Orly Taitz Briefs The Post & Email on Ballot Challenge Hearing – PE

By Sharon Rondeau
The Post & Email (site is under maintenance at time of publishing; see The Post & Email for further details on this and other Obama eligibility cases, documentation, and history)

All Attorneys to Submit Summaries by February 5

(Jan. 26, 2012) – Atty. Orly Taitz was one of three lawyers who argued in front of Judge Michael Malihi in Atlanta, GA today as a result of challenges claiming that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to have his name placed on the state ballot in November.

Neither Obama nor his attorney, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta, attended the hearing.  In a last-minute attempt to have the hearing canceled, Jablonski had written a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp claiming that Malihi had mishandled the complaints and that Obama’s eligibility was a settled matter.

This evening Taitz told The Post & Email that she and the other two attorneys conferred with Judge Malihi in his chambers prior to the hearing, during which Malihi said that since Obama’s attorney was not in attendance, he could issue a default judgment.  Alternatively, the attorneys would be allowed to argue their cases if they wished.  All three chose to “present their case on the merits.”

Twenty minutes was allotted to Atty. Van Irion, who represented Georgia registered voter David Welden.  Irion argued that a determination from Minor v. Happersett stated that a “natural born Citizen” is one born in the U.S. to two citizen parents.  Because Obama has claimed that his father was a British citizen, Irion stated that Obama could never qualify regardless of where he was born.

Georgia state representative and Attorney Mark Hatfield followed with allotted time of 30 minutes, although he utilized something less than that.  He also argued that Obama did not meet the definition of “natural born Citizen” and referred to the Certification of Nomination forms signed by Nancy Pelosi in 2008 presenting Obama and Biden as nominees.

Taitz had been given two hours for testimony and closing argument.  Her case was based not only on the question of Obama’s “natural born” status, but also on the premise that he has committed identity fraud and forgery.  Six witnesses traveled to Atlanta, some from the West Coast, to testify.

Taitz contends that Obama is using a social security number which was not issued to him, which Private Investigator Susan Daniels alleged in her testimony.  Daniels stated that the number, beginning in “042,” was issued from the state of Connecticut, where Obama neither worked nor resided.  Witness John Sampson stated that Obama’s status as a U.S. citizen or possible illegal alien should be checked because of that and other inconsistencies.

Taitz asked questions of witnesses John Sampson and Chito Papa regarding the alleged forgery of Obama’s long-form birth certificate released on April 27, 2011.  She became a witness  herself before presenting her closing argument.

There was no cross-examination because no one from the defendant’s side attended.

Taitz explained that, contrary to at least one mainstream news report, there will not be another hearing on the Georgia ballot challenges.  February 5, 2012 is the deadline for the attorneys to each submit summaries of “facts and points of law.”

Another attorney accompanied Taitz from California to review the testimony and act as an observer during the hearing.  He reviewed the testimony of four of the six witnesses on the evening of January 25, 2012.

Altogether, Taitz stated that the Georgia trip cost her $11,000, and she has spent over $6,000 traveling back and forth to Hawaii five times for hearings to procure the release of the original birth certificate allegedly held by the Hawaii Department of Health.  During today’s hearing, Taitz told Judge Malihi that she had attempted to obtain “original documents” from Hawaii which to date has not occurred.

At the end of the hearing, Taitz had asked Judge Malihi to hold Obama in contempt of court for failing to appear.  We asked Taitz the judge’s response, and she said, “He took it under consideration.”

Taitz said that a video clip of a Fox television station depicts her saying, “Anybody with half a brain” could recognize Obama’s “forged birth certificate.”  She said she was the “only person” interviewed afterward by the major media.  According to Taitz, news reports were made by Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS.

She told The Post & Email that one reporter asked her, “Don’t you think it is a waste of time to bring this case?” to which she replied, “Having somebody in the White House who has spent more money than all of the past presidents combined is a waste!”

Taitz said she is in need of more donations to continue the cases against Obama.


  1. Ah, so the Feb 5th date is merely a deadline for attorneys to submit “summaries of facts and points of law.”

    Does this mean that the rumored “default judgement” against Obama was not entered by Judge Malhi, and that Feb 5th will be the date at which time the Judge will review the evidence and render a “recommendation” to the Sec of State + apply sanctions, if any, against Obama and Jablonski?

    Thus, at this juncture is it accurate to say that Obama is not yet “off the ballot”, but that he may be after the Judge renders such a recommendation to the Sec of State, but only if the Sec of State decides to disallow Obama’s name on the GA ballot? And if the Sec of State decides to do that, can it be successfully appealed and overturned by Obama’s attorneys?

    • Any decision to remove Obama from the Georgia Ballot will be immediately overturned.

      • on what basis?

        • In the unlikely event that Obama was removed from the ballot it would be reversed on one or more of the following reasons pursuant to Georgia administrative rule 21-2-5(b)

          (1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State; (3) Made upon unlawful procedures; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

          • TheGuiltyKulakSpeaks says

            I actually think this “problem” will be solved with perfectly circular reasoning, of the nature of, “O’Dumbo’s bonafides to the presidency are proven by the fact he is president.”

            But I hope beyond hope it doesn’t go that way.

            Be that as it may, we see here the basic “social climber” technique these turkeys are using: each insignificant little validation is leveraged to the max to obtain the next highest validation. At some point, this translates to police power and they exploit that for all it’s worth.

            At the moment, O’Dumbo and his handlers have their hands on the #1 exploit, the presidency itself. Sadly, most of the executive branch, the legislative branch, and judiciary, to say nothing of the Sheople, have been trained or are quite happy to accept the status quo without respect to any meaning of right/wrong or legal/illegal.


            Because the status quo has been good to them. They understand corruption and are confident it won’t affect them, except beneficially, as the lumpen proletariat will absorb all costs.

            They always absorb all costs, they observe.

            And you know what? They are right.

            May the LORD God have mercy on the sell-outs and cowards of these United States.

  2. Taitz said that a video clip of a Fox television station depicts her saying, “Anybody with half a brain” could recognize Obama’s “forged birth certificate.”

    During brain surgery I had a significant portion of the left hemisphere removed, and I agree with Taitz. Obama’s birth certificate is clearly forged.

  3. The Feb 5th date is the date the Judge previously set as the date he would announce his decision, therefore one can safely assume it’s also the deadline for attorneys to submit their summaries of facts and points of law.

    That does indeed mean the default judgement for the Plaintiffs/against Obama, which during a closed-door meeting prior to the start of the hearingthe Judge told Plaintiffs attorneys he wanted to enter but Plaintiffs attorneys declined so as to be able to present evidence and have said evidence entered into the court record, has not yet been entered against Obama. It does indeed mean that the Judge has through Feb 5th to review the evidence presented at the hearing, render a recommendation to the Secretary of State and imposed sanctions (“Contempt of Court” for one possibility), if any, against Obama and/or Jablonski.

    At this point It is indeed accurate to say that Obama is not “off the ballot” but, rather, only that most likely he will be “off the ballot” if the Judge renders such a recommendation to the Secretary Of State because the Secretary of State has already stated he would follow the Judge’s recommendation. Since the only evidence in the hearing record establishes that Obama is not eligible to be on GA’s ballot per GA ballot law, IMHO Obama cannot sucessfully appeal a decision based upon the hearing record per se but, rather, only based upon an alleged violation of the process which I believe has been 100% in compliance with the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.).

    • The reasons that Georgia law allows appellate courts to overturn a decision to remove Obama from the ballot are very numerous. Obama will stay on the Ballot.

    • James, you are indeed correct in your observation that “the default judgement for the Plaintiffs/against Obama … has not yet been entered”. That means, among other things, that the order that ALJ Malihi issued yesterday saying that “[t]he parties may file any post hearing pleadings by Wednesday, February 1, 2012,? applies to President Obama as well as to the complainants.

      So, for example, if Mr. Jablonski were to direct that a certified copy of the COLB be sent to ALJ Malihi, that document would become part of the record.

      Therefore, you are incorrect to say that “Obama cannot sucessfully appeal a decision based upon the hearing record per se,” since the record would then include a piece of prima facie evidence that would have the full support of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution behind it.

  4. The judge has issued a note that the post hearing and ruling will be moved from February 5 to February 1 of 2012. I have also noted that Hawaii Vital Records changes its policy often to fit the political agenda or political threat at hand. So just when has policy become written law? There is much going on in Hawaii than I can write here, but someones’ could be Warring on the Constitution.

Speak Your Mind