Obama GA ballot ruling Judge Malihi, Attorney Mark Hatfield letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, Flaws in ruling

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From the letter from Attorney Mark Hatfield  to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, February 7, 2012.
“Dear Secretary Kemp:

As you are aware, Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi issued
a “Decision” in the above-referenced matters on this past Friday,
February 3, 2012, holding Defendant Barack Obama eligible as a
candidate for the presidential primary election. Because you are
now charged, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(c), with making a
final determination of Defendant Obama’s eligibility to appear on
the ballot in Georgia, I am writing to respectfully point out
several significant flaws in Judge Malihi’s findings and
conclusions.

Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my
clients’ cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs
Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge
Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients’ cases as
requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single “Decision”
applicable to all of the Plaintiffs’ cases, despite the fact that
the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my
clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

The adverse impact upon my clients of Judge Malihi’s erroneous
issuance of a single “Decision” as to all Plaintiffs is
immediately apparent when one reviews certain alleged “facts”
which were “considered” by Judge Malihi (“Decision,” p. 6).
Specifically, Judge Malihi found as “fact”: 1) that Defendant
Obama was born in the United States; and 2) that Defendant
Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of
Defendant’s birth. Both of these “facts” found by Judge Malihi
constitute a second significant flaw in the judge’s ruling and
serve as the stated factual basis for his erroneous conclusion
that Defendant Obama is eligible for the presidency.

Simply put, a review of the record in my clients’ above -captioned
cases reveals no evidence of Defendant’s place of birth and no
evidence of Defendant’s mother’s citizenship at the time of
Defendant’s birth. My clients did not enter into evidence any
copy of Defendant Obama’s purported birth certificate in these
cases. And while my clients’ evidence did include a copy of the
divorce proceedings between Defendant Obama’s parents, and while
these divorce records did establish the identities of Defendant’s
parents and the date of Defendant’s birth, the divorce records
did not establish the location of Defendant’s birth or the
citizenship of his mother at the time of his birth.

As you know, Defendant Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski,
failed to appear for the trial of these actions and failed to
submit any evidence or testimony into the record. Moreover, they
failed to appear notwithstanding the fact that I timely served
defense counsel with a Notice to Produce, directing his client to
appear at trial and to produce certain documents and items to be
used as evidence by the Plaintiffs. Defense counsel, in fact,
never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash
same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.

However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to
“back door” into the record two (2) electronic images of
Defendant Obama’s purported “long form” and “short form” birth
certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed
to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially
informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial.

Nevertheless, Mr. Jablonski’s attempt to inject these “documents”
into the record is legally ineffective. O.C.G.A. § 50 – 13 – 15 (1)
provides in pertinent part that “[t]he rules of evidence as
applied in the trial of civil nonjury cases in the superior
courts shall be followed.” Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 50-13-15 (2)
provides that “[d]ocumentary evidence may be received in the form
of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available.
Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare
the copy with the original or have it established as documentary
evidence according to the rules of evidence applicable to the
superior courts of this state” (emphasis supplied). In the
instant cases, Plaintiffs’ Notice to Produce, served on January
19, 2012, had already requested Defendant Obama to produce one
(1) of the two (2) original certified copies of Defendant’s “long
form” birth certificate in his possession, as well as all
medical; religious; administrative; or other records of or
relating to Defendant’s birth. Of course, Defendant Obama and
his lawyer deliberately ignored Plaintiffs’ valid requests, and
Mr. Jablonski’s misguided attempt to inappropriately place
documents into the record through the “back door” should likewise
be ignored.”

Read more:

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Powell-SwenssonvObamaAttorneyHatfieldLetterBrieftoGeorgiaSecretaryofStateRegardingDecisionbyJudgeMichaelMalihi2-7-2012.pdf