Quashing Your Hopes Of obama Being Kept Off GA Ballot


I have read several accounts about this whole attempt to keep obama off of the GA ballot.  The colorful and tenacious Orly Taitz has something or the other pending.  As usual.

You know what?  More and more lately I have noticed a strident shrieking in the distance – it is Orly, and she is angry.  Angry, I tells ya.  She demands that we all pay homage to her for being the only being to consistently maintain the pressure on obama to produce his birth certificate from Africa, or Hawaii, and explain his social security number issued in Connecticut, and detail how he meets the requirements to be considered a natural born Citizen.  *GASP*  (deep breath in) 

And she has done it virtually single-handedly.  Just ask her.  She’ll tell you so.

Well, I take exception to that.  So do thousands of others.

Now lookit, I am not bashing Orly, she is what she is.  But I am not so desperate a “Birther” as to get all starry-eyed over her various attempts to ………. ah ……….. do something.  From very early on it has been quite clear that there are some paperwork, procedural and legal hurdles that Orly usually fails to clear.

Anyway, back to her current thingy.  Dean Haskins over at the Birther Summit.org has an honest, if somewhat unflattering to Orly, breakdown of what we can expect to see happen with Orly’s latest efforts in GA.  I’ll pop the link up, as well as a couple of quotes.  Out of order (of course).


Pay attention, because this is important, and it has happened in each of these “cases”  :

In the unlikelihood that Judge Malihi does not grant his amended Motion to Quash, there is something that is virtually guaranteed to happen: Obama not showing up to an administrative law hearing in the state of Georgia. Jablonski would appear on his behalf, and present a certified “birth certificate” and proof of residency for the past 14 years. As the certified “birth certificate” will be considered self-verifying by the court, nothing Orly will say will sway it.

Then this next excerpt, because I agree that this is the likely and EXPECTED outcome.  No, it is not what we “want”, but it is the humble reality of what is almost certain to occur.

Michael Jablonski submitted a sloppy, weak Motion to Quash. I’m sure he thought it would suffice with the judge—since the opposition were birthers; however, Judge Malihi obviously regards his role and the legal process much more seriously than that. And, because I’m sure he wants to make certain that, at the end of these HEARINGS (not trials), there is nothing that could be viewed as procedurally improper, he’s not going to grant the professional attorney involved any special favors. He will hold somebody accountable to understand the law, and I’ll leave it up to you to figure out whom that might be.

Here’s what will probably happen: after Jablonski recovers from his blanket party, he will likely file an amended Motion to Quash; and it will probably be one of the most thorough Motions to Quash in the history of Motions to Quash, and Judge Malihi will probably grant that motion.

Read the whole thing at TheBirtherSummit.org.  Link above.


Oh, Breitbart has decided to notice the whoo-ha commencing in GA.  Item number 14.



~ by ladysforest on January 20, 2012.

17 Responses to “Quashing Your Hopes Of obama Being Kept Off GA Ballot”

  1. I have been posting some comments on this at OBC. I keep reading about Jablonsky refiling because he screwed up. Complaints and motions are refiled often but they arerefiled based on new facts or legal arguments, and there is a good reason for failure to include those in the first motion. What we have here is simple a re-do. There is no justification IMO to allow for a redo in this case, if the standard is that you get to refile based on a legitimate reason.

    But this is Orly’s case and she is off and running, assuming she is going to be allowed to be given a platform for every single issue. It is going to be really ugly with lots of laughs for those who have made a profession out of laughing at birthers.

  2. I should add that I would still expect the judge to consider the refiling.

    • All I can say about her is that I WISH she didn’t go all theatrical every time she does anything. It’s one thing to be incompetent – it’s quite another to be flamboyantly incompetent. CONSISTENTLY.

      WE end up being judged by her antics and failures, and frankly I don’t think it’s a good trade-off. Some say, “it doesn’t matter how sloppy her work is, at least she is fighting”. I say, it most certainly does matter.

      She has made the “birthers” into a punch line, nearly single-handedly. She has never achieved a single POSITIVE thing. Oh, I know people won’t like me saying that, but hey – other than keeping the “birther” issue an occasional blip on the radar, she has actually accomplished little.

      There are two other separate “cases” pending at the same time as Orlys. Thankfully the Judge separated the three, and at least one of the others – regarding the Article two requirement for natural born Citizenship – seems to be put together well and has a decent attorney. Unfortunately, I think they are all scheduled for the same day.

      And yes – that Judge will almost certainly allow the refiling.

  3. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Emergency-request-for-letters-rogatory1.pdf

  4. A blogger named jbjd who sometimes posts comments at Citizen WElls was ticked that she had been promoting an eligibility challenge exactly the way Orly has now done (with respect to mounting a challenge under the statute which gives standing, not the SS number and all that other stuff). She believes that a similar, and maybe even more effective, challenge can still be made in South Carolina.

    • I tell you there is a lot of behind the scenes fighting about Orly. She is causing a LOT of dedicated people to become angry with each other because of the, shall we say, rather unconventional way that Orly has pursued her attempts to get this in front of a Judge.

      I have stayed on the sidelines, which is the best place to get the best view, and I feel badly for both sides. The ones that are dedicated to Orly have lost a lot of perspective, and the ones that have drifted away are getting disgusted that Orly refuses to comport herself in a more professional fashion. That and she is super high-maintenance, not appreciating all of the work that so many others have put into this. She is out of touch.

      For example, Orly seems to be claiming that she won somehow against this motion to quash. She did not win, rather obamas attorney screwed up the paperwork, so the Judge refused the request – that does NOT translate (in the real world) to a “win”. But Orly gleefully declares that it is a win for her. *sigh*

    • jbjd at CW:


      “Bob, I absolutely agree, a correctly framed ballot challenge can be successful. SC would have been the easiest state in which to launch such a challenge, because as I have been writing for a couple of years now, primary candidates in that state are submitted to the election commission by the state party, which also certifies explicitly, in writing, the candidates are qualified for the job. In other words, there, the question to the court would have been, the party has failed to provide a basis for such certification. (Recall that, in SC, the then party treasurer hand-delivered the primary names to the election commission, which refused to accept the list because it lacked that certification. So, she whipped out her pen and, on the spot, certified the candidates’ qualification!)


      P.S. It’s still not too late to question the submission of his name as the D party nominee, to the general election ballot in that state!”

  5. And other states that have statutes that grant citizens standing.

  6. this is noy only Orley. There are a total of three that has submitted the challenge. I am not sure how the whole thing works but unfortunately the judges lumped the three together. It must require that the hearing address everything in each complaint. Why did she submit in GA anyway? I wish it were the other two only that were involved.

    • Tdr, there ARE three, but the Judge actually DID separate them. The bummer is that they are all still on the same day.

      I am not certain, but I think the three were originally lumped together for some reason, and when the Judge set the hearing date, he to agreed separate the three cases.


      The cases are substantially different, and deserve to be heard each on their own merits.

      I don’t think the whole thing in GA is a definite bust – just likely Orlys case. For obvious reasons. Unfortunately. And her case will likely influence the outcome of the other two cases. Also unfortunate.

  7. I am not sure, i dont know enough to say but I have been reading at Mario and elsewhwere and there appears to be arguments that support the requirement to appear. What I am most confused about is whether this is limited to the BC issue and citizenship. I am sure Carl Swensen who is one of the Plaintiff’s got it right but I havent seen the complete document submitted by his attorney.

    • I’m betting his attorney is permitted to appear on obamas behalf. We tend to get caught up in the whole “wouldn’t it be great” meme, but very often a Judge will allow an attorney to present the required documents. This isn’t a trial. And it is the president, so I’m guessing IF the Judge inevitably refuses the (likely) amended motion to quash, that the attorney will be allowed to bring the BC, etc. to the hearing and present them, sans obama.

      • Right, the defendant would not have to appear. However, there was a case filed witht the superior court by a private attorney general, cant get into the details right now, and Holder was required to appear. Turns out noone appeared which results a ruling in favor of the plaintiff since the absence is viewed as an admission of guilt. The prvate attorney general schedulr=ed the hearin to obtain the damages but nothing ever happened. It is a good thing this is getting some coverage and it was mentioned on the news because it may mean that the defense attorney has to show up.

  8. I read over Jablonsky’s brief for the first time, and he brought up all of the reasons why the subpoena wasn’t properly served; that argument was outright rejected. What Judge M. wants is case law to support why the requirement to attend is oppressive, burdensome or immaterial,… . All arguments concerning service (and that was a big part of the motion) were rejected. Because he quoted case law throughout his motion but did not do so for the motion to attend, maybe he could not find any specific support for his position. Although the Jones v. Clinton case is not the same scenario, the Supreme Court unanimously held he had to appear at the deposition.

    So, maybe Jablonsky has no case law to support him and argued what he believed was right in principle. In my general reading of the situation (which is not extensive), I haven’t seen anyone give the arguments that he should have made.

    Also, this post and accompanying comments give some background on the judge.


  9. Hi LF, where is Mike? What are his predictions for tomorrow? What was that card game?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: