Main Menu

Jablonski strikes back

Georgia State flagObama’s attorney in Georgia, Michael Jablonski, earned some good natured praise for winning a series of eligibility lawsuits in Georgia by not showing up, and adding “The Jablonski Empty Chair Technique”® into our vocabulary.

That’s all good fun, but now the decision of Georgia Secretary of State Kemp has been appealed to the Superior Court in Fulton County and everybody has to get serious. Once again the 4 cases have been moved to a single judge (Hon. Cynthia D. Wright) and Jablonski has move for dismissal in the Farrar case (and has or presumably will in the others).

There are two theories at play in the various cases. One is the identity theft, social-security fraud, Indonesian adoption scenario of Farrar (et al.), and the natural born citizen definition issue raised by Swensson (et al.) Jablonski succinctly1 responds to the Farrar case in a 7-page, heavily footnoted Brief in Support of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (embedded at the end of this article).

Please note that I am not including every detail raised in the Brief, only a survey.

Jablonski sets the scene by reciting in footnotes (almost 2 pages worth!) a litany of cases challenging Obama’s eligibility that have been rejected by the courts, cases in Georgia and in Federal Court, representing them as harassment and politically motivated. He cites two cases in support of Obama’s eligibility; one is the familiar  Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana and a new one, United States v. Marguet-Pillado, 748F.3d 1001,1006 (9th Cir., 2011). Marguet-Pillado was a case of a person born outside of the United States to one US citizen parent. The Circuit Court in that case stated that as a matter of law someone born outside the United States to one citizen parent was a natural born citizen.

Jablonski then requests that the suit be dismissed on three grounds:

  1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
  2. Failure of service
  3. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted


In support of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Mr. Jablonski repeats the argument he made unsuccessfully before Judge Malihi that a Georgia Preference Primary is not an election, and therefore no one has to be eligible under Georgia law. (Judge Malihi reached his decision on whether or not Obama was a “candidate” rather than whether the Primary was an “election.”) He says that the right of Georgians to express their preference is a Constitutionally-protected right. (I haven’t looked to see if the citations in support of this section differ from those cited previously.)

In support of the second point, Jablonski says that challengers just put their complaint in the mail rather than serving it, and did not seek a waiver of service. He cites a Georgia case that says: “Where there is no process, and no waiver of process, no valid suit arises.”

Finally, since there is nothing that Barack Obama can do relative to whether he is on the Ballot in Georgia or not, there is nothing the Court could order him to do that would satisfy the plea of the challengers (except maybe eat worms and die). Jablonski argues that since the only party that can do anything, The Secretary of State, is not a party to the case, it should be dismissed.

Points 1 and 3 are applicable to all the cases. I presume that the real lawyers handling the cases of Welden, Powell and Swensson would have gotten the service right.

2012-02-27 – FARRAR v Obama – Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss


1Bless his heart. I am so tired of reading long legal filings.

, , , ,

20 Responses to Jablonski strikes back

  1. avatar
    Zachary Bravos February 27, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    I’m not an election attorney but in reading this pleading it seems well-crafted, closely reasoned, and persuasive on all points. Mr. Jablonski has certainly redeemed himself and has demonstrated that he is indeed well-prepared and fully competent. Rather than wasting his time at the administrative hearing he researched the matter fully. Just the footnoting must have taken days of work. Easy prediction here – case dismissed.

  2. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    “I presume that the real lawyers handling the cases of Welden, Powell and Swensson would have gotten the service right.”

    Everyday I become more convinced that the birther lawyers really are not interested in getting before the Supreme Court.

  3. avatar
    alg February 27, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    Gotta agree with Zach here. I think Jablonski expected from the beginning that this would end up in a real court and has set the stage accordingly. These cases will be summarily dismissed with the inevitable birther pandemonium as accompaniment.

  4. avatar
    Robert February 27, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    The smart ones know that they won’t win, and lower courts keep the money flowing

    Orly, on the other hand, is too big of a failure to make it there. She wouldn’t even know how to present to the court; I can not imagine what Scalia would say if she tried to speak over any of the justices, or go past her time, or any of the other protocol.

    gorefan: sume that the real lawyers handling the cases of Welden, Powell and Swensson would have gotten the service right.”

    Everyday I become more convinced that the birther lawyers really are not interested in getting before the Supreme Court.

  5. avatar
    donna February 28, 2012 at 12:09 am #

    scalia has already had a run in with the ditz

    3/2009

    Orly Taitz Confronts Justices Roberts & Scalia

    Local dentist and attorney Orly Taitz confronted two Supreme Court justices last week in her pursuit to force disclosure of President Obama’s original birth certificate. Taitz attended a speech by Chief Justice Roberts last Thursday at the University of Idaho. She was called to the microphone for the first question following the address:

    My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question. I wanted to know if you are aware of some illegal activity that is going on in the Supreme Court of the United States.

    I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief. He has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted.

    On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.”

    Taitz then held up documents including her pleadings and a 3,300-page petition with 350,000 signatures.

    According to Taitz, Roberts replied, “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them.”

    She then handed a suitcase of documents to a secret service agent, who found a large box into which he placed the contents. Taitz also included her 164 page dossier of suspected criminal activity sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder.

    http://missionviejodispatch.com/uncategorized/taitz-confronts-justices-roberts-scalia/

  6. avatar
    John Potter February 28, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    donna: According to Taitz, Roberts replied, “I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them.”

    Righty-o, babe. Removed by security more likely. I’ll offer long odds any “box” used resembled a trash can.

  7. avatar
    donna February 28, 2012 at 12:39 am #

    can’t you hear her SCREECHING at scalia & roberts?

    after justice thomas denied cert, she actually asked that thomas’ signature be verified

    Ever notice that the biggest conspiracy theorists are also the biggest skeptics? Laguna Niguel’s birther leader Orly Taitz’s application to the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify $20,000 in penalties levied upon her by a federal judge, was denied last week. Some people might have simply accepted such a denial. Taitz, though, wants corroboration that Justice Clarence Thomas was actually the one to sign the dismissal.

    In a motion posted on her website and supposedly sent to Chief Justice John Roberts, Taitz requests to schedule an appointment time for her to come by the Supreme Court with a forensic documents expert to check out Thomas’s signature. She, naturally, ties this application up with her year-and-a-half-old belief that clerks attempted to delete her original anti-Obama lawsuit from the high court’s docket.

    In the points and authorities section of the latest motion, she writes, “Taitz cannot provide any points and authorities, as nothing like that ever happened in the Supreme Court and Taitz is requesting your Honor to review the above Motion as the matter of first impression.”

    The insinuation that Thomas’s signature isn’t valid follows Taitz’s campaign to prove Barack Obama’s presidency isn’t valid, as well as her recent lawsuit alleging that the candidacy of California Secretary of State wannabe Damon Dunn isn’t valid. All three of these men must have something in common. Any guesses?

  8. avatar
    RuhRoh February 28, 2012 at 6:20 am #

    Orly has a post up ” Criminal Complaint Filed Against GA Judges”. I can’t see the attachment on my phone. Has anyone seen the complaint or put it on scribd?

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 8:54 am #

    At first glance, it’s not related to our Obama conspiracy business, except that Judge Cynthia D. Wright, the judge assigned to the birther ballot challenge cases is one of the 25 judges named by William M. Windsor, candidate for Chief Magistrate Judge of
    Cobb County Georgia.

    A complaint from Mr. Windsor was dismissed by the Georgia Judicial Council with whom it was filed. His complaint is that a hearing transcript involving him doesn’t match his recollection of events (nor that of some witnesses, so he says.)

    The criminal accusation is directed at the entire Georgia Judicial Council (of which judge Wright is a member) for dismissing the complaint.

    I think the thrust of Orly’s publication of this issue is to say “all judges are corrupt.” This is in line with her view of all officials in the United States.

    RuhRoh:
    Orly has a post up ” Criminal Complaint Filed Against GA Judges”. I can’t see the attachment on my phone. Has anyone seen the complaint or put it on scribd?

  10. avatar
    John Reilly February 28, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    The “criminal complaint” seems to have little to do with Dr. Taitz or her crusade, and is a “criminal complaint” only in the sense that someone has written to some government authority with a complaint that he thinks some behavior by lots of judges is criminal. It is likely to see the circular file.

    I posted a comment at thev web site, which simply said “this is not a criminal complaint. Someone has written a letter.” That did not make it through moderation, but that did not surprise me.

  11. avatar
    RuhRoh February 28, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    Thanks, Dr. C and John Reilly!

  12. avatar
    justlw February 28, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    John Reilly: “this is not a criminal complaint. Someone has written a letter.”

    …formatted as a newspaper article, bylined by him and about him.

    It’s classic paranoid schizo ramble, although he does distinguish himself from the typical schizophrenic rant by throwing in more paragraph breaks than you usually find in such. So kudos there.

    And yet Orly found it to be worth posting.

    If in some parallel universe she was just some distant relation who had somehow obtained your email address, she’d be the one you gave up on sending Snopes links to years ago.

  13. avatar
    donna February 28, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    while taitz and co were arguing with an empty table, it looks like jablonski spent his time getting his ducks in a row – it probably began when he lost the first round – his list of FAILED cases is an ASTOUNDING thing of beauty as was his 2011 find of “marquet” –

  14. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    Windsor has a rich history of filing denials, sanctions and more all. The amount of sanctions and other costs have been staggering and he is blaming the courts for his failures.

    Sad really. But very Orly-esque in some way.

  15. avatar
    Foggy February 28, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    That loooooooong string citation appears impressive, but I have been advised that it is a mess. Jablonski might not have done as professional a job as he could have.

    Apparently, according to one of our most trusted attorneys (but I haven’t asked permission to disclose the name) it has “cases cited to wrong courts; missing aff’ds (in other words, an appeals court affirmed the decision but the cite to that is missing) – completely wrong WL (WestLaw) citations … it’s a MESS.”

    Not saying the motion won’t win. It will. Just pointing out, as the attorney says, “We’d be ripping it apart if a birther had filed it.”

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

    Thanks, Foggy, for adding that perspective. I think what Jablonski did well enough, though, is to support his basic claim, and that is one of harassment. and to that extent it works.

    Personally, I didn’t like the whole section. It would seem to be intended to prejudice the court more than anything else, when in fact those citations to not relate to his argument in the motion to dismiss.

    Foggy: Not saying the motion won’t win. It will. Just pointing out, as the attorney says, “We’d be ripping it apart if a birther had filed it.

  17. avatar
    Great Kim February 28, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    “Jablonski argues that since the only party that can do anything, The Secretary of State, is not a party to the case, it should be dismissed

    this was my opinion about the hearing as well. It was quickly dismissed

  18. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 28, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    donna:
    can’t you hear her SCREECHING at scalia & roberts?

    The insinuation that Thomas’s signature isn’t valid follows Taitz’s campaign to prove Barack Obama’s presidency isn’t valid, as well as her recent lawsuit alleging that the candidacy of California Secretary of State wannabe Damon Dunn isn’t valid. All three of these men must have something in common. Any guesses?

    Is it that they’re all snappy dressers?

  19. avatar
    donna March 2, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    GA – All cases – Appeals Court Dismissal of all cases

    GA – Welden v Obama – Motion Pro Hac Vice denied

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  20. avatar
    G March 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Wow, that was quick! Excellent yet predictable news. I fully expected that all 4 would be consolidated and dismissed as one. There were so many reasons to know this outcome would come.

    But the flaw of sheer stupidity by the Birther lawyers that makes me laugh the most is their complete failure to effect proper service…

    Birtherims seriously must cause real brain damage. Soon these folks are going to have difficulty remembering how to tie their own shoes…

    donna: GA – All cases – Appeals Court Dismissal of all casesGA – Welden v Obama – Motion Pro Hac Vice deniedhttp://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/