Georgia Judge Rules that when Defendant Obama fails to appear or testify, Plaintiffs Lose — Obama will be on the Georgia Ballot


President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.

In a 10-page order, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers.

He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

The findings by Malihi, a judge for the Georgia State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination.

Last month, at a hearing boycotted by Obama’s lawyer, Malihi considered complaints brought by members of the so-called “birther” movement.

With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification papers, Malihi said he found the evidence “unsatisfactory” and “insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”

A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation and “none … provided persuasive testimony,” Malihi wrote.

Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge.  In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.

Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,” Malihi wrote.  Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.

Even though Malihi ruled in Obama’s favor, he expressed displeasure that the president’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta, refused to attend the recent hearing.

“By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” Malihi wrote. “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”

Read the Decision

Attribution: Atlanta Journal & Constitution

An Indiana court – geez, what a compelling authority on the law.

I attended the hearing, and I find this ruling to be outrageous.  There was no evidence presented for the defense.  I found the evidence very compelling.  I beliebe Judge Malihi joins the ranks of corrupt Atlanta judges, which is the only thing in this that isn’t a surprise.  I am yet to find an honest judge in Atlanta, Georgia.

Here’s my story from the day of the hearing:

President Barack Obama and his attorney refused to appear for a trial in Atlanta, Georgia on January 26, 2012 despite subpoenas requiring Obama’s attendance and documents as well as a letter from the Georgia Secretary of State saying their failure to appear would be at their peril. 

Judge Michael Malihi presided over the two-hour hearing in which significant evidence was presented to show that Obama is not eligibile to be a candidate for President of the United States.

I was there in the media group with videographer Lydia Swain, and the entire hearing was videotaped .

The video will be available in its entirety through On Second Thought TV.

Late Wednesday, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, wrote Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. “It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here — a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country,” Jablonski wrote.  Jablonski also served notice he would not attend the hearing.

In response, Georgia Secretary of State Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. “If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.” 

After hearing many witnesses and seeing and hearing about a lot of documents, it is my belief that Obama is not qualified to be on the ballot.

The day began with a pre-trial conference with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.  The Defendant’s table was vacant.  No one showed up to defend Obama.

Three attorneys presented cases for their Plaintiffs — all Georgia registered voters.  According to my count, 12 witnesses testified under oath.

There was no testimony or evidence for Obama, so if the judge rules on the facts and the law presented, the name of Barack Obama will not appear on the ballot in Georgia.  I’m not a “birther,” but that’s how I see it.  Significant evidence for the Plaintiffs and zero (0) evidence for Obama.

The testimony from three witnesses — Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, scanning, and typesetting experts — was that the birth certificate for Obama that was released online was a forgery.  I know enough about layers in Adobe to know that when part of a signature appears on one layer and the rest of the signature appears on another layer, something is rotten in Denmark.  The witnesses seemed credible, though I would have loved to see an Adobe employee testify.

The testimony of former Immigration officer, John Sampson, was especially compelling.  It was his testimony that the birth certificate has serial numbers that are out of sequence with other births at the time; the certification paragraphs are different on Obama’s alleged birth certificate and the birth certificates issued before and after his; and the name of the registrar was different on the birth certificates issued at the same time to others.  Mr. Sampson has found a number of irregularities that would cause him to demand documents and investigate further.  He indicated that it is a crime to claim to be a U.S. citizen if you aren’t, and one of the consequences is deportation.

Susan Daniels, a private investigator, testified that the social security number that Obama uses is fraudulent, in her opinion.  The number was issued in Connecticut in 1977-79, and Obama never resided there.  A number of records that she obtained showed that Obama was born in 1890.  This is not a typo: eighteen ninety!

Attorney Van Irion gave a closing argument that explained the definition of “natural born citizen” — a person born in the United States from parents who are both U.S. citizens.  Mr. Irion explained case law on the definition and provided an excellent presentation as to why Obama is not qualified.  Mr. Irion’s witness, Kenneth Allen, provided documents proving that Obama’s father was from Kenya (birth certificate and immigration forms).  One witness produced 181 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request to the U.S. Immigrations service that show that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

Attorney J. Mark Hatfield did an excellent job of presenting the case for his clients, Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell.  An interesting piece of evidence he presented was that the Democratic Party’s filing of Obama as nominee in 2008 did not state that he was qualified to be on the ballot, while the Republican’s filing clearly so qualified its candidate.

Documents were presented showing that Obama has been known under a variety of names — Barry Soetero, Barry Soebarkah, and Barack Obama.  Witnesses claim no proof of a name change was found.  Attorney Orly Taitz testified that Illinois Bar Association records show that Barack Obama’s application for membership claims he had no prior names.  This is clearly false.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a birther.  I am not a Republican; I became an Independent when I discovered how dishonest and/or corrupt all federal elected officials seem to be.

To me, this is potentially the case of the most significant dishonesty and corruption by an elected official in the history of the United States.  If that is the case, this should shine a bright light on the extent of the government corruption in America.  If you are pro-Obama, please don’t get mad at me for supporting this story.  I have stated that if Obama is qualified, and if he signs a pledge to be honest and return our rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I’ll vote for Obama if no other major candidate signs the Contract with the Citizens of the United States.

After the hearing today, I believe that Obama is not qualified.  I spoke with a very sharply-dressed black man with gray hair after the hearing.  He was an Obama supporter, but he seemed to be swayed in his thinking by the evidence he saw and the testimony he heard.

It was standing-room-only.  There were two overflow rooms where people watched on video screens.

I saw representatives from all the major TV networks’ local affiliates, and I saw a reporter for CNN.  I commented to one TV anchorwoman that what we need is one really honest person who can sort out things like this.  She said “good luck finding one.”

The judge asked the Plaintiffs’ Attorneys to file briefs by February 5.  A decision will be rendered sometime thereafter.

Another Article about the Hearing

This article claims the judge will enter a default judgment

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.  Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.

{jcomments on}

Leave a Reply