, your disbelief does not give you the right to demand to see it. The people who do have that right (i.e. the campaign HQ and Kemp) are satisfied.
February 8th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
The fault isn’t mine
The fault is yours. The State of Hawaii repeatedly has said President Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no competent contradictory evidence.
That you cannot accept the obvious conclusion is, indeed, your fault.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
bob,
why are to against candidate Obama proving he was born when and where he said he was? If he has nothing to hide, this will be over in 15 minutes, and it will help the nation heal?
At this point, it’s just good leadership on his part.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
LOL, David, don’t you remember when it was “Just show the long form and it will all be over”?
Are you really that dumb? Or do you really think we’re that dumb?
February 8th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Actually, it is not “just good leadership” to respond to a bunch of yahoos who question a state-certified document that was provided almost 5 years ago and has been verified as accurate by the state of Hawaii.
In fact, for the President of the United States to respond to every Tom, Dick, or Harry about minutia is the opposite of good leadership. His focus remains where it needs to be — on leading the country on issues of national importance.
You may believe that continued harassment regarding the state certified and verified fact of his birth is a matter of national importance. But it is not.
February 8th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
@David Farrar
“Malihi also made a finding earlier in the case that said candidate Obama must met the qualifications required to hold the office sought.
One of those qualification is to be born in the United States.”
To which end the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs was sufficient to conclude in the affirmative. Irion and Hatfield both stipulated to the birth certificate and, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidentiary rule that requires Malihi to forget a fact he already knows. Even were there such a rule, your own case also submitted the birth certificate both by way of exhibit during the hearing and into evidence afterwards together with the Jordan affidavit laying out its entire provenance.
Remember that all three cases presented the birth certificate. In your own case you claimed it was a forgery, but Malihi concluded your evidence didn’t support that claim. If you enter a birth certificate as evidence, but fail to prove it’s a forgery, then the only reasonable conclusion left is it’s not. QED.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
David —
I’ve been thinking a little more about this. You say you don’t know where President Obama was born, and I have to admit, I don’t know either. I have no personal knowledge about the President’s birth or any other aspect of his personal life. I am in exactly the same position as you.
But his eligibility for the Presidency has nothing to do with anybody’s personal knowledge. It has to do with what is considered true under the law. There are certain basic principles that the law uses to determine what is legally considered to be true.
For example, there’s the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. What it says is that any fact that’s contained in the official records of a state is legally true.
I think the reason you are getting nowhere is that you keep making it a matter of whether you yourself are convinced — or whether the relevant evidence was introduced in a particular hearing.
But this is a question of legal truth, and perhaps you should instead be focusing on the widely held notion that, from a legal point of view, we in the United States consider Barack Obama to have been born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 simply for the reason that an official state record says so.
February 8th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Doubtful
“The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize… public records”…
I don’t see a conflict here. Rest assured, when candidate Obama enters his birth certificate into evidence, the FF & C clause will be duly recognized. In effect, a properly certified document is self-authenticating, not self-appearing. Even if a certified document is self-authenticating, it doesn’t mean the information contained on that document is correct or true. All it means is that that information matches the information contained in certifying agency’s files, mistakes and all.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
No, David, read it again. I am not talking about a birth certificate. What I am saying has nothing to do with any birth certificate.
I said that “from a legal point of view, we in the United States consider Barack Obama to have been born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 simply for the reason that an official state record says so.”
An official state record, David. Not a birth certificate. An official state record. The one in Honolulu. The one that competent state officials confirm to contain the information that you don’t want to accept as legal truth.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
why are to against candidate Obama proving he was born when and where he said he was?
1. He has: THE STATE OF HAWAII HAS SAID HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
2. Birthers have “concerns” about exactly one candidate. Romney, for example, has not provided a birth certificate, but you didn’t try to haul him into court, did you?
February 8th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
bob,
I know. But I am afraid this little loophole I have found in Georgia’s statutes, has been slammed shut.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Rest assured, when candidate Obama enters his birth certificate into evidence, the FF & C clause will be duly recognized.
President Obama’s birth certificate already was admitted into evidence (“duly recognized”), without objection.
Even if a certified document is self-authenticating, it doesn’t mean the information contained on that document is correct or true.
The information pertinent to eligibility is true; THERE IS NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN ANYWHERE ELSE.
February 8th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
bob,
Not in our case, it wasn’t.
Moreover if there are mistakes in the Hawaiian Health Department files, and we know there are, how do we know there aren’t more, and how do you know information pertinent his eligibility is true? All you and I know is that that is what is reflected in the Hawaiian Health Department files. You don’t know that it is true.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Under the law, the gold standard of truth is what is reflected in the Hawaii Health Department Files. That is the purpose for which vital records were invented in the first place.
February 8th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Doubtful
In the first place, no record, statement, or testimony from Hawaii, or any other state, was entered into evidence in my case. If, and when, candidate Obama wants to being his birth certificate into evidence in a court of law the FF & C will be recognized. But the FF & C does not profess to say the information is true or correct. All it says is that state official have to recognize the document as self-authenticating.
In this respect, I am going to have to disarming with your assessment.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 8th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
“But the FF & C does not profess to say the information is true or correct. ”
Pure nonsense, David.
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
February 9th, 2012 at 12:01 am
Please note, also, that the FF&C does NOT require that a record be presented in court. It says that GA shall give full faith and credit to Hawaii’s records, i.e. the birth certificate. So Malihi and Kemp must recognize it, whether or not it was presented in your case.
To reword it, it doesn’t say that “Full faith and credit shall be given IN THE WAY THAT DAVID FARRAR AND ORLY TAITZ WANT IT TO BE in each state . . .” If Kemp has a certified copy of the BC, or if (as we know) he has a copy of it, along with knowledge that Hawaii has verified the record, he must give it full faith and credit, i.e. accept it as true.
February 8th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Not in our case, it wasn’t.
Yes, it was.
And if you think Malihi would accept the birth certificate for one challenge against a candidate, but deny its existance for another challenge against the same candidate, you are even dumber than you already are.
Moreover if there are mistakes in the Hawaiian Health Department files, and we know there are, how do we know there aren’t more, and how do you know information pertinent his eligibility is true
BECAUSE THERE’S IS NO COMPENTENT EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN ANYWHERE ELSE. Duuude: You had your day in court to bring this kind of evidence, and you didn’t. Game over.
February 8th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
@David Farrar
“Moreover if there are mistakes in the Hawaiian Health Department files, and we know there are, how do we know there aren’t more, and how do you know information pertinent his eligibility is true”
David, you can continue to play epistemological sceptic if you like, but the legal question is settled beyond dispute.
How many mistakes there are in the HDOH files is utterly irrelevant to the question of legal truth. Whatever the HDOH files are is the legal truth for FF&C purposes. FF&C says no state nor court is competent to question what the state of Hawaii says is true. If it’s in the Hawaii records, and Hawaii certifies that’s what’s in their records, that’s the end of the line. You can go no further.
If you think there are errors in the HDOH records, then you need to be taking that up with the HDOH. As far as an administrative hearing in Georgia is concerned, once Hawaii certified Obama was born in Hawaii, the door was shut to any further questioning of the record. A Georgian administrative judge has neither competence nor jurisdiction to question what the state of Hawaii says is true. Again, if you think you have evidence that Hawaii’s records are in error, you need to pursue that with the state of Hawaii.
February 9th, 2012 at 12:38 am
David Farrar:
Do you share your attorney’s belief that once you’ve established reasonable doubt, you’ve won?
Thank you.
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 9th, 2012 at 8:12 am
Nathanael
When you go to the DMV, or to the passport agency, anywhere where you have to present your birth certificate now days, can you tell them they can simply download your birth certificate if they need it? If you or anyone else tried this stunt they would be placed in cuffs and taken away.
Moreover, HRS statute: 338-18 (b)(9), allows disclosure of records to person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 10:59 am
David, Hawaiian officials have told us in no uncertain terms what President Obama’s date and place of birth are as set down in the official state records of Hawaii. That makes that information a matter of legal fact.
There’s simply no getting around it, no matter how many childish jokes you make about online drivers licenses.
You had the right to challenge the President’s qualifications for being a candidate in Georgia, and a hearing was held. But you have no legal authority to require that the President prove his eligibility in any particular way. There was no “order of a court of competent jurisdiction” requiring the production of a birth certificate, and simply stamping your feet in protest doesn’t change that.
SoS Kemp directed ALJ Malihi to make a determination, he did, and SoS Kemp concurred. Sorry you’re not satisfied, but no one had the obligation to satisfy you. The obligation was to follow the facts and the law and arrive at the truth, and that’s just what happened.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:13 am
jtmunkus
“…once you’ve established reasonable doubt”…once we are granted discovery in a trial setting, we have won.
ex animo
david
February 9th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
And the chances of that get more remote with every case as judges cite the early eligibility cases and build on them.
February 9th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Mr. Farrar:
Your attorney said in a press conference after your hearing that her job was to “establish reasonable doubt” as a threshold to win a favorable ruling. Was this also your understanding, prior to the administrative hearing?
I believe it’s not discovery you’re after, as that usually refers to a process of opposing attorneys disclosing their evidence to each other before a proceeding.
I think the relief you desire and that you were roundly denied, is a free pass for an extralegal inspection of vital records for which you have no tangible interest. Relief that you knew prior to the proceeding could not be granted under any circumstance.
Discovery is not court-ordered access to any vital records department anywhere you desire, to “discover” some evidence.
Your assertion that somehow the judge can only rule in favor of the president if he or his attorney were the ones introducing the favorable evidence is, like all of birthism, downright insane.
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 11th, 2012 at 8:08 am
@david Farrar
“once we are granted discovery in a trial setting, we have won.”
You won’t be. Appeals aren’t do-overs. You don’t get to introduce new evidence, or even rehash old stuff. Appeals address procedural defects or dispute conclusions of law. The evidentiary record is what it is and remains closed.
On appeal there is no new evidence, no discovery.
Here’s a link and some quotes:
http://www.massachusettsappealsattorney.com/Why_Appellate_Advocacy.html
“An appeal is not about challenging the facts.”
“An appeal is not a second chance at a trial.”
“Appellate advocacy focuses on legal error and judicial discretion, not witness credibility.”
And here’s one for you to consider:
“The appeals lawyer has one opportunity, consisting of mere minutes, to plead your case to the appellate court before decision.”
Recalling that in the pre-hearing confab with Malihi your own counsel requested a full two hours to present her case, are you confident that she can restrict herself to mere minutes and present a tight cogent case that argues points of law rather than rehashing her same evidence? I’m not at all convinced Orly has the discipline or organizational abilities to serve you at the appellate level, even if she does manage to find somewhere to sponsor her pro hac vice motion. You may be better off finding representation that has experience at the appellate level.
February 11th, 2012 at 8:50 am
Nathanael
“This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”…Judge Malihi.
I see. So when Judge Malihi made no “Finding” that candidate Obama was born in the United States, is wasn’t using the law, he was using the evidence and the legal arguments presented at the hearing to establish this “fact”?
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 11th, 2012 at 11:42 am
But David, you keep ducking the main issue and running away with your tail between your legs!
We have been told, both by Hawaiian officials and on State of Hawaii web sites, that the official records of the State of Hawaii show that Barack Obama was born there on August 4, 1961. Under the Full Faith and Credit clause, that makes it a legal fact, not to mention the fact that it’s completely uncontested — there’s not the slightest evidence to show he was born anywhere else.
You are quibbling over how the judge is going to explain how he knows that this is is fact. You can quibble away, but since it is a fact, you’re going to lose. The requirement is that the Secretary of State make a decision based upon what is true.
You are trying to make the argument that the truth should be ignored. That won’t help you. No court in the land is going to buy an argument like “OK, it’s true, but ALJ Malihi and SoS Kemp were not permitted to use legally established facts to come to their decision.”
February 11th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Doubtful
February 11th, 2012 at 11:42 am
You are entitle to your opinion. I respect your opinion, as I do you, as a man. I don’t happen to agree with your opinion.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 11th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
@David Farrar — “I don’t happen to agree with your opinion.”
__
Of course, I understand. And, as far as the law concerned, neither your opinion nor mine makes any difference.
But ALJ Malihi’s opinion makes a big difference. SoS Kemp’s opinion does too.
You didn’t answer the question I asked yesterday. Do you accept the possibility that they (and I) are right and you are wrong? If you are still turned down on appeal, does that mean you were wrong, or does it mean that the Superior Court is wrong? Do you really think you know more about the law than all the judges in Georgia (and perhaps beyond)?
Are you open to being convinced of what the law says by people who have spent their lives studying it and have been given the legal authority to apply it, or is your conviction so thorough that your mind cannot be changed regardless of the conclusions that our legal system reaches?
February 11th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Doubtful
February 11th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
The purpose of this one-in-a-million lawsuit is to “prove” candidate Obama has met his constitutional requirements to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.
In order to do this, free and unfitted access to HDOH files must be achieved, as well as free and unfitted access to candidate Obama’s natal hospital records. There are particular records we would be seeking from these hospital records that would “prove” candidate Barack Obama was born Katapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, Hawaii. Once these records are found and authenticated, this issue can be rightfully be put to rest.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 11th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Mr. Farrar,
In my opinion, you ceased to deserve any respect when you decided to move goalposts instead of moving on. I hope you realize that myself and many others will be continuing to enjoy the failures that you richly deserve and will undoubtable continue to receive until you accept the truth that Barack Obama is your president according to the US Constitution and to say otherwise based on lies, unsupported accusations, and crank legal theories is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate the Constitution. UnAmerican (alleged*) racists like yourself are truly despicable.
* In case it isn’t clear, I’m accusing you of being racist. By your standards your refusal to prove otherwise is a confirmation of that fact.
February 11th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
@David Farrar — “There are particular records we would be seeking from these hospital records that would “prove” candidate Barack Obama was born.”
__
Thank you for making that so clear. It proves that you do not have a ghost of a chance.
There is simply no doubt in the law about what it takes to prove where someone was born. If the facts of someone’s birth are recorded in a state’s official records, that is definitive proof. The Constitution guarantees it. There’s no way around it.
Pretending that someone has an obligation to meet your definition of proof rather than the Constitution’s definition of proof is a non-starter.
That’s why you don’t have even a minuscule change of prevailing.
February 9th, 2012 at 7:00 am
I like the sig JT!
A question for Farrar:
Are you ready to reveal who your helper was who got this whole ball of dryer lint rolling? I know it wasn’t Taitz and pardon me for drawing the obvious conclusion from your comments it sure the hell wasn’t you.
Fred Muggs
Extreme Animal
February 9th, 2012 at 8:14 am
Muggs,
It wasn’t hard. There are plenty of examples out there from the last time around.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 9:07 am
David Farrar:
“It wasn’t hard. There are plenty of [losing] examples out there from the last time around.”
FIFY
extreme animal
Fred Muggs
February 9th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Doubtful
February 9th, 2012 at 10:59 am
As far as I know, an empty chair can’t speak, can’t enter any exhibits, can’t enter any testimony.
As I look back over the transcript of OUR case in chief, on the 26th of January, I cannot find any reference to Hawaiian officials telling the Court in no uncertain terms what President Obama’s date and place of birth are, nor any testimony that Hawaiian Health officials have set down anything in the official state records of Hawaii that relates to this case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 11:38 am
It doesn’t matter, David. It is an undeniable fact that Hawaiian officials have in fact declared what the official records say, and that means that the information therein is legally true.
The Secretary of State is bound to accept the legal truth of what’s in another state’s records. The Constitution requires it. It’s as simple as that. You don’t get to specify the terms that you will considerable acceptable as proof. All you can do is ask the SoS to make a determination, and that’s exactly what he’s done.
February 9th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Doubtful
February 9th, 2012 at 10:59 am
“You had the right to challenge the President’s qualifications for being a candidate in Georgia, and a hearing was held. But you have no legal authority to require that the President prove his eligibility in any particular way. There was no “order of a court of competent jurisdiction” requiring the production of a birth certificate, and simply stamping your feet in protest doesn’t change that.”
Judge Malihi made eight findings in this case. Finding Number Eight (8): “Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Now where did you say candidate Obama has met his constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought from the record in our case?
ex animo
davidifarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 11:55 am
@David Farrar — “Now where did you say candidate Obama has met his constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought from the record in our case?”
__
I beg your pardon? Where did ALJ Malihi say that the President must prove every relevant fact at your hearing? I don’t see that he said that — all he said is that he must “meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
So, does he meet the qualifications? Official Hawaiian state records tell us that he is Hawaiian-born and over 35, and other public records show that he has been in residence in the U.S. for at least 14 years. Wong Km Ark tells us that his Hawaiian birth makes him a natural born citizen.
The law has spoken, and most of us concur. You do not. Them’s the breaks.
February 9th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Doubtful
Now come on, don’t start stomping your feet up & down here and repeat over and over your point I have just dashed. Judge Malihi Number 8 finding shifted the burden of proof to candidate Obama to show that he has met his Constitutional requirements.
When a judge makes a “finding” in your case, both parties would do well to read it and take heed of its meaning.
Now from Judge Malihi’s finding, we asked ourselves: What has candidate Obama done to prove he has met the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought?
Answer: He has posted an image of what purports to be an uncertified, or defectively certified (no emboss seal visible) Hawaiian birth certificate on his White House dot gov site. Strangely, there is no mention of what Hawaiian Health officials might or might not have said about this representation of candidate Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate on this site.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
@David Farrar — “Answer: He has posted an image of what purports to be an uncertified, or defectively certified (no emboss seal visible) Hawaiian birth certificate on his White House dot gov site.”
__
LOL, you’re just being silly. That’s just your personal view of what he has done.
The Secretary of State is not obliged to see the situation the same way you do. What he is obliged to do is to give full faith and credit to the official state records of Hawaii.
And that’s exactly what he’s done.
February 9th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Doubtful
“The Secretary of State is bound to accept the legal truth of what’s in another state’s records. The Constitution requires it.”
The only legal truth (uncontested testimony) entered in our case was the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence. In addition, there were no state’s records entered into the record, except what state records the Plaintiff’s entered in their case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
@David Farrar — “The only legal truth (uncontested testimony) entered in our case…”
__
You’re playing games again, David. The information in Hawaii’s official state records is legal truth because the FF&C clause says it is. Because it’s legal truth, the Secretary of State must accept it; that’s a Constitutional requirement.
It was legal truth before your hearing took place, it was legal truth during your hearing, it is legal truth now. Whether it was introduced into evidence is entirely irrelevant. The Constitution specifically requires that each and every other state in the union give it full faith and credit. They don’t need your blessing to do so.
February 9th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Doubtful
“LOL, you’re just being silly. That’s just your personal view of what he has done.”
You are right. That’s our own personal view. As I check the actual transcript of our case; I can find absolutely no evidence put forward by the Defendant as to what he has done to meet his qualification.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
@David Farrar — “As I check the actual transcript of our case, I can find…”
__
What you can find is of no relevance. The legal truth is the legal truth, whether you can find it in a transcript or not.
February 9th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Doubtful
Okay, that’s enough. You are running around in circles now because you have nowhere else to go.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
@David Farrar — “you have nowhere else to go.”
___
LOL!!! What makes you think I want or need to go anywhere?
The hearing has taken place, ALJ Malihi has made his recommendation, and the SoS has accepted it and declared it to be his final decision.
You’re the one who’s dissatisfied. You’re the one who feels he needs to go somewhere but keeps running around in circles accomplishing absolutely nothing.
February 9th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
realitycheck1776
What’s so hard about submitting a certified copy of a political party’s nominee’s birth certificate to all the states, along with their notification letter?
Moreover, Georgia code and case law does not allow everyone to challenge any candidate without a shred of proof that the candidate is ineligible…
It was Sec. Kemp who made the decision to send my “challenge” to his ALC.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
David and the other plaintiffs seem to be under the impression that based on Georgia code and case law that anyone can challenge any candidate without a shred of proof that the candidate is ineligible and force them to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate into evidence at a hearing. When you peel away the Orly BS that is exactly what Farrar’s case is all about. I posit that if that were the case Georgia would have law requiring every candidate for president to file a COLB with the SoS. I seem to remember that a bill that would have required something like that was proposed and died an ignominious death last session.
February 9th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Yes, R/C, I think you’ve hit it right on the head. And yet even that demand is self-contradictory. David has long since acknowledged that the “vault copy,” the original Hawaiian record, carries the same information as the COLB and the LFBC; his latest contention is that those original records themselves could be wrong.
How he intends to show that by examining a certified COLB is, however, beyond me.
Of course, if there were any factual evidence to show that the President was born anywhere other than where his records say he was born, it would have been absolute legal malpractice not to introduce that evidence at the hearing. It sounds like what David wants is a fishing expedition, and he’s sure as hell not going to get that.
February 9th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
realitycheck1776
Ups, wrong post.
What’s so hard about submitting a certified copy of a political party’s nominee’s birth certificate to all the states, along with their notification letter?
Moreover, Georgia code and case law does not allow everyone to challenge any candidate without a shred of proof that the candidate is ineligible…
It was Sec. Kemp who made the decision to send my “challenge” to his ALC.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
@David Farrar — “It was Sec. Kemp who made the decision to send my “challenge” to his ALC.”
__
Yes, and it was SoS Kemp who fully endorsed ALJ Malihi’s conclusion that
“[t]he Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations…. None of the testifying witnesses offered persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes the plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”
Read it again. That’s legal talk for “without a shred of proof that the candidate is ineligible…”
February 9th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
As I look back over the transcript of OUR case in chief, on the 26th of January, I cannot find any reference to Hawaiian officials telling the Court in no uncertain terms what President Obama’s date and place of birth are, nor any testimony that Hawaiian Health officials have set down anything in the official state records of Hawaii that relates to this case.
Farrar is a birther and therefore also a liar.
LOOK at the exhibits Farrar’s lawyer moved into evidence at the hearing. There are multiple copies of President Obama’s long form birth certificate.
February 9th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
bob,
On any one of those multiple copies of President Obama’s long form birth certificate, can you see or feel the embossed seal?
ex animo
davidfarrar.
February 9th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
A seal does mean the certificate is authentic, but the lack of a seal does not mean it is a fake. Duh.
[i]Your attorney[/i] introduced President Obama’s birth certificate into evidence. In the legal biz, that’s called “invited error” — you can’t later complain about a mistake you made.
You would think someone claiming to a court reporter might have learned this concept after spending some time in a court room.
February 9th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Doubtful
February 9th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
At last, we agree.
The fact that Judge Malihi had to start with an unsupported predicate not only forms the basis of our appeal; it also forms the basis that his Number 8 Finding also shifted the burden of proof from the Plaintiffs to the Defendant.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Doubtful
But that’s just our appeal point: we weren’t putting forward evidence to “prove” candidate Obama was ineligible. We were putting forward exhibits and testimony to show why simply posting an image of what purports to be an uncertified, or defectively certified (no emboss seal visible) Hawaiian birth certificate on his White House dot gov Internet site is insufficient to prove he has met Georgia’s statutes and Judge Malihi’s finding, and, I might add: directly causing a whole new social movement dedicated to filling in those insufficiencies.
As has been noted above, all candidate Obama had to do is enter his “self-authenticating birth certificate into evidence, and for good measure, bring along and enter into evidence whatever Hawaiian Health officials have said, and be done with the matter — and so would we. But that’s not what he did. What he did was run away from this simple evidentiary hearing, with his tail between his legs.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
@David Farrar — “all candidate Obama had to do…”
__
I know you feel that way, but you have no authority to declare what the President had to do. There’s no requirement that the judge or the Secretary of State apply the standards of proof that you deem appropriate. It’s just not your call.
As I’ve told you many times, what is stated in the official record in Honolulu is the legal truth. You are free not to accept that, but SoS Kemp is not.
For someone who claims to be trying to uphold the Constitution, you sure are willing to toss out the Full Faith and Credit clause when you don’t like the conclusion it leads to!
February 9th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Doubtful
I don’t, but Judge Malihi’s Finding Number 8 Finding did.
And there is a requirement the ALC follow normal Discovery and evidentiary rules as a trial setting.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
@David Farrar — “Judge Malihi’s Finding Number 8 Finding did.”
__
Watch it, David, you’re lying. I pointed this out to you a short time ago. All Finding 8 said was that the candidate must “meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Here it is again:
“Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
ALJ Malihi concluded that the President does “meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” He did so, apparently, without using the evidence that you think should have been required, but that’s too bad. He’s the judge.
February 9th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
What he did was run away from this simple evidentiary hearing, with his tail between his legs.
And won. Three birther attorneys lost to an empty chair.
February 9th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Yeah, I love that “tail between his legs” bit. It’s like David thinks he can taunt the President into doing what he wants by calling him a chicken.
His childishness is really making him look foolish.
February 9th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Doubtful
February 9th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
At last, we agree.
The fact that Judge Malihi had to start with an unsupported predicate not only forms the basis of our appeal; it also forms the basis that his Number 8 Finding also shifted the burden of proof from the Plaintiffs to the Defendant.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
And then your attorney introduced evidence of President Obama’s Hawaiian birth. End of case.
February 9th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
@David Farrar —
No, you’re still missing the point. Finding #8 said that the candidate has to meet the qualifications. It did not say that the candidate has to prove that he meets the qualifications, at the hearing or elsewhere.
Under other circumstances, that might turn out to be necessary. But in this case, since Hawaiian officials have already attested to the birth data in the official Hawaiian record, those facts are considered legally true. No one else has to prove anything.
February 9th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Mr. Farrar:
Do you have an attorney to represent you in your appeal to Fulton County Superior Court, or will you proceed pro se?
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 9th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Doubtful
Finding Number Eight (8): “Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
You can believe what you want. But as for me…I’ll think I’ll stay with: “must..meet” means, has to meet, hasn’t yet met.
But you can go off in blind alley like bob had done.
ex animo
davidfarar
February 9th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
@David Farrar —
No argument that he “must meet” the qualifications.
And, subsequent to the hearing, ALJ Malihi published his conclusion, saying that the President does indeed meet the qualifications.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. If he must meet, and he does meet, that settles the matter.
February 9th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Doubtful
Fine, if that is what you want to believe. Such a belief will only bolster of appeal efforts.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
@David Farrar
“Judge Malihi Number 8 finding shifted the burden of proof to candidate Obama to show that he has met his Constitutional requirements.”
It does no such thing. It says the President must meet constitutional requirements. It does not say the President himself must submit the evidence. You’re playing word games.
As I said upthread, your own case introduced the birth certificate then failed to prove it’s a forgery. At that point, the only reasonable conclusion left is it’s not.
Look, Malihi wrote Finding Number Eight. It’s up to him, not you, to determine what he meant by it and whether its requirements have been fulfilled. As Doubtful pointed out, you’re left with petulantly stamping your feet and whining that the judge didn’t reach his determination in a manner YOU approve of, but that’s just not your call.
“we weren’t putting forward evidence to ‘prove’ candidate Obama was ineligible. We were putting forward exhibits and testimony to show why simply posting an image … on his White House dot gov Internet site is insufficient….”
And the judge didn’t buy your argument. Or are you already forgetting his ruling? Malihi determined there was sufficient evidence to prove the President was born in Hawaii, and no competent evidence to the contrary. You’re unhappy the judge apparently didn’t restrict himself to evidence or lines of reasoning pre-approved by David Farrar, but them’s the breaks.
“As I look back over the transcript of OUR case … I cannot find any reference to Hawaiian officials [etc.]”
You’re obfuscating, David, and it would appear we know better than you yourself what was said and introduced in your case. Go to the link I gave you over at the AJC site and again upthread here and look at the evidence YOUR counsel admitted into the record. Read Linda Jordan’s sworn affidavit. She goes into excruciating detail laying out all the statements the state of Hawaii has made regarding President Obama’s place of birth and proving the provenance of the birth certificate your same counsel also introduced into the record. You may not approve of the ways in which Malihi used your evidence, but just because it’s your evidence doesn’t mean you get to dictate which conclusions the judge is allowed to reach.
The bottom line is this: the judge has declared that your evidence failed to support your claims, and that there was convincing evidence the President is qualified for the office of POTUS. If you think the judge stepped all over some procedural or evidentiary rule to reach those conclusions, then good luck with your appeal. You’ll need it.
February 9th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Fine, if that is what you want to believe. Such a belief will only bolster of appeal efforts.
You don’t have an “appeal.” You are wasting your time in comment sections, and your attorney is looking herself up on wikipedia. Nothing has been filed, and Georgia votes March 6. Tick, tock.
February 9th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
What Mr. Farrar continues to deny is the fact that all of his assertions were rejected by a judge in his very own “trial on the merits,” during which his attorney failed him and his co-plaintiffs with an incompetent argument and courtroom manner, and by introducing the very evidence that PROVED their own case was without merit.
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 9th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Here’s the code covering Administrative Hearings: Title 50, Chapter 13, Article 2. http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-50/chapter-13/article-2/50-13-41/
Section 41, 2
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, in all cases every decision of an administrative law judge shall be treated as an initial decision as set forth in subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-17, including, but not limited to, the taking of additional testimony or remanding the case to the administrative law judge for such purpose. On review, the reviewing agency shall consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties.. In reviewing initial decisions by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, the reviewing agency shall give due regard to the administrative law judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-50/chapter-13/article-1/50-13-13/
§ 50-13-13 Article 1
(9) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.
So the Judge isn’t limited to the testimony, he has matters officially noticed. The SoS isn’t limited to what the Judge presents. Seems clear cut to me.
February 9th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Hawaii maintains Obama was born there and even has an official government web page devoted to it:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
The judge could have simply found it by googling: “Obama birth records Hawaii”. He was not limited to decide the case using ONLY what the plaintiffs presented as “evidence”.
As I’ve asked before, if the plaintiffs swore in testimony that Obama was a robot, without Obama or his lawyer there to dispute it, would the judge have been obligated to accept it as fact?
February 9th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
The judge didn’t even need to go that independent. Linda Jordan put the URL and what could be found there in her affidavit. The judge’s staff, in examining the evidence, were within their authority to look up the links to determine the credibility of the witness and the evidence.
Orly is a very very awful lawyer.
February 9th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
obsolete
If Judge Malihi did such a thing, which I highly doubt; he would have said he did. He can’t shift the burden of proof from the Plaintiffs to the defendant and then say…I consider him is eligible, with not facts in evidence .
This is a trial setting, where rules of Discovery and Evidence are followed, even by the judge. The judge in this case is acting like the jury, the finder of fact. Judge Malihi has to find fact from the evidence presented and then apply the law.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
David, you’re just making this up as you go along.
Have you read Whatever4’s postings, quoting Georgia’s administrative procedure? What you’re saying is completely wrong.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
This is NOT a trial setting at all. It’s an administrative hearing designed to ascertain the facts in order for an agency to make an informed decision. The parties to the action provide what facts they can or are willing to. Merely raising doubts isn’t sufficient. The standard is preponderance of the evidence. Which is more likely. The standard of evidence is looser than in a trial (that’s explicitly stated in the Rules and Regs.). Discovery isn’t available, IIRC (on an iPad so my links aren’t here).
February 9th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Whatever4
February 9th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Fine, show me where Jablonski has any other those online HDOH statements listed in his PTO.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
That’s been explained to you. They can be noticed without having been introduced by any party.
February 9th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
David Farrar:
Have you hired an attorney to represent you in your appeal to Fulton County Superior Court, or will you go it alone?
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 9th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
616-1-2-.12 Consolidation; Severance. Amended.
(1) In cases involving common issues of law or fact, an Administrative Law Judge may order a joint hearing to expedite or simplify consideration of any or all of the issues in such cases.
—————
The purpose of consolidation is for the JUDGE’S benefit not for the Plaintiff’s benefit. His mission is to find out the facts. One case can’t have a different outcome than another. Either the candidate is eligible or he isn’t.
February 9th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Do you know what Taitz is doing to prepare Farrar’s appeal?
Filing a challenge in Indiana.
Got your money’s worth with your attorney there, Farrar.
February 9th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
616-1-2-.18 Evidence; Official Notice. http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf
(1) As provided in the APA, the Administrative Law Judge shall apply the rules of evidence as applied in the trial of civil nonjury cases in the superior courts and may, when necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under such rules, consider evidence not otherwise admissible thereunder if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. At the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, such evidence which may be admitted includes the following:
(a) records, reports, statements… in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth … (iii) factual findings resulting from an investigation or research not performed in conjunction with the matter being heard and carried out pursuant to authority granted by law…
————
I believe that the statements on the official Hawaii Department of Health count under this. Jordan’s affidavit (Pg. 51 of the 208 pg. file) points to these statements with the actual URL of the Hawaii site. That page points back to the White House image, the statements of the 2 Directors, the current Director of Health’s correspondence with President Obama about the LFBC (including that she is sending 2 certified copies of the LFBC), but Jordan laboriously lays it all out in her affidavit. It’s YOUR evidence, and it can be accepted as it is the statement of a public office or agency. Your lawyer submitted this evidence, the Judge’s staff can examine it and determine its veracity. They did.
BTW — did Orly ever submit written testimony? Not FF&CL, the written testimony that the judge asked for in the hearing.
February 9th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
whatever4
And in that passing back and forth, did anyone every say,” Ah, I can feel the raised seal on this jpg?
Your 616-1-2-.18 (a) won’t allow the entry of a copy of a certified document into evidence . These are facsimiles for illustration purposes.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
The raised seal is basically a guarantee that the paper originated from the DoH and that the data matches what’s on the record. This works for us plebes when we go to get a license or whatever. WE don’t have a DoH saying online and in press conferences that our records are on file and those records show we were born in that state and linking to the images on our websites. We don’t have sworn testimony by Hawaiian officials in state hearings saying that we were born there.
These are official statements from public officials in Hawaii, carried out under Hawaii law (and after consultation with the HI AG), not related to this court case. That’s dead on 616-1-2-.18. It’s not the copy of a birth certificate entered into evidence or the image. It’s the facts of the information from the original record attested to by Hawaiian officials that’s what is allowed to be judicially noticed.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
W4, beautifully said.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Whatever4
February 9th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Without the seal, it’s inadmissible.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Did you read what I wrote? You are too focused on the piece of paper, which is the physical and portable version of the official record. Read the regulation again. A reasonably prudent person would rely on the official statements of a government agency. That’s what the DoH website is. The paper isn’t necessary if the official acts of the agency confirm the record. They do, they have, reasonable people know this. Therefore the rule applies, and no raised seal on an unnecessary piece of paper is needed. Certified copy of birth record = official notice from the certifying agency. It’s another form of verification.
Your appeal on this point is another futile effort.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
David Farrar:
Do you have an attorney to represent you for your appeal?
Thank you.
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 9th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
I guess I am not the only one thinking along these lines.
“But a 14th-Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen. Contrary to 14th-Amendment jurisprudence, the requirement of sole allegiance to the United States from birth onward has never been stricken from the Constitution’s eligibility clause.
“The Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause remains intact and unmolested by any controlling precedent.
“An undisputed fact is that Obama was not born into the status of having a natural, undivided allegiance to the United States.
Read more: Click here
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
@David Farrar — “I guess I am not the only one thinking along these lines.”
__
LOL!! This is just what I was talking about the other day!
Not only has the President gotten away scot-free with a very suspicious birth certificate, possibly signaling an enormous conspiracy but completely escaping the notice of opposition research and law enforcement throughout the world —
— he is coincidentally also Constitutionally ineligible, obvious to the most casual reader of Minor, but completely escaping the notice of legal experts nationwide.
David, doesn’t the coincidence strike you as remarkable?
February 9th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Doubtful
February 9th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
That’s been explained to you. They can be noticed without having been introduced by any party.
And the appeals court is going to say. “‘Consider?’ Now I wonder what fact(s) Judge Malihi actually used to form his consideration? The fact that Judge Malihi didn’t state any in his decision, leads a person with common sense to believe he didn’t use any.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 9th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
@David Farrar —
No, David, they’re not going to wonder about anything. Let me try to find another way of explaining it to you.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the lawyers on both sides neglected to state in their submissions that the Barack Obama they were referring to is the President of the United States.
Does that mean that the judge in his ruling cannot consider the fact that the candidate is also the President? Of course not; the law doesn’t turn on technicalities like that. The judge will simply take notice of the fact that Barack Obama is the President. Nobody has to put it on the record for him, because it is legally recognized as fact.
Similarly with the President’s date and place of birth. That information is known with legal certainty, because we know how it appears on official state records. Therefore in can be taken notice of by a judge or hrearing officer. No one has to put it on the record.
February 10th, 2012 at 7:03 am
Doubtful,
I don’t think you are right. In our case there was absolutely no reason, nor justification, for the judge to take “official notice” that candidate Obama was the president. If he had wanted to do that, then he should have simply issued “Finding Number 9.
If Judge Malihi wanted to recognize Hawaiian health Department statements, fine. Issue a Finding and we all can go from there. The fact that Judge Malihi didn’t state what fact(s) he based his consideration upon, the very reason we were there, makes a mockery of Georgia’s judiciary system — yes, I know it wasn’t an actual trial. But in the eyes of the birther community, it was a sham.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 10th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
@David Farrar — “If Judge Malihi wanted to recognize Hawaiian health Department statements, fine. Issue a Finding…”
__
And why do you think there’s a legal requirement for a pre-hearing finding to be issued in anticipation of taking judicial notice of something in reaching a decision?
Maybe you need to issue something like “Rules to Obey So That the Birther Community Won’t Consider the Hearing a Sham.”
February 10th, 2012 at 1:52 am
Mr. Farrar,
First off, I don’t believe that you deserve anything more than a court refusing to overturn SoS Kemp’s decision (likely on the “technicality” that you have no basis on which to appeal, but the inability for your lawyer to file anything correctly or your complete and utter lack of merit in your case would both spell your doom (and rightfully so) on their own.
More importantly, I have a question now (after all, you’ve had your question about President Obama and the GA ballot answered–even if you don’t like the answer and want to move the goalposts…): Are you a racist?
Let’s look at the facts:
You have an unquestionably racist lawyer–as evinced by things she’s written in public communication, posted on her blog personally, and allowed through her heavy-handed moderation. By the way, you “disavowal” of Orly’s statements was pathetic. I’m sure that if SoS Kemp’s office still had any respect for you (unlikely) it was destroyed by your whiny attempt to argue your case instead of just saying you wanted nothing more to do with your vicious, hate-filled, incompetent lawyer.
You are using an unquestionably racist argument. The “two citizen parents” argument (straight from the same mis-translation of Vattel written a decade after the Constitution) was the cornerstone of the Dred Scott decision. If you think Dred Scott wasn’t racist then that’s convincing evidence that you are a racist right there…
You participate in a movement which uniformly tolerates racism (plus sedition and plenty of other hate-filled bile…). I’ve never seen a birther call out one of the many racists in their midst–why is that? Why do you feel comfortable “paling around with racists”?
It seems to me that the evidence that you are a racist is much stronger than the evidence that President Obama is not eligible. Can you offer us any proof that your Quixotic quest to overturn a lawful election is based on anything other than racism? (it sure isn’t based on the facts or the law…)
February 10th, 2012 at 6:25 am
Slartibartfast
“If Obama is not willing to be completely transparent, then he should step down. To the bewilderment of his sycophants, the cloud of skepticism hanging over Obama’s head is commensurate to his unique background, not his skin color. No one doubted the eligibility of Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton, or Herman Cain.”
Read more: Click here.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 10th, 2012 at 11:55 am
None of them had any realistic chance at becoming President. The Obama eligibility rumors didn’t start until Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in June, 2008.
February 10th, 2012 at 7:10 am
Whatever4
February 9th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
“Certified copy of birth record = official notice from the certifying agency. It’s another form of verification.”
And just how will the Superior Court of Fulton County know what facts Judge Malihi used to arrive at his consideration from the record?
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 10th, 2012 at 10:48 am
@David Farrar — “And just how will the Superior Court of Fulton County know what facts Judge Malihi used to arrive at his consideration from the record?”
__
First of all, you’re being willfully ignorant here. You’ve been told repeatedly that ALJ Malihi is permitted to take judicial (administrative) notice of things not in the record, and the relevant law had been quoted to you several times. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending not to hear is a juvenile stunt.
But, most important, say you are right. Just for the sake or argument, say that the Superior Court of Fulton County is displeased that ALJ Malihi failed to state the source of his knowledge of the President’s birth data.
Then what? Will they reverse the decision?
Don’t be ridiculous. The Superior Court too lives in the real world and will not hesitate to apply what is widely known in the United States: Legally, the date and place of President Obama’s birth are matters of proven fact since we’ve been officially told what’s in Hawaii’s state records.
February 10th, 2012 at 11:59 am
At best, they’d slap the judge’s hand for sloppy paper. They won’t overturn. They will err on the side of “let the electorate decide.”
(BTW — do you have a link to the judge’s PTO? I can find PTOs from the parties, but for some reason I’m not finding the judge’s. It must be titled something else. Thanks.)
February 10th, 2012 at 7:27 am
Whatever4
The plain simple fact of the matter is, here was Sec. Kemp, Judge Malihi, Dr. Tartiz, Rep Hatfield, and Van Iron and their clients, all gathered together to see candidate Obama’s birth certificate. And what did candidate Obama do? He ran away from actually placing one of the three he happily handed out to reporters at his press conference.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 10th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
I wouldn’t describe it as running away. I’d describe it as not being bothered by the fly buzzing around the room.
I believe Obama only received 2 document from Hawaii in April, not 3.
February 10th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
@David Farrar — “And what did candidate Obama do? He ran away…”
__
Well, let’s see how his actions worked out for him. On the one hand, he’s got a whiner on blog sites accusing him of running away; and on the other hand, he’s got the presiding ALJ (with the concurrence of the Secretary of State) saying:
“The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations…. None of the testifying witnesses offered persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes the plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”
Tell me again why he’s the one coming out of this looking bad.
February 10th, 2012 at 8:45 am
“makes a mockery of Georgia’s judiciary system”
David, David, David. When you CONTINUE to get even the most fundamental aspects of your case wrong, you simply cannot be trusted with your interpretation of anything related to it.
For the duodecillionth time, this was not a court of law, it was an administrative court. You can’t expect us to take anything you say here seriously when you can’t even keep straight which branch of government you were talking to.
February 10th, 2012 at 9:19 am
“I guess I am not the only one thinking along these lines.”
Well, well. One birther quoting another. The American Thinker write-up can be dismissed with a single quote:
“To meet a basic legal standard of evidentiary competence and admissibility, certified paper copies must be produced, and the original document in Hawaii must be made available for the states.”
Any blog entry that goes that far off the tracks in one assertion can pretty much be ignored on anything it has to say.
February 10th, 2012 at 9:22 am
“The plain simple fact of the matter is…”
Obama won without even showing up, without entering any evidence, without offering any defense whatsoever.
That SHOULD tell you just how bad your case was, but you’re more interested in playing sophist than in any rational search for truth.
February 10th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Nathanael,
Yes, that is strange. I consider it even stranger that a meticulous judge, like Judge Malihi, would leave just a gaping hole unaddressed in the very foundation of his decision.
Strange, indeed.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 10th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Well, gee, if you consider him to be such a meticulous judge, are you open to the possibility that he acted properly and within the law and you’re the one who’s got it wrong?
February 10th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Good think you’ve accepted the judge’s decision, like you said you would.
February 10th, 2012 at 10:45 am
bob,
Yes, indeed; I accept Judge Malihi’s decision. I respect Judge Malihi’s decision, as I do the man. I also accept and respect Sec. Kemp’s decision, as I do the man.
That doesn’t mean I consider their decisions right, or even based on the evidence presented.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 10th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
What does that mean? How are you accepting the decision if you 1) don’t believe it’s valid, 2) intend to appeal it?
February 10th, 2012 at 10:55 am
“Respecting the decision” does not mean wasting your days saying it was WRONG WRONG WRONG!
February 10th, 2012 at 11:38 am
David Farrar:
Since you refuse to answer which Georgia attorney you will hire to pursue your appeal in Fulton County Superior Court (and since your current attorney is not admitted to practice law in Georgia) I will assume all of your words about appealing are, like all of your ridiculous assertions about the law, LIES.
You are a liar, a racist, and a birther – (yes, in the pejorative sense). And within a week or two, your fifteen minutes of birther fame will drop you on your forehead (notice how little attention you currently get from your attorney?) as deadlines close and birthers go to another state for the next voluntary smackdown.
You were used as a pawn by the most incompetent excuse for a political movement that ever existed – and you lost. You were played by the world’s worst strategist, Orly Taitz, and she’s already thrown you in the trash can and moved on. Yet you still seem to believe that she’s mounting a strong appeal for you and pursuing your loser of a case.
And you spend your days obstinately hammering on a large group of anti-birthers, begging justification.
It’s really quite humorous, until a week or so from now, when the only group that’s listening to you forgets you for the routine bout of influenza that you are.
February 10th, 2012 at 11:45 am
I thought it was really nice of Orly to inform David, her client, that SHE was going to appeal and wanted to know if he would join HER in HER appeal… what a complete and utter moron she is.
I also think it’s really nice of her to send her failed piles of crap to other states (even if to the wrong places in those states) to continue to establish what a lunatic and moron she is. She does not, however, include the decision of Judge Malihi and SoS Kemp in those packets, however…. funny that. I suspect those agencies either know about the decisions or will know.
I would be remiss in not thanking David for his assistance, through Orly, in demonstrating how delusional she and other birthers are in their jihad against Obama.
Well done.
February 11th, 2012 at 3:36 am
“If Judge Malihi wanted to recognize Hawaiian health Department statements, fine. Issue a Finding and we all can go from there.”
David, you’ve got your legal language wrong. “Find” is used for conclusions of law. “Consider” is applied to facts.
A court would not “find” HDOH statements, it would “consider” them. Ditto for Obama being president.
“The fact that Judge Malihi didn’t state any in his decision, leads a person with common sense to believe he didn’t use any.”
Not at all. It would simply lead a person of common sense to note that he didn’t state any.
February 11th, 2012 at 8:53 am
. Nathanael
“This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”…Judge Malihi.
I see. So when Judge Malihi made no “Finding” that candidate Obama was born in the United States, is wasn’t using the law, he was using the evidence and the legal arguments presented at the hearing to establish this “fact”?
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 11th, 2012 at 9:37 am
@ David, et a.
Everyone is free, of course, to continue to rehash a hearing that is over and done with and what did or didn’t happen, what was or was not presented/accepted/rejected and ruled on. It is now time, however, to concentrate on the “appeal.”
I suspect Hatfield and Van Irion will file Monday, Tuesday at the latest. Orly perhaps Monday as well. The Court will most likely consolidate the appeals as the “issue/s” is/are the same.
Orly’s said very little about her appeal, except to ask David if he wished to join HER appeal. Are they going to Fulton County Superior Court or can they go straight to the GA Supreme Court? If they go to Superior Court first and lose will the GA Supreme Court (where GA law is pretty clearly against them) even take up the appeal?
She’s not mentioned looking for a sponsoring attorney in GA, for instance. Does she have one or does she believe being allowed to appear before an administrative judge grants her pro hac vice in the GA courts? If she believes that and the Court disagrees and makes her, play by the real rules? Then what?
So many questions, so little time. 🙂
February 11th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
I am sure David will eventually tell us but he has to whine about how no birth certificate was entered into evidence in his case another 80 or so times first.
Extreme Animal
Fred Muggs
February 11th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
@David Farrar
“So when Judge Malihi made no “Finding” that candidate Obama was born in the United States, is wasn’t using the law, he was using the evidence and the legal arguments presented at the hearing to establish this “fact”?”
Your getting confused on the language once again. The court did not “find” that the President was born in Hawaii, it “considered” it:
“For the purpose of this section’s analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States;” (pg. 6)
“For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.” (pg. 10)
Remember that courts “consider” facts and “find” conclusions of law. That the President was born in the US was a fact established through the evidence provided, and perhaps judicial notice and his own research. Legal arguments apply to conclusions of law, not finding of facts, so no, based on Malihi’s language, no legal arguments were used in determining Obama was born in the US; that was established on the strength of the evidence alone.
February 12th, 2012 at 8:00 am
Nathanael,
Actually, I think we are both wrong here. I now think Judge Malihi’s statement: “For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.” (pg. 10) was directed to his analysis only of the natural born Citizen issue raised by all three cases.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 12th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
@David Farrar — “his analysis only of the natural born Citizen issue raised by all three cases.”
__
It sounds like you’re saying that ALJ Malihi is considering Obama to have been born when and when he says he was for “all three cases.”
But I suspect you’re also finding some exclusive way to interpret the word “only” so that the birth data can be taken into account at some times and ignored at others.
Am I understanding you correctly? Can you fill us in please?
February 12th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Doubtful
February 12th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I see that Rep. Hatfield is also raising this same objection. I believe only Van Irion indicated to the judge that candidate Obama’s birth certificate was “authentic”.
Click here for source (Page 2, first paragraph).
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 12th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
David wrote… “I see that Rep. Hatfield is also raising this same objection. I believe only Van Irion indicated to the judge that candidate Obama’s birth certificate was “authentic”.
And there being no competent evidence presented otherwise, in any of the hearings, it is perfectly within ALJ’s purview to accept that concession and representation on the part of Van Irion.
There were three separated hearings, but the issue was one.. is Obama eligible for the GA PPP ballot. The issue was consolidated between all the hearings, even though three “separate” hearings were permitted.
It’s something very commonly done by many courts. Something you should know, having worked as a CR.
I have no idea why that’s so difficult a concept for you to understand. Mostl likely you do and are just being obtuse with this “my case” meme.
February 12th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
@David Farrar —
I see, but it’s just more of the same. Van Irion is grasping at straws.
Under the FF&S clause, there is simply no legal doubt about when and where President Obama was born.
You are trying to nibble around the edges on the subject of whether it was proper of ALJ Malihi and SoS Kemp to take notice of that truth.
But, since it is the legally recognized truth, the best you can say is “OK, it’s true, but ignore it.”
Lot’s of luck with that.
February 12th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Doubtful
February 12th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I think I posted here, or at one of these other threads, the Hawaiian statute whereby access to HDOH records can be had by a court order.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 12th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
If facts have been fully established according to the Constitution, no court is going to conclude that more evidence is needed.
Isn’t that obvious to you?
February 12th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Frank Bolivar
February 12th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Yes, it is a very difficult concept for me and Rep. Hatfield to understand. Most likely he also is being obtuse with his “my case” meme.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 12th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
David Farrar
Sorry, but I don’t for one second believe Mr. Hatfield doesn’t understand either the concept or what actually is obviously the case.
But then I don’t think he really believes the Minor v Happersett BS either. I mean, if Orly isn’t sold on it, it’s difficult to believe any real lawyer would buy into that baloney, and I don’t believe he does.
Van Irion? He’s just a grifter along for the birther bucks ride, clearly evidenced by his Berg-like postings about the status of his ”cases.”
I have a feeling the word “frivolous” will be used when a real court of law gets ahold of these appeals. I don’t know if they’ll rise to the use of the words “utterly frivolous” as they have with Apuzzo, but I hope so.
I can assure you Mr. Hatfield will understand those terms.
February 12th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
David Farrar stated… “If facts have been fully established according to the Constitution, no court is going to conclude that more evidence is needed.
Isn’t that obvious to you?”
It apparently is not obvious to you, as facts have been clearly established that President Obama is eligible for the office of the presidency, and not even one scintilla of competent evidence (you do understand the word “competent evidence” right?) has been produced otherwise, nor will it be..
You are correct… nothing else is needed.
February 12th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Um, no, I said that, but I think your point is clear!
February 12th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
I see that Rep. Hatfield is also raising this same objection.
Which was rejected by Kemp.
I think I posted here, or at one of these other threads, the Hawaiian statute whereby access to HDOH records can be had by a court order.
Once you get a court order, you might be in business.
February 12th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Georgia’s Obama Eligibility Decision: Legally Incorrect And Ethically Indefensible
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 12th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Georgia’s Obama Eligibility Decision: Legally Incorrect And Ethically Indefensible
Source: Click here.
ex animo
daviodfarrar
February 12th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Well, hell, David, with those fine legal minds on your side how could anything possibly go wrong?
February 12th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Mr. Farrar,
Bullshit. The other attorneys entered images of the BC and stipulated to its accuracy, your attorney entered images of the BC and utterly failed to impeach it or cast doubt upon it in any way, and SoS Kemp was sent a copy of the BC as well. Not to mention that its veracity can be inferred from official statements from Hawai’i. You can’t un-ring the bell and you can’t change the rules of evidence. Truthfully, you (personally) are completely irrelevant in any case–and you have been ever since you had the poor judgement to put your argument in Orly’s incompetent hands. I really hope you get sanctioned for this frivolous shit–you certainly deserve it.
February 13th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“I now think Judge Malihi’s statement … was directed to his analysis only of the natural born Citizen issue raised by all three cases.”
Which means what, exactly? That it didn’t apply to the rest of your case? But as Malihi rejected all your evidence as not probative or supporting of your claims, you’re still left with nothing. And the evidence for Obama’s US birth remains unassailed.
“In actuality there was NO evidence ‘presented at the hearing,’ in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision”
There was of course a LOT of evidence presented at the hearing. It’s just that both you and the fine folk at WesternJournalism.com continue to operate under the misapprehension that evidence in favor of the defendant can only be in favor of the defendant if it was submitted BY the defendant. That somehow plaintiffs are insured by some mysterious application of a non-existent statute from shooting themselves in the foot by proving the defendant’s case for him.
Note that the citation from Malihi’s decision doesn’t say “as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented BY THE DEFENDANT at the hearing.” There is no restriction placed on who is allowed to submit evidence favorable to the defendant, and if the plaintiffs want to go ahead and do that, I’m sure Jablonski is grateful for the help.
Again, you do not get to decide for the judge what use he’s allowed to put evidence to. You can’t say, sorry, Your Honor, but it’s OUR evidence, therefore you’re only allowed to use it in ways favorable to us. That’d be like a defendant submitting a picture of himself committing armed robbery, then complaining when the judge finds him guilty.
February 13th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
@Nathanael —
At this point, David is in a totally no-win situation. He is reduced to taking the position that, even if the President’s birth data are required by the Constitution to be taken as legally true, he can somehow prevent ALJ Malihi and the other decision-makers from taking those facts into account.
“OK, he was born in Hawaii, but you have to act like you don’t know that” is not a winning strategy.
February 13th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Nathanel,
You are as welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine . We filed for an appeal today…to cause continues.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 13th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Orly filed, but she has problems with virtually every aspect of Rule 4.4 to being admitted pro hac vice.
Good luck on that one.
You’d probably do better pro se anyway, but just sayin’.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Yep, it appears that either the judge or the clerk is aware that Georgia has a real rule that must be obeyed to obtain PHV status. Let’s watch David’s attorney at work as she tries to actually follow a rule for a change.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Hey, David Farrar:
Your incompetent attorney appears to have botched the pro hac vice application. She needs an in-state sponsoring attorney, and she needs NOT TO HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED $20,000 by Judge Land.
Therefore, unless you’ve hired additional representation, your appeal will fail to get anywhere.
So you won’t be able to convince Judge Wright of your preposterous claim that Judge Malihi shouldn’t consider any information in the defendant’s favor that the defendant didn’t introduce.
Sorry, Buddy.
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 15th, 2012 at 8:34 am
She only posted the cover sheet so we do not know what Orly actually submitted. Maybe David Farrar could like post it or something? Hint, hint. Of course Orly may not have wanted the world to see she had to ‘fess up and disclose the big fat sanction Judge Land slapped upon her in the Peach State just down the road from Atlanta.
I have no doubt we will see it in all its glory at Jack Ryan’s SCRIBD page in due time along with Hatfield & his brother Darryl and Van Irion’s.
February 15th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I called that one. Orly’s (and David’s) appeal is a real piece of work, Does David agree with the accusation of judicial misconduct? It is your appeal after all. That is probably the most serious accusation one can make against a jurist (albeit a fairly low level examiner). I expect Judge Malihi takes his job very seriously. When you make statements claiming the decision “looks like” it was written Obama’s attorneys and call that proof you should be ashamed. I hope your attorney is sanctioned and the defense moves for costs. You should pay with your wallet for this crap.
February 15th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Of course, first she has to be admitted to practice before the court. According to her (second) submission of her pro hac vice application (the first the judge wrote her a note and told her to read the f’g rules) she can’t find a GA attorney willing to risk his license by signing off on her ridiculous pleadings. David may have to look elsewhere or go it pro se. Based on his obvious excellent legal knowledge as posted here, I’m
sure he’d do an excellent job.
OR, perhaps that GA attorney that assisted him in drawing his initial complaint would be willing to step in.
February 15th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
realitycheck1776
February 15th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Au contraire; everything is proceeding as planned.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 15th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
@David Farrar — “Au contraire; everything is proceeding as planned.”
__
So Orly’s lunatic vitriolic rant, with its gross disrespect to both the ALJ and the SoS, is all part of the plan? And it’s a plan that you endorse?
I hope so. I’d hate to see you pay a price for behavior that did not reflect your intentions. But your attorney does speak for you, you know.
February 15th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Doubtful
February 15th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
As I said before, I respect both Sec. Kemp and Judge Malihi. There is no doubt in my mind they made the decision the believed was the right decision. That is all I ask of anyone sitting in judgement of this case.
What Dr. Taitz says outside of the courtroom his her own business.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 15th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
@David Farrar — “What Dr. Taitz says outside of the courtroom his her own business.”
__
I am speaking of the appeal that she filed in your case. She submitted it to the Superior Court in your name.
She has already been sanctioned once in Georgia, as I’m sure you know, and it hardly strikes me as a good idea to be insulting respected public officials, especially when you’re trying to get your side of the argument seen in a favorable light.
February 15th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Doubtful
February 15th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Yes, I see what you mean. I will seek to amend that section of the pleading.
Thanks for the heads up.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 15th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Please see Re. Michael Hatfild’s letter to Sec. Kemp.
<a href="http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Powell-SwenssonvObamaAttorneyHatfieldLetterBrieftoGeorgiaSecretaryofStateRegardingDecisionbyJudgeMichaelMalihi2-7-2012.pdf"<Click here for source.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 15th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Darn! what didn’t that work?
Click to access Powell-SwenssonvObamaAttorneyHatfieldLetterBrieftoGeorgiaSecretaryofStateRegardingDecisionbyJudgeMichaelMalihi2-7-2012.pdf
…I see why now; can you?
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 15th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Hatfield’s letter is dated February 7. The Secretary of State accepted the ALJ’s recommendation on February 6.
With sharp minds like these….
February 15th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
@David Farrar
Are you saying you didn’t even read what your attorney filed? That is astounding. I skimmed it for five minutes and was aghast at the stupidity and arrogance of it. Your attorney could end up costing you some bucks if costs are awarded for a frivolous filing. Do the other plaintiffs know they might be on the hook? Since you live in Georgia it will be easier for the state to go after you of course. It is not as easily undone as you think either. A judge is not going to like seeing a communication directly from the client explaining that his attorney is an idiot while she still the attorney. I hope you didn’t sign that unethical document that Orly has posted saying you will not sue her for malpractice.
Best of luck my friend.
February 16th, 2012 at 7:17 am
Reality Check… of course, she has to be able to be his attorney first. She has thus far failed all 9 requirements of the pro hac vice application (and this her second attempt).
And she’s not a party (and can’t be) so if she’s not admitted phv David will have to find another attorney (good luck) or go it pro se. He certainly could do no worse than Orly will if she’s permitted to appear phv.
It does not surprise me one bit that David has not read the tripe his “attorney” filed on his behalf, for several reasons, the main one being Orly has no “clients,” she has a name on a pleading that allows her to spread her crap to courts. There’s no way she submits pleadings to clients for review and approval. That would be acting as a real lawyer and we all know she’s as far from being a lawyer as one can get.
February 16th, 2012 at 8:56 am
You are probably correct. I suspect Taitz didn’t send a copy to any of the “plaintiffs” before she filed but only afterwards. However, he is her attorney whether she is admitted to practice or not and the motion was filed. Even without the criminal accusations the case is nonsense and frivolous, however. The other 3 are also.
I don’t know whether you heard my show last night but Sterngard Freigen thinks that once the plaintiffs refile against the correct defendant (who knows how long that will take) that the GA AG will argue that the SoS has no jurisdiction in a PPP primary and the cases should be dismissed. Now that would cause some Brifer heads to kaplode.
February 16th, 2012 at 9:00 am
There is a difference here – in this case Farrar’s signature is actually on the appeal
February 16th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Yeah, I get that. I even stated so in another post… he signed it so he owns it.
He’s also pro se unless she’s admitted, which would probably be a good thing for him.
And she can’t appear pro se, as she seems to think she can, as she was not, nor is she now, a party.
February 16th, 2012 at 9:07 am
“Reality Check
February 15th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
@David Farrar
Are you saying you didn’t even read what your attorney filed? That is astounding.”
Doesn’t matter whether he read it or not. Unless Orly forged his signature, he signed it, so he owns it.
February 16th, 2012 at 9:38 am
Absolutely, if his name is on it he owns it. Now there are some potential actions he could take but I think we have helped enough already. 😉 (One obvious show of good faith would be to fire Taitz and lodge a complaint with the California Bar but my take is he is too much of an Orly sycophant to do that. )
February 16th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
HEY FARRAR!
Taitz’s motion to appear pro hac vice was DENIED.
Better start cracking the books, “counselor.”
February 16th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
You know, David, it hasn’t been that long since you smugly gave us your personal assurance that you had been awarded a default judgment and that President Obama was definitely not going to appear on the 2012 ballot. There was no doubt in your mind that that was the case, though of course events have proven otherwise.
I’m not accusing you of lying. I think you were sadly misled by deceitful, incompetent people that you trusted.
But don’t you ever learn? There’s one person on this scene who has consistently, reliably been absolutely wrong every single time
You can see that, can’t you? Why are you blindly following the path that leads nowhere but into the abyss?
February 16th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Doubtful,
I am not concerned over the fact that I might be wrong. For all I know, Barack Obama might have met his qualifications. My point was, he has never actually had his credentials vetted properly. Unfortunately, instead of coming into the courtroom and slapping down his birth certificate, and challenging me to prove he is wrong, he chose to run away with his tail between his legs. Just think about it, Barack Obama ran away from little Orly & David. How pathetic is that?
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 16th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
LOL, as you might expect, I see it very differently.
The President of the United States was so unconcerned with the little Orly & David show that he simply went about his business, allowing the show to proceed unimpeded. It meant taking the risk that the President would be undefended in case any evidence of real substance against his eligibility were brought forth.
And it was a risk well taken. Even the ALJ, who might have been inclined to give Team Obama a hard time for taking the day off, was forced to watch the silly show and say, “You’ve got nothing. Your witnesses are unpersuasive. Your evidence is non-probative.”
That’s legal talk for labeling a case absolute garbage.
You seem to be misunderstanding the whole point of the hearing. The President was under no obligation to satisfy you, and no one was obligated to convince you that a proper “vetting” had taken place. It was a fact-finding hearing, the purpose of which was for ALJ Malihi to decide if the President had met his qualifications to appear on the ballot, and he decided in the affirmative.
You keep using the childish “tail between his legs” crack and it makes you sound like a poor loser. The President not only won big but came out of this with his dignity fully intact. I can’t say the same for your side.
February 16th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Doubtful
February 16th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but the two PTOs tell a different story. The fact is, Jablonski was so cocky he could get this case dismissed, so “…unconcerned with the little Orly & David show that he simply went about his business, allowing the show to proceed unimpeded”…never bothering to prepare his PTO for the eventuality his motion to dismiss just might be overruled. When his motion to dismiss was overruled it left Jablonski and his client with no other recourse but to stuff two copies of his client’s .jpg internet images of his two birth certificate into an envelope, shove them in front of Judge Malihi and Sec. Kemp as they both ran away with, you guessed it, their collective tails between their legs. That is what this little charade was all about…how to get his client’s prima facie evidence into the record when their PTO would not allow it.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 16th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
David, David, who do you think you’re kidding? President Obama was born in Hawaii. Because he was born in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born Citizen. It’s as simple as that.
You can play games from today to tomorrow about PTOs, but you’re just dreaming. The President is in fact qualified, there is plenty of evidence to show that he is, there is no evidence to show that he’s not. No one has to satisfy you, they only have to satisfy the authorities, and so far they’ve had no trouble doing that at any level.
Let’s face it, David, what looks like a great charade to you is simply another day’s work for ALJ Malihi and SoS Kemp. They did what they had to do under the law, and they will be upheld.
Remember, you’re the guy who assured us that this was certain to end in a default.
February 17th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Doubtful
February 16th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Just as in a judicial setting, sometimes in blogging, the closest we can come to the truth is uncontested testimony. In this regard, I appreciate your honesty.
But now that you are here, let me ask you a question that I have been trying to answer as it relates to my appeal, as bob here has suggested…thank you bob … Do you agree with this statement made, I believe in the decision Wong Kim Ark decision: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.”
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 17th, 2012 at 11:00 am
@David Farrar — “Do you agree with this statement made, I believe in the decision Wong Kim Ark decision:”
__
The statement, taken from United States v. Rhodes (1866), was quoted in Wong Kim Ark.
But I’m not a Constitutional attorney, and I’ll leave it to others to explore the minutiae of the decision with you. I am satisfied from all that I’ve read that WKA is essentially universally considered to be settled law on the question of Natural Born Citizenship — I haven’t seen a single legal opinion to the contrary from a single soul who is recognized as an expert in the field, and while there is always a chance that a future SCOTUS decision will undo what’s been done in the past, I doubt that you or your partners have found the secret quote that, mirabile dictu, will undermine the way the legal community has viewed this decision for over a century with no credible dispute whatsoever.
But look where we are! Once more, you have turned on a dime from questioning the authenticity of the birth certificate to quote-mining over WKA. As I’ve told you repeatedly, your ability to believe that the President of the United States is ineligible to hold office for not one but two separate and distinct reasons that have nothing to do with each other, and yet both have passed unnoticed by all the opposition research and legal research that’s been brought to bear —
Well, I ask you again. Isn’t the coincidence simply remarkable?
February 16th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Orly won’t give up. She will probably call Judge Wright names and accuse her of criminal misconduct. All in David’s name of course. As they say, when you make a deal with the devil be prepared to be the guest of honor at a barbeque. I think they say that anyway.
February 16th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
David… Ran from you and Orly? Really?
He didn’t run from you or anyone else, especially Orly. What a couple of narcissistic little seditionist twits you two are.
He ignored you, all of you, treated you with the disdain you so rightly deserve…. You, Orly and every pathetic birther on the planet.
Ran from you. LMAO.
February 17th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
I will be the first to admit I was wrong but it looks like no GA attorney was willing to sign up for a ride on the crazy train. How unpatriotic of Judge Wright to actually insist she follow the rules. Every time I hear Orly refer to herself as a civil rights attorney I want to gag.
February 16th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Mr. Farrar said: “My point was, he has never actually had his credentials vetted properly. ”
Bullshit.
He satisfied all of the Constitutionally required vetting (ballot requirements, popular election, electoral college, Congressional certification and the oath of office. You want to make him jump through hoops that weren’t required for any of his predecessors–and you refuse to accept that he has already met a standard of proof that you are completely unable to impeach–a standard that none of his predecessors has even come close to. You’re a hypocritical idiot and I’m going to enjoy every second of the train wreck that your lawsuit has become. Please continue this pro se so we can get another Friday Nite Smackdown!!!
February 16th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Mr. Farrar,
Two of the three attorneys (including your own) introduced evidence of President Obama’s Hawai’ian birth. If the judge was supposed to ignore your evidence why did you bother with this in the first place? The Judge made a finding of fact based on the evidence before him and you have no credible argument that he did anything improper in doing so. I understand that you’re a hypocrite who can’t stand President Obama’s success and I hope one day you will realize what a pathetic person your irrational hate has turned you into.
February 17th, 2012 at 12:35 am
Is Farrar using the blogosphere as a dress rehearsal for the arguments that he will have to make on his own behalf in court, or will he open his checkbook and hire a Georgia attorney?
February 17th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Taitz has officially told Farrar he’s in it alone. Good luck!
February 17th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Funny, isn’t it — just a couple of weeks ago David offered some advice to President Obama about how he should pursue a complaint against Jablonski for inadequate representation.
David, considering the respective positions that Orly’s client and Jablonski’s client are in, do you maybe want to reconsider your thinking?
Poor David — his attorney, Lady Liberty herself, has run away with her tail between her legs!
February 17th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Just yesterday Farrar was gloating that President Obama and his attorney “ran away with, you guessed it, their collective tails between their legs.”
How the view of Taitz’s ass as she flees?
February 17th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
“David Farrar
February 17th, 2012 at 9:58 am
February 16th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Just as in a judicial setting, sometimes in blogging, the closest we can come to the truth is uncontested testimony.”
David: Where in the world did you get the idea that because testimony is uncontested that it therefore must be taken as true? That is just not true.
February 17th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Frank Bolivar
February 17th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Oh, but it is. Lacking any other rebuttal evidence, uncontested testimony is the truth.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 17th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
@David Farrar — “Lacking any other rebuttal evidence, uncontested testimony is the truth.”
__
You have no legal training whatever, do you? That statement reflects great ignorance of the law.
Didn’t you read ALJ Malihi’s ruling? He said:
“None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”
The testimony was uncontested, but ALJ Malihi doesn’t seem to have concluded that it was the truth.
Are you suggesting that he is in fact the one ignorant of the law?
February 17th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Doubtful
February 17th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Which is the basis of our appeal. I thought you knew?
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 17th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Frankly, no. I assumed you had an actual argument, rather than a gripe that the Administrative Law Judge himself failed to understand what it means to be a “trier of fact.”
February 17th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
No, it’s not. The testimony, even uncontested, is still subject to the same scrutiny of any testimony… credibility of the witness, knowledge of the subject matter testified to, etc.
If you believe uncontested testimony must be accept as truth by the trier of fact, you are not near as smart as i initially gave you credit for. Did you learn that concept from Orly? It sound like crap she’d believe also.
I also find it very difficult to believe you were ever a court reporter and believe such nonsense.
February 19th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
@David Farrar — “Lacking any other rebuttal evidence, uncontested testimony is the truth.”
______
Uh, no. Not if it is not credible or probative.
In your case, the ALJ found that your unrebutted evidence was neither.
The standard on appeal is that the court will accept the findings of fact by the ALJ unless they are clearly erroneous. This is especially true of witness testimony, as the ALJ was in a unique position to assess the demeanor of the witnesses in judging their credibility. You face a nearly impossible task in demonstrating that Judge Malihi’s impressions — unfavorable impressions — of your evidence is clearly erroneous.
February 17th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Mr. Farrar,
You would have us believe that if one of your witnesses had testified that he had seen the sun rise in the north that morning then the judge would have had to assume that to be true for the purposes of his ruling. If you believe that is the case then you are an even bigger idiot than I thought. You do nothing but embarrass yourself, the state of Georgia, the Republican party, and the country and I’m sure any rational judge will toss your case on one or more of its many procedural defects rather than get into the utter batshittery of your arguments. Please keep birfing as loud as you can–it will help President Obama get reelected.
February 17th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
@Slartibartfast — “You would have us believe that if one of your witnesses had testified that he had seen the sun rise in the north that morning then the judge would have had to assume that to be true for the purposes of his ruling.”
__
Excellent example. It seems to me that if a witness had given such testimony, the ALJ might have signaled his refusal to accept it by describing it as “not persuasive.”
February 17th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
David Farrar said: ““All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.”
From “A compendious dictionary of the English language” By Noah Webster, 1806:
Allegiance, n. the duty of a subject to princes, or to the state in which they live (pg. 9)
Citizen, n. one inhabiting a city, a freeman.
Jurisdiction, n, legal authority, power, a district (pg. 168)
Native, n. one born in any place; a. natural, real (pg. 199)
Natural, a. produced by nature, baseborn, easy (pg. 199)
Natural, n. an idiot, fool, native quality or gift (pg. 199)
Subject, n. one who is under the dominion of, a matter in debate, a thing treated of (pg. 296)
Yes, I agree with the statement.
February 18th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
David Farrar.
Ad nauseum.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Did Orly ever provide any evidence that the out of state candidates like Leah Lax and the Pissed Off guy were really candidates for anything? Are they off the appeal now that Orly has withdrawn? David cannot represent them so I suppose they will all be pro se if they choose to stay. I hope they do so they can share costs when this thing is ruled to be frivolous.
February 19th, 2012 at 11:56 am
Well, just like David was huffing and puffing a few weeks ago about how he was definitely going to get a default judgment, a couple of days ago he had renewed his bragging rights with the claim that any uncontested testimony that his side provided would necessarily have to be taken as true.
Perhaps he has come to his senses. That claim is totally bogus, as any real lawyer will tell him, and his dreams of a win on those grounds are just as empty as the one about the default.
David, are you there? Are you still confident that you are firmly on track — that “everything is proceeding as planned”?
February 20th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Hey, David, you’re back in the news!
Do you realize that Orly has filed another document in your name (even though she is not legally permitted to represent you in this matter), in which she insults many reputable people and specifically suggests that there were payoffs involved in ALJ Malihi’s and SoS Kemp’s decisions?
“Malihi, who was supposed to rule based on precedent and facts, did the opposite, totally disregarded precedents and facts and for yet to be determined consideration and without one shred of evidence “assumed” that Obama is eligible to be on the ballot. For yet to be determined consideration secretary of state Kemp rubber stamped Malihi’s decision.” [emphasis added]
Have you spoken to a real lawyer about this? Are you ready to take responsibility for these statements made in your name?
February 20th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I wonder when it will dawn on poor David Farrar that in Orly’s mind clients, I mean plaintiffs, are mere chattel and are lower than pond scum in the order of things.
February 20th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Fwd: TEA PARTY DAY AT THE STATE CAPITOL THIS WEDNESDAY-
Hi Fellow Tea Party Leaders:
PLEASE USE THE AWESOME POWER OF THE INTERNET AND FORWARD TO ALL THOSE ON YOUR LISTS.
WHEN: Feb 22, 9:30, in the house appropriations #341
WHAT: Feb 22 will be designated as Tea Party Day at the capitol
NAME OF GROUP: Atlanta Tea Party Patriots and other tea party groups
SPEAKER/SUBJECT: We will have citizen lobbyist training, and hear legislative updates from Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Senate president pro temp Tommie Williams.
WHERE: In the house appropriations #341 at the Capitol
COST: FREE-Lunch will be provided free if you RSVP no later than noon, Tuesday, Feb 21st (Reply-To: georgiateapartypatriots@gmail.com)
Thanks for getting involved and making a difference.
God Bless America, He has to, Obama wants to fundamentally change it,
Conrad Quagliaroli, conradbq@yahoo.com,770-592-6545, Cell 770-378-8232 Call me anytime, my job is to make your job easier. FACEBOOK PAGE: http://www.facebook.com/cherokeetpp/wall.
Cherokee Tea Party Patriots,
The voice of the Silent Majority-Not Racist, Not Violent, Not Silent Anymore.
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”
Sir Edmund Burke, 1781
From: Atlanta Tea Party/Tea Party Patriots – Georgia
Date: February 19, 2012 9:45:06 PM EST
To: jthompsongop@yahoo.com
Subject: TEA PARTY DAY AT THE STATE CAPITOL THIS WEDNESDAY!
Reply-To: georgiateapartypatriots@gmail.com
THIS COMING WEDNESDAY 2/22/12 IS TEA PARTY DAY AT THE CAPITOL!
DEAR FRIENDS –
Please join the Atlanta Tea Party, GA. Tea Party Patriots, Georgia Conservatives in Action, North Georgia Tea Party Alliance, Founding Fathers Tea Party Patriots, and many Tea Party and 9-12 Groups from around Georgia as we celebrate the first annual Tea Party Day at the Capitol this Wednesday, February 22nd beginning at 9:30 AM in the House Appropriations Room #341 in the Capitol.
We will have citizen lobbyist training, and hear legislative updates from Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Senate President Pro Temp Tommie Williams, Representative Ed Setzler, and many more.
We will also hear from all of the Presidential Campaigns, so you can have direct access to get involved!
We will have a panel discussion on TIA/TSPLOST, the most talked about topic in Georgia this legislative session.
The day will finish with a press conference on Tea Party Day with Representative Tommy Smith who will issue a Proclamation in the Georgia House of Representatives identifying February 22nd as Tea Party Day in Georgia!
Lunch will be provided to you free of charge provided we receive your RSVP no later that noon on Tuesday, February 21st.
***Please remember to call Representative Tommy Smith and thank him for his proclamation and his long-standing dedication to Tea Party values. He has voted with conservatives his entire career and has never sought one moment of press or glory for it. He does the right thing and cares about our principles. Please remember to call him and thank him for it! Rep. Tommy Smith – 404-656-5105
Secretary of State Brian Kemp –
Leading the way toward fiscally responsible, good government!
Did you know that the State of Georgia has 43 different boards that license over 460,000 professionals every year?
It can often take several weeks or even months for hardworking Georgians to get required professional licenses or to resolve compliance problems. This is yet another example of red tape and bureaucracy keeping hardworking Georgians from working.
Recently Secretary of State Brian Kemp relayed this story:
“Almost every week, I see a situation like this arise. A salon owner had a location in a strip mall, but decided to move to a better suite in the same strip mall when it became available. When a state inspector visited, he noticed the address on the owner’s license was correct, but not the suite number. As Georgia law requires, the inspector issued a cease and desist order that closed the salon until the Board could hear the case. This caused the owner and her employees to be out of work for an extended period. While it is important that license holders follow the law, it is absurd that a business be shut down for months over a small technical issue that can be easily resolved.”
Secretary Kemp is working to change this ridiculous bureaucracy, and he needs our help!
Secretary Kemp has proposed legislation that will streamline this process and cut through red tape and bureaucracy. His proposal will create a single, 7 member board to handle compliance issues that will meet regularly and empower his staff to process licenses and minor complaints. He believes this will slash the cost to taxpayers for having all of these 43 boards meet.
Most importantly, Kemp can reduce the time it takes to receive a license from MONTHS to less than a WEEK!
We need to rally to support Secretary Kemp’s licensing bill. He is doing the right thing, but is being attacked by industry insiders and their high dollar lobbyists. He needs our help to overcome the same status quo bureaucracy that is hurting small businesses all over Georgia.
SB 445 comes up for a hearing in the Senate Regulated Industries Committee on Tuesday. We need to contact the following members of that committee and tell them to support Kemp’s licensing bill.
Most all of these Senators are very good friends of the Tea Party and conservative movement, and are happy to hear from you. Please contact them and encourage them to support this positive solution.
Committee Members:
Shafer, David – Chairman
Unterman, Renee S – Vice Chairman
Harbison, Ed – Secretary
Ligon, Jr., William T. – Ex-Officio
Loudermilk, Barry – Ex-Officio
McKoon, Joshua – Ex-Officio
Butler, Gloria S. – Member
Carter, Buddy – Member
Ginn, Frank – Member
Henson, Steve – Member
Hill, Jack – Member
Hooks, George – Member
Jeffares, Rick – Member
We also need to call or email our House and Senate members and tell them to support Kemp’s licensing bill when it comes to the floor.
This is the kind of common sense, conservative legislation that Republicans have been promising for years. Kemp is finally doing it and he needs our help to make real change at the Capitol. Let’s show them that we support a POSITIVE SOLUTION that gets the bureaucrats off the backs of small businesses and professionals in Georgia!
Get Involved!
Presidential Campaign Contacts
Republican Presidential Campaign Contact List
Newt Gingrich Campaign Address:
3110 Maple Drive, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30305
Campaign Phone Number: (678)-973-2306
Georgia Contact Person: Maria Zack
Georgia Campaign Phone Number: (678)-973-2306
Ron Paul Campaign Address:
8000 Forbes Place, Suite 200, Springfield, VA 22151
Campaign Phone Number: (703)-563-6620
Mitt Romney Campaign Address:
585 Commercial Street, Boston, MA 02109
Campaign Phone Number: (857)-288-3500
Rick Santorum Campaign Address:
P.O. Box 37, Verona, PA 15147
Campaign Phone Number: (603)-518-5199
Georgia Contact Person: Kathy Hildebrand
Georgia Campaign Phone Number: 404-402-7365
Your Tea Party Patriots Team in Georgia,
Julianne Thompson
Debbie Dooley
Jenny Beth Martin
Forward this email
This email was sent to jthompsongop@yahoo.com by georgiateapartypatriots@gmail.com |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Gwinnett Law Firm | 200 East Crogan Street | Suite 101 | Lawrenceville | GA | 30046
******************************************************************************************
I don’t know about you guys; but I’m going.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 20th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
@David Farrar — “I don’t know about you guys; but I’m going.”
__
Well, have a good time!
And, tell me, are you planning to use this opportunity to ask SoS Kemp to divulge the “yet to be determined consideration” you accused him of taking for “rubber stamping” a decision with which you disagreed?
February 23rd, 2012 at 1:43 pm
@David Farrar — “I don’t know about you guys; but I’m going.”
__
Hey, David, the event was yesterday. Would you care to report on how it went?
February 20th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Sec. Kemp made a decision he thought was right. I can ask no more of any person.
We are in the process of appealing that decision, again, in a fair and open process, of which I will see to it it is accessible online, as was our ALC effort.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 20th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
@David Farrar — “in a fair and open process, of which I will see to it it is accessible online”
__
Does the process you are speaking of include the “Petition for Letters Rogatory” that Orly just filed in your name? If so, that document is already online, and in it, she implied that both ALJ Malihi and SoS took payoffs to rule as they did.
Are you comfortable being associated with those sentiments, and do they strike you as an appropriate level of discourse in a “fair and open process”?
February 20th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
It is “open”, which is always better than being behind closed doors. As to the fair bit: I certainly don’t think so, and I have said so. What Dr. Taitz thinks, does and says — Hey! that makes three things! There are songs to sing. There are feelings to feel. There are thoughts to think. A person can’t do three things at the same time. The singing is easy, it’s like syrup in my mouth. The thinking comes with the tune. That leaves only the feeling. I’m I right or am I right?
I can singing the singing. I can think the thinking. But you’re not going to catch me feeling the feeling; no, sir…the Singing Detective by Dennis Potter, I believe.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 21st, 2012 at 12:21 am
David:
Having your attorney libel Judge Malihi and Secretary Kemp on your behalf is reprehensible. You are truly racist pond-scum to have her file this for you.
The Fulton County Superior Court denied Mrs. Taitz’s pro hac vice application, yet you insist on having her represent you illegally in the Georgia courts.
It will be comforting when the court sanctions you and your attorney for the frivolous and unethical behavior you insist on pursuing. Maybe they’ll do the right thing and lock up both of you for contempt of court.
I hope the courts make your life really, really difficult, you disgusting pile of excrement.
Traitor.
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
February 21st, 2012 at 1:13 am
Spoken just like the Nazi brown shirts would have attacked their opponents. So are you the new Nazi Obama brown shirts coming to get me?
I got one message for you: COME AND GET ME SUCKERS!!!!!!
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 21st, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Hey, Sucker Farrar:
For a guy who’s so sensitive about being called a racist (while he runs his mouth spewing race-based bias), you sure are quick to accuse.
It amazes me that your hate so far outweighs any rationality that indeed may have inhabited your brain at one time in your life.
Yeah, right. Obama’s a Nazi. Letting idiot birthers like Farrar and Taitz sue him frivolously a hundred times in court, talking shit about him on the internet, lying about and slandering him on an hourly basis.
Just like Hitler, right?
Your accusations about Judge Malihi and Secretary Kemp have no basis in reality. Your insistence that Orly Taitz illegally file briefs on your behalf while she’s been denied pro hac vice status is not only an insult to our court system, but to Americans everywhere. Do you really think that Adolf Hitler would have let you get away with more than one mention of this seditious activity?
Truth is, it’s you birthers who would have us living in a monotheistic, single-party, apartheid dictatorship – much like Nazi Germany or Saddam’s Iraq.
Despite the obvious benefits of having large groups of birthers like you exterminated, I’m far too supportive of my USA and of your freedoms ever to consider any recourse beyond our Constitutionally-protected ones, like our ability to discuss what a fool you are on this forum, while letting you prove it to us repeatedly.
Ex(treme) Animo(sity)
jtmunkus
PS: My shirt’s only brown because you threw poo all over it.
February 21st, 2012 at 1:34 am
David,
We’re not coming to get you, you worthless scumbag–we’re just hoping that the court takes notice of the vile and frivolous trash that you and your lawyer keep vomiting forth and gives you a taste of the punishment you so richly deserve.
Personally, I wish you would either learn about the Constitution and respect it or get the fuck out of this country instead of denigrating the Constitution and real Americans like President Obama. And take your incompetent Moldavian lawyer with you.
Don’t worry, thought, because we’ll have the last laugh–the only thing that you have a chance of winning in court is sanctions and, given the numerous hateful and baseless accusations that you have made (personally and through your twit of a mail-order lawyer) I’m hoping that the courts wont treat you kindly from here on out…
February 21st, 2012 at 8:07 am
Dr. Orly Taitz does not represent me. The Superior Court of Fulton County knows this. She is now a pro se litigant as far as I can know. What she says on her own behalf is her own business. I am speaking for myself if these matter now.
ex animo
davaidfarrar
February 21st, 2012 at 8:44 am
they know she’s not admitted to practice there. They have no clue whether you’re still her client.. errr plaintiff… vicitim.
So you’ve moved to proceed pro se? Hmmm haven’t seen that yet.
She’s not nor can she all of a sudden become a pro se party in the “appeal” of the decision of the SoS. She’s cruising for sanctions and perhaps more. If you haven’t fired her, you sure better do so quickly, and formally, though it may be too late. She filed her latest POS with your name, and others, on it, which is on your behalf, whether you like it or think so or not.
Connie Rhodes was smart enough to do so, and it saved her butt from being liable with Orly for sanctions. Get a clue.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:09 am
Frank,
Judge Wright has formally refused to allow her to represent me in our appeal. I am proceeding pro se. The court knows Dr. Taitz no longer represents me.
ex animo
davidfarrar
February 21st, 2012 at 10:21 am
I think we should stop trying to help David Farrar. There is no comparison with Connie Rhodes. After Rhodes saw Orly in action for 10 minute she realized Orly was going to get her into big trouble. Rhodes then served her country in honorable fashion. Farrar is trying to skate on a technicality that may or may not work with Judge Wright. He can’t bring himself to fire Orly and that is just fine by me.
February 21st, 2012 at 10:23 am
Actually, I was jerking his chain a little on the filing for admission pro se. He doesn’t have to do anything in that regard, but it’s true she’s still filing under his name, as if he is still her “client” and he still owns whatever she states in that regard.
February 21st, 2012 at 11:00 am
Orly posted a private communication with her client, David Farrar again:
“Thank you Dr. Taitz.
Let me take this opportunity to formally request your representation of my Georgia case if and when it arrives to the US Supreme Court.
David Farrar”
February 21st, 2012 at 11:14 am
Oh dear. David seems to be digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole.
Apparently he feels no need to distance himself from Orly’s contumacious and possibly libelous attacks. He hoped to slip by by emphasizing the fact that she doesn’t represent him in the Superior Court action. But now it’s obvious that that’s the case simply because she was denied PHV, not because David doesn’t wish to be associated with her vituperative approach to all who disagree with her.
Lots of luck straddling that fence, David.
February 21st, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Orly has such a fine record at the Supreme Court. I think David is made a good choice.
February 21st, 2012 at 11:56 pm
But don’t forget, she knows some of the justices personally.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:29 pm
David,
It appears that your case is going to get consolidated with the others:
http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=7261&p=346706#p346696
You and your worthless lawyer (and Tweedledee and Tweedledum) already lost to Jablonski’s empty chair (which was pretty humiliating–at least it would have been if birthers like you had any sense of shame), now that he’s participating again maybe you’ll lose and get sanctioned…
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Just to follow up, David’s appeal has been denied along with the companion cases. The judge ruled that Jablonski was right from the beginning when he claimed that there was no jurisdiction to challenge President Obama’s placement on the ballot.
Looks like David’s million-dollar loophole didn’t mean what he thought it did.