DiskBooks Electronic Publishing -- Move
down to blog masthead and hot AntiObama Links
Review of Newt 2012 Videos
Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi
by Bob Unruh
Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest papers.
Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012,, say that Obama isn't eligible to be president and that Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case.
That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed.
But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama's eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level.
The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren't pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal.
Both attorneys, J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation told WND they felt comfortable discussing the situation as the judge had imposed no ban on communicating what happened.
"The judge … was considering just entering a default judgment against Obama," Hatfield said today. "The plaintiffs' attorneys uniformly did not want the judge to do that because there wouldn't be any evidence in the record at all."
In Georgia, state law requires "every candidate for federal" office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy "shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought."
State law also grants the secretary of state and any "elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate" in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate's qualifications, the judge determined.
That's exactly what several groups of individuals did. Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Hatfield and Irion told WND the expected process is that Malihi will make a decision over the course of the next week whether Obama, without appearing or being represented at the hearing, documented his eligibility to the court's satisfaction.
That recommendation then goes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, to whom Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, earlier had complained that Malihi was letting the attorneys "run amok" since the issue of Obama's "citizenship" had been resolved.
But in fact the U.S. Constitution demands a different status for presidents, that of a "natural born citizen," which Founders likely considered to be the offspring of two citizen parents. If that is the case, Obama could not be eligible as his father was a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
At the time Jablonski complained to Kemp and told him he should simply cancel the hearing, Kemp warned Jablonski that he ultimately would be reviewing the hearing result, and to not participate would be at Obama's "peril."
Both lawyers, whose cases in fact are separate from each other as well as from the Taitz' case, said it was important for them to be able to introduce evidence and build a court record.
Hatfield said the goal ultimately is to have a court rule on the substance of the controversy: Is it necessary to have citizen parents to be a "natural born citizen" or will that definition evolve as America ages?
Hatfield told WND that he specifically asked the judge at the end of the hearing to close the record, and he did that. Hatfield said that should make it clear that as the decision is made, and any challenges progress, no new information can be added to the evidence already submitted.
He said it's very clear that the court had jurisdiction to take the case and accept evidence, since the ballot at issue is a ballot with which the state election in 2012 will be conducted.
And Hatfield noted that although Obama's lawyer at least made a motion to quash the subpoena from Taitz for his testimony and records, Obama's attorneys never even bothered to respond to his own motion to produce records.
Obama's campaign declined to respond to WND emails and messages inquiring about a comment on the situation.
Irion told WND the default is a typical result when one side fails to appear for a dispute that's being adjudicated in court, but in this case, that would have left it wide open for arguments on appeal that had nothing to do with the issue.
He said he explained to the judge that awarding a default judgment actually would have been rewarding Obama for failing to respond to the subpoena.
The attorneys said they would be watching for Obama's next move in the contest. And they said they believe there is a possibility that because of the dispute, Obama may end up not being on the Georgia ballot in the fall.
Obama lost the state in the 2008 election to John McCain.
Earlier, several attorneys who previously took cases challenging Obama's eligibility as high as the US Supreme Court said Obama's refusal to participate in the hearing was a travesty.
"That President Obama's attorneys didn't show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state's rights," said attorney Leo Donofrio. "The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the US Supreme Court."
He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won't appeal to the US Supreme Court, "because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court."
"If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia's ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration," Donofrio warned.
"My personal belief is that if the US Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia," he said.
"If the judge's recommendation - and I've been told that it's going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate - is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem," said Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama's occupancy of the Oval Office to the US Supreme Court, which has not accepted any eligibility cases.
"He's thumbed his nose at the court. He's thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He's thumbed his nose at the people and said, 'I'm above it all. I'm above the law,'" Kreep said.
Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supreme Court, said Obama, by not showing, "actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot."
"For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot," he said, noting, "This decision will have a ripple effect."
"He's not above the law. That's a very important thing here. He's a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama's eligibility is implicated," he said.
For four long years, compelling evidence has been available that challenges the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.
In fact, I would say the evidence that he does not meet the simple requirements of the law is overwhelming.
But it was not until Thursday, January 27, 2012, that the evidence - any of it - was heard in a single courtroom in America.
Not until very recently has any of it been examined by any official public proceeding or reviewed by any agency of government.
They say the wheels of justice grind slowly, but this is ridiculous.
The good news for the rule of law is what happened in a Georgia courtroom this week and what is happening in the office of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department in Arizona. Justice may yet prevail.
In the courtroom of Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, sworn testimony was delivered rapid-fire over two hours to the effect that Obama is not qualified to have his name on the 2012 presidential ballot because his father was not a US citizen, which precludes him from being a "natural-born citizen," a clear, unambiguous requirement of the Constitution.
Obama refused to honor a subpoena to attend the hearing, produce records answering the charges or even send legal representation to dispute the evidence. Instead, they sent a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp suggesting the judge was letting attorneys "run amok."
In response, Kemp warned Obama and his counsel that if they chose not to participate in the proceedings, "you do so at your own peril."
The judge is expected to rule in the case shortly. However, he has little choice but to issue a default judgment in favor of the challenge - potentially removing Obama from the ballot in Georgia in November.
That would be an astonishing development to the major media in this country that have collectively scoffed at and caricatured the notion that there is any doubt as to Obama's eligibility.
And that's not the only eligibility worry for Obama. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" has been investigating Obama's eligibility for months and is expected to issue preliminary findings soon. This is the very first official law enforcement probe of the evidence.
Unlike the other major contestant in the 2008 election, John McCain, who faced a US Senate investigation over his eligibility, no agency of government, no branch of government - local, state or federal - ever investigated Obama's bona fides to be on the ballot or to serve in the White House, despite the fact that his own life story, as recounted in his autobiography, more than suggests he is not legally qualified.
Then, of course, there's the matter of the much-debated birth certificate - first withheld by Obama for years, then produced just as a book titled "Where's the Birth Certificate?" by two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author and WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi hit the top of the bestseller charts weeks prior to its actual release.
The result of three years of exhaustive research, which establishes the case not only that Barack Obama isn't legally qualified to be president, but that, aided by his media co-conspirators, he has conducted one of the most audacious cover-ups ever perpetrated at the highest level of American politics.
Again, overwhelming evidence points to that document's fraudulence. But, even in the highly unlikely event that it is genuine and accurate, it represents further evidence of Obama's ineligibility because it would represent documentation that his father was a non-citizen of the US
All of these details have been meticulously and thoroughly reported only two places - here in the pages of WND over the last four years and in Corsi's "Where's the Birth Certificate?" and in an e-book sequel titled "Where's the Real Birth Certificate?"
Meanwhile, for our trouble, we have been systematically vilified for providing the facts - a classic case of "killing the messenger."
Thank the Lord there are still Americans somewhere in government who care more about justice and the rule of law than being popular in the media and "politically correct."
I wonder what all those scoffers and mockers are going to say if and when Obama's name does not appear on the ballot in Georgia and perhaps other states?
Will they report it? Will they label these actions "racist"? Will they continue to misrepresent the facts and the truth?
Things are about to get very interesting. <<...>>
Dear President Obama, Click for Powerful Video From We the People ..
This blog provides conservative information on political, spiritual, economic, and social issues.
|Jesus said: What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. Luke 12:3|
|If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 (NIV)|
|All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke 1729-1797|
|The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide. --B. H. Obama, 8/21/2010|