Two AT writers attended yesterday's hearing in Georgia over President Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O'Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

Ms. O'Brien commented to Professor Lott:  "Gods don't debate.  They just issue decrees."

And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.

On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama's eligibility to appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot.  In two previous American Thinker blog posts, "The Birthers Went Down to Georgia" and "Georgia on Obama's Mind," I described the content and history of the cases.

The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant.  The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

...Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend.  Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing.  This may be correct.  But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority...evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary..."

Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp.  He requested that Kemp "bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued."  Jablonski's letter concluded: "We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26."

A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26^th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning:  "...if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril."

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.

Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation presented his case first, followed by J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.  Irion's argument focused on the definition of "natural born" citizen in the holding of Minor v Happersett and the principle of "statutory construction" in the interpretation of the 14^th amendment.  Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between "natural born" and "native-born" citizenship. 

Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.

After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.

Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately -- primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama's eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.  

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court's opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state.  According to Irion, Obama has also "decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated...that he is not subject to their authority.  This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it."

Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.

And most of the media has followed along right behind him.

Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia's Election Laws

Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26^th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a "Natural Born Citizen" and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot.  This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law.  Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi.  Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court's Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing.  Obama's attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled.   Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them "they did so at their own peril" if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.

The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections.  It most assuredly is a Citizen's Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President.  This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.

The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama.  Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a "Natural Born Citizen" and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 --  the legal heart of the matter.  An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.

Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother's passport records.  A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit. 

Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama.  She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing.   Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator.  Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning.  It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama's attorney in particular.  

She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961.  He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960's.  This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.  

The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator.  He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama's records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain.  The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama's, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially.  There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace.  He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama's exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.

However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings.  However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts.  Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present. 

Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the "trier of the facts".  Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial.  Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal.  As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level! 

Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal!   The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand!  It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law -- Georgia's.  We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama's records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public's hands for the last four years.  After this hearing we may eventually know why.

________________________________________________________________________

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.                  

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425                                              

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery                                                                      

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify                                                                                                                              

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister                                                  

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns                                                                                                                            

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA                                                                   

p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.