WITNESS FOR ORLY’S PERSECUTION or MUCH ADO ABOUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

©2012 jbjd

In yesterday’s post, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ I included a link to the home page of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) containing a video explaining the administrative hearing process. Please click on this link now, and watch the video. Pay attention to who is the Petitioner” (or “Plaintiff”)at these hearings, and who is the “Respondent” (or “Defendant”). Then, you will understand what I am about to say.

The ‘person’ on ‘trial’ on January 26 is the Office of the Secretary of State of Georgia, Brian P. Kemp, and not President Obama. Yes, the words “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” appear on both the ‘pleadings’ and the rulings issued by Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Malihi. But, technically, Farrar is the Petitioner. And, technically, guess who is the Respondent? Yep; Secretary of State Kemp.

Thus, even though the question to be answered through this hearing process tangentially involves Mr. Obama; no question, but for Mr. Farrar’s subpoena, Mr. Obama would not be expected to attend. So, why did he have his attorney, Orly Taitz, issue that subpoena? You won’t believe this: she wants him there as a witness for her client, Petitioner Farrar!

I am not privy to what chain of events preceded this hearing or, to the documents previously presented to the Secretary; I have no idea how this case reached the administrative hearing level. But, obviously, Farrar must have failed to persuade Kemp to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in that state’s 2012 Democratic Presidential primary. Farrar disagreed with that decision. Under GA law, this led to the administrative hearing. Orly subpoenaed Obama to appear at the hearing in order to provide testimonial evidence which would support her client’s claim that by refusing to do as asked, that is, to remove Obama’s name from the primary ballot; the SoS had broken the law.

I cannot predict exactly what will happen at Thursday’s hearing before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Malihi. But I am absolutely certain what will  not: President Obama will not participate in this dog and pony show. For one thing, as I already explained in WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ; he was not ordered to appear, despite the media circus triggered both by Orly’s ‘misinterpretation’ of ALJ Malihi’s refusal to grant Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena and the AP’s grossly incompetent reporting of her misinterpretation. In fact, as Orly surely must know, ALJ Malihi has no authority to compel him to appear. How do I know this, given the fact, this is not my case? Because, unfamiliar with the scope of authority vested in Administrative Law Judges in the state of Georgia; I looked this up.

First, a primer on the founding principle of governmental separation of powers or, checks and balances, which produced these 3 separate branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

The ballot challenge case brought by Orly on behalf of her client, Farrar, originated in the Executive branch, with the Office of the Secretary of State based on that office’s statutory oversight of the function of elections. Basically, Farrar charged, exercising the lawful authority conferred by GA statutes (Legislative branch); the SoS should remove Obama’s name from the D primary ballot in that state on the basis that 1) under GA law, the state may only print on the ballot the names of those candidates qualified for office; and 2) Presidential candidate Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for the job. The office of the SoS referred the matter to the Office of State Administrative Hearings (Executive branch).

Did you catch that? The GA Office of State Administrative Hearings is part of the Executive branch of government and not, as I suspect most of you assumed, the Judicial branch.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2.  OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40  (2011)

§ 50-13-40.  Office created; chief state administrative law judge

(a) There is created within the executive branch of state government the Office of State Administrative Hearings. The office shall be independent of state administrative agencies and shall be responsible for impartial administration of administrative hearings in accordance with this article. The office shall be assigned for administrative purposes only, as that term is defined in Code Section 50-4-3, to the Department of Administrative Services.

The authority of the OSAH is strictly limited to the administration of an office or agency of the Executive branch and does not extend to authority over the person, as spelled out in GA law.

O.C.G.A. §50-13-13

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-13  (2011)

§ 50-13-13.  Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases

(a) In addition to any other requirements imposed by common law, constitution, statutes, or regulations:

(1) In any contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice served personally or by mail;

(2) The notice shall include:

(A) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing;

(B) A statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;

(C) A reference to the particular section of the statutes and rules involved;

(D) A short and plain statement of the matters asserted. If the agency or other party is unable to state the matters in detail at the time, the notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved. Thereafter, upon application, a more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished; and

(E) A statement as to the right of any party to subpoena witnesses and documentary evidence through the agency;

(3) Opportunity shall be afforded all parties to be represented by legal counsel and to respond and present evidence on all issues involved;

(4) Unless precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default;

(5) Unless specifically precluded by statute, in addition to the agency, any contested case may be held before any agency representative who has been selected and appointed by the agency for such purpose. Before appointing a hearing representative, the agency shall determine that the person under consideration is qualified by reason of training, experience, and competence;

(6) The agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing shall have authority to do the following: administer oaths and affirmations; sign and issue subpoenas; rule upon offers of proof; regulate the course of the hearing, set the time and place for continued hearings, and fix the time for filing briefs; dispose of motions to dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties or for any other ground; dispose of motions to amend or to intervene; provide for the taking of testimony by deposition or interrogatory; and reprimand or exclude from the hearing any person for any indecorous or improper conduct committed in the presence of the agency or the hearing officer;

(7) Subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties. When a subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the superior court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience. (All emphasis added by jbjd.) Failure to comply with such order shall be cause for punishment as for contempt of court. The costs of securing the attendance of witnesses, including fees and mileage, shall be computed and assessed in the same manner as prescribed by law in civil cases in the superior court;

(8) A record shall be kept in each contested case and shall include:

(A) All pleadings, motions, and intermediate rulings;

(B) A summary of the oral testimony plus all other evidence received or considered except that oral proceedings or any part thereof shall be transcribed or recorded upon request of any party. Upon written request therefor, a transcript of the oral proceeding or any part thereof shall be furnished to any party of the proceeding. The agency shall set a uniform fee for such service;

(C) A statement of matters officially noticed;

(D) Questions and offers of proof and rulings thereon;

(E) Proposed findings and exceptions;

(F) Any decision (including any initial, recommended, or tentative decision), opinion, or report by the officer presiding at the hearing; and

(G) All staff memoranda or data submitted to the hearing officer or members of the agency in connection with their consideration of the case; and

(9) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.

(b) In proceedings before the agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing, if any party or an agent or employee of a party disobeys or resists any lawful order of process; or neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed; or, upon appearing, refuses to take the oath or affirmation as a witness; or after taking the oath or affirmation, refuses to testify, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the same rights and powers given the court under Chapter 11 of Title 9, the “Georgia Civil Practice Act.” If any person or party refuses as specified in this subsection, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative may certify the facts to the superior court of the county where the offense is committed for appropriate action, including a finding of contempt. The agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the power to issue writs of fieri facias in order to collect fines imposed for violation of a lawful order of the agency, hearing officer, or other representative.

(c) Except in cases in which a hearing has been demanded under Code Section 50-13-12, subsection (a) of this Code section and the other provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases shall not apply to any case arising in the administration of the revenue laws, which case is subject to a subsequent de novo trial of the law and the facts in the superior court.

Thus, not only did ALJ Malihi not order Mr. Obama to obey Plaintiff’s subpoena to appear but, he could not issue such an order, anyway, lacking the authority to do so, under the law. Nope; his job is to decide whether the agency followed the law.  You want to compel the President’s attendance at an administrative hearing so that he can testify on behalf of your client that by not removing his name from the primary ballot; the Secretary of State had broken the law? Go ask the Superior Court. (And don’t hold your breath.)

Then, there’s this, express limitation on the weight of any ruling resulting from that administrative hearing.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2.  OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41  (2011)

§ 50-13-41.  Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review

(a)(1) Whenever a state agency authorized by law to determine contested cases initiates or receives a request for a hearing in a contested case which is not presided over by the agency head or board or body which is the ultimate decision maker, the hearing shall be conducted by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, and such hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations promulgated under this article.

(2) An administrative law judge shall have the power to do all things specified in paragraph (6) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(b) An administrative law judge shall have all the powers of the referring agency with respect to a contested case. Subpoenas issued by an administrative law judge shall be enforced in the manner set forth in paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13. Nothing in this article shall affect, alter, or change the ability of the parties to reach informal disposition of a contested case in accordance with paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(c) Within 30 days after the close of the record, an administrative law judge shall issue a decision to all parties in the case except when it is determined that the complexity of the issues and the length of the record require an extension of this period and an order is issued by an administrative law judge so providing. Every decision of an administrative law judge shall contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the case.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, in all cases every decision of an administrative law judge shall be treated as an initial decision as set forth in subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-17, including, but not limited to, the taking of additional testimony or remanding the case to the administrative law judge for such purpose. On review, the reviewing agency shall consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties. In reviewing initial decisions by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, the reviewing agency shall give due regard to the administrative law judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses. If the reviewing agency rejects or modifies a proposed finding of fact or a proposed decision, it shall give reasons for doing so in writing in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(e)(1) A reviewing agency shall have a period of 30 days following the entry of the decision of the administrative law judge in which to reject or modify such decision. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within such 30 day period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

(2) A reviewing agency may prior to the expiration of the review period provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection extend such review period by order of the reviewing agency in any case wherein unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such period. Any such order shall recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such review period. Any such extension by the reviewing agency shall be for a period of time not to exceed 30 days. Prior to the expiration of the extended review period, the review period may be further extended by further order of the reviewing agency for one additional period not to exceed 30 days if unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable to complete the review within the extended review period. Such further order further extending the review period shall likewise recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within the review period as previously extended. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within the extended review period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law.

(3) An agency may provide by rule that proposed decisions in all or in specified classes of cases before the Office of State Administrative Hearings will become final without further agency action and without expiration of the 30 day review period otherwise provided for in this subsection.

In other words, the Secretary need not adopt the recommendation of the ALJ, anyway!

Phew! That’s enough for now; let’s start with this and then tomorrow, I will spell out what I predict will happen on Thursday.

Advertisements

13 Responses to WITNESS FOR ORLY’S PERSECUTION or MUCH ADO ABOUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

  1. Well, there is an obvious error of understanding in your analysis of the “Standing” of an Administrative Hearing Office.

    It, like all Federal Courts below the Supreme Court and all State Courts below the State Supreme/Superior Courts, are established by the Legislative Branch and conferred with specific mandates and jurisdictions.

    see; COTUS Article IIi Section 1.
    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

    The States follow this model in establishing “Courts”.

    O.C.G.A. 50-13-43 (2010)
    50-13-43. Agencies to cooperate with chief state administrative law judge; Office of State Administrative Hearings to comply with federal law; rules and regulations

    All agencies shall cooperate with the chief state administrative law judge in the discharge of his or her duties. The Office of State Administrative Hearings shall comply with all applicable federal statutes, regulations, and guidelines, including those related to time frames for hearings, release of decisions, and other procedural requirements. The Office of State Administrative Hearings shall promulgate, when necessary for any class of hearings, specific rules and regulations in order to ensure compliance with federal requirements and receipt and retention of federal funding, tax credits, and grants.

    and;
    50-13-13;

    (6) The agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing shall have authority to do the following: administer oaths and affirmations; sign and issue subpoenas; rule upon offers of proof; regulate the course of the hearing, set the time and place for continued hearings, and fix the time for filing briefs; dispose of motions to dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties or for any other ground; dispose of motions to amend or to intervene; provide for the taking of testimony by deposition or interrogatory; and reprimand or exclude from the hearing any person for any indecorous or improper conduct committed in the presence of the agency or the hearing officer;

    (7) Subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties. When a subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the superior court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience. Failure to comply with such order shall be cause for punishment as for contempt of court. The costs of securing the attendance of witnesses, including fees and mileage, shall be computed and assessed in the same manner as prescribed by law in civil cases in the superior court;

    and;

    O.C.G.A. 50-13-19 (2010)
    50-13-19. Judicial review of contested cases

    (a) Any person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter. This Code section does not limit utilization of or the scope of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.

    et seq……..

    • jbjd says:

      slcraig: Here we go again. None of the materials you submitted actually endorses your initial criticism of my accurate assessment of this situation. Paraphrasing what I wrote in the article, what will happen on Thursday is an administrative hearing, before an administrative law judge, to decide whether an administrative agency (here, the election division of the Office of the Secretary of State) followed the Secretary’s rules and regulations by keeping the name of Barack Obama on the ballot. Sure, if Mr. Farrar doesn’t like the ALJ’s ruling, he can proceed to a law court. Indeed, if he wants to seek enforcement of his subpoena for Mr. Obama to appear as his – Mr. Farrar’s – witness, when Obama does not show up; he can go into Superior Court, which is a law court, and submit a Motion for an Order to appear. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. So the “dog and pony show’ of the Administrative hearing may be more than just a road side h=show, but the opening act to a larger event….? Right…?

    • jbjd says:

      slcraig: No; this is the wrong case. As I have been saying for years now; sustaining a direct charge that Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for the job doesn’t work unless 1) his ineligibility is an essential element of the charges; and 2) the burden is on him to prove he is qualified; or 2) the burden is on Plaintiff and, s/he has the requisite evidence. That’s why I recommend finding a cause of action that places the burden of proof on the person who swore he was eligible. (Re-visit, for example, the citizen’s complaint of election fraud to the state AG in TX, in the sidebar.) The legal cause of action in the present GA case is actually, a challenge to the administrative determination of the GA SoS to leave Obama’s name on the ballot. His eligibility is not the purview of this ALJ but only whether the SoS acted in a manner that is capricious and arbitrary; or contrary to law. (Administrative law, that is.)

      (Obviously, I have to write another article explaining precisely how to lodge a sound ballot challenge.)ADMINISTRATOR

  3. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    I read all of this and I say whooo-weee! Wow and what an imbroglio the issue has become as reported by the news media and with all the comments as it seems, everywhere. I see Huffpo now has the story today with this reported message from an uninvolved attorney;

    “The Atlanta Journal-Constitution spoke with attorney Melvin Goldstein, who is not involved with the case, to get some insight on what might happen if the administration simply turned a blind eye to the court order. While unprecedented, he said Malihi could possibly refer the matter to a Fulton County Superior Court judge, who could then decide whether to enforce the subpoena. If necessary, Goldstein suggested, the judge could hold the president in contempt.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/obama-birther-case-georgia_n_1225304.html

    Melvin Goldstien is an attorney who specializes in “administrative hearings” was a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Georgia (1974-1979), a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Georgia, a Hearing Officer and Administrative Law Judge for several agencies which includes the Office of State Administrative Hearings and now a private practitioner since 1979.
    http://www.melvinmgoldstein.com/Attorneys/Melvin-M-Goldstein.shtml

    What credentials, so why didn’t he ‘tell it like it is’ and say judge Malihi did not order a subpoena for Obama to appear?

    For me, questions arise as to whether this private attorney of whatever political affiliation spoke without knowing the judges reason for dismissal but I would think unlikely with his ‘much experience’ credentials or it’s possible the original reporter neglected to report something which the attorney said and only reported what would make a good sensationalized story or maybe the attorney has an agenda to assist in the misleading spin of the story for some reason. …Who knows?

    All I know is that a good investigative reporter would dig into the story as you have and reported the truth.

    And as the defense attorney represents his client as if the client were there, there is a chance the attorney may show up with one of those ‘electronically produced images’ made by others and explain why his client is a NBC and put the issue to rest. What do you think? (LOL or not!)

    I’m glad to see your blog is back alive as this is an interesting time with all of the activity of the primary season and state lawmakers now proposing new laws, maybe some ballot eligibility laws in the works (?) therefore I punching the paypal button so you may continue reporting on these happenings.

    • jbjd says:

      azgo: I cannot believe you sent this article, for the following reason. When I posted the GA statute which created the State Office of Administrative Hearings; I only included paragraph(a), omitting the remaining paragraphs, which discussed personnel, AND the date the statute was enacted, figuring this information would be of no interest to anyone. But now, I need to post that additional information. You will see why.

      O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40
      GEORGIA CODE
      Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
      All rights reserved.
      *** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
      TITLE 50. STATE GOVERNMENT
      CHAPTER 13. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
      ARTICLE 2. OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
      O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40 (2011)
      § 50-13-40. Office created; chief state administrative law judge

      (a) There is created within the executive branch of state government the Office of State Administrative Hearings. The office shall be independent of state administrative agencies and shall be responsible for impartial administration of administrative hearings in accordance with this article. The office shall be assigned for administrative purposes only, as that term is defined in Code Section 50-4-3, to the Department of Administrative Services.

      (b) The head of the office shall be the chief state administrative law judge who shall be appointed by the Governor, shall serve a term of six years, shall be eligible for reappointment, and may be removed by the Governor for cause. The chief state administrative law judge shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this state for a period of at least five years. The chief state administrative law judge shall be in the unclassified service of the State Personnel Administration and shall receive a salary to be determined by the Governor. All successors shall be appointed in the same manner as the original appointment and vacancies in office shall be filled in the same manner for the remainder of the unexpired term.

      (c) The chief state administrative law judge shall promulgate rules and regulations and establish procedures to carry out the provisions of this article.

      (d) The chief state administrative law judge shall have the power to employ clerical personnel and court reporters necessary to assist in the performance of his or her duties.
      (e)(1) The chief state administrative law judge shall have the power to employ full-time assistant administrative law judges who shall exercise the powers conferred upon the chief state administrative law judge in all administrative cases assigned to them. Each assistant administrative law judge shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this state for a period of at least three years. The chief state administrative law judge may establish different levels of administrative law judge positions and the compensation for such positions shall be determined by the chief state administrative law judge.

      (2) The chief state administrative law judge may appoint a special assistant administrative law judge on a temporary or case basis as may be necessary for the proper performance of the duties of the office, pursuant to a fee schedule established in advance by the chief state administrative law judge. A special assistant administrative law judge shall have the same qualifications and authority as a full-time assistant administrative law judge.

      (3) The chief state administrative law judge may designate in writing a qualified full-time employee of an agency other than an agency directly connected with the proceeding to conduct a specified hearing, but such appointment shall only be with the prior consent of the employee’s agency. Such employee shall then serve as a special designated assistant administrative law judge for the purposes of the specific hearing and shall not be entitled to any additional pay for this service.

      (4) When the character of the hearing requires utilization of a hearing officer with special skill and technical expertise in the field, the chief state administrative law judge may so certify in writing and appoint as a special lay assistant administrative law judge a person who is not a member of the bar of this state or otherwise not qualified under this Code section. Such appointment shall specify in writing the reasons such special skill is required and the qualifications of the appointed individual.

      (5) The chief state administrative law judge may designate a class of hearings for which individuals with the necessary skill and training need not meet the qualifications of paragraphs (1) through (4) of this subsection. These full-time associate administrative law judges shall exercise the powers conferred upon the chief state administrative judge in the class of administrative cases assigned to them. The chief state administrative law judge shall determine the compensation for such positions.

      (f) The chief state administrative law judge and any administrative law judge employed on a full-time basis: (1) shall not otherwise engage in the practice of law; and (2) shall not, except in the performance of his or her duties in a contested case, render legal advice or assistance to any state board, bureau, commission, department, agency, or officer.

      HISTORY: Code 1981, § 50-13-40, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 1856, § 3; Ga. L. 2009, p. 745, § 1/SB 97.

      Did you catch the end? The OSAH was created in 1994; according to his bio, Attorney Goldstein has practiced law on his own since 1979. Under the OSAH law here, paragraph (f), no full time ALJ may conduct an outside law practice. However, under (e)(2), perhaps Mr. Goldstein filled in part time, on individual cases. Thus, while in no way intending to impugn his abilities, let me say, it’s not as if he has been ‘doing this’ for 33 years; or could be expected to be up to speed on all manner of administrative disputes.

      Now, let me address your great question about why Mr. Goldstein omitted what some of us consider is an essential element of these news stories, that is, ALJ Malihi did not order Mr. Obama to appear. As you can see from his resume, Mr. Goldstein has practiced extensively for the state, including a stint at the office of AG. Thus, understandably, his interest could be geared toward protecting the state. In my opinion, ALJ Malihi rejected Mr. Obama’s Motion to Quash Mr Farrar’s subpoena because his counsel, Mr. Jablonski, submitted a legally inadequate work product evidencing his disdain or lack of respect for the tribunal. (Even ALJ’s have feelings!) Given that Mr. Goldstein has spent much of his professional life working on behalf of state government, taking the side of the state in disputes with its citizens; I would have been surprised if he had volunteered the impotence of the ALJ.

      As for showing up in any legal tribunal with a COLB, well, this will never happen. Because while Obama’s attorneys, including Bob Bauer, Perkins Coie, have skirted perjury in representing their client – do a search on “jbjd” for Bob Bauer – they have not actually – as far as I can tell – directly lied, to the court.

      Finally, let me say for all here to see: you have always been a great supporter of this blog, contributing both your research and your money. As everyone who comes here can see, these are both put to good use. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. […] WITNESS FOR ORLY’S PERSECUTION or MUCH ADO ABOUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING […]

  5. dawngaye says:

    jbjd “I have to write another article explaining precisely how to lodge a sound ballot challenge”

    I was praying you’d say that!

    In regard to yours & azgo’s posts above – the rumors are flying all over cyberspace, and everyone is an expert; everyone has an interpretation. It’s good to get away from the conjecture and fortune-telling!

    • jbjd says:

      dawngaye: I hate when these rumors get going. Why are so many people so susceptible to this? That’s why I wrote these 3 articles; and took time off work to do it. I have become quick tempered when it comes to these front people in the birther circus. Charlatans all. ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. You don’t have to wait until I post an article on a specific subject, to get help! Next time, just ask.

  6. Dawn Gaye says:

    Cool. You’re so cool 🙂 Again, thanks. and oh, believe me, I’m asking!
    So many hiding behind the anonymity of the internet think it gives them license to spout out any “expertise” they’ve just created in their heads, due to possibly their frustration over, say, a job where they don’t get any authority or chance for decisions… online, there’s an opportunity to be a whole new person who has it all together – everyone seems to LOVE making “announcements”, telling others they are wrong, and in general acting like enormous know-it-alls. who knows…. I readily admit I don’t possess much of a technical mind. I know a lot about acrylic mediums, gesso, canvas, and clay… but legal jargon and “nuance”… not so much:)

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: You have been following my work for some time and so, you know my track record for disseminating accurate information and sound advice for civic advocacy. On the other hand, those readers unfamiliar with my work have expressed similar negative sentiments with respect to me. (I find disingenuous criticism from the same people who, obviously, do not apply this same ‘consistency’ standard to utterances from their preferred on-line pundits!)

      I am the same person on-line as I am ‘in person.’ Listening to my ‘appearances’ on Revolution Radio, I find, I sound just like me. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Dawn Gaye says:

    Yes, and exactly why you have my trust, jbjd, even though we’ve never met in person.

    I referred someone I only know from online to this blog and spent a good few minutes convincing them it wasn’t my blog, incognito! haha! They actually thought jbjd was my blogging persona and that I didn’t want to be “outed”. I hope I set them straight – for your sake:)

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: That’s so funny. But, if that person only read some of the SC articles then, it would be understandable that someone s/he would suspect, this was your work since you had a hand in that work, and earned an attribution. (But when did you get a law degree?) ADMINISTRATOR

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: