Oh, if I were he, I might do just a bit more than that.

I'd prob'ly set out a few possible options and give my reading as to how each of them might play out. I mean, they hired me because I'm local and might have some insight to what happens locally, right?



But I do see your point, and I'm quite sure you're right, he's not the only one in the decision-making loop.

So why not get them consolidated before then?



Jablonski and client may prefer to get right to the substantive issue rather than quibble over technicalities. Having preserved the jurisdictional objection as completely as I have ever seen such an objection preserved, he wants it all before the same judge to avoid the possibility of different decisions.



I don't think Jablonski wants to rely on the dubious competence of the birthers to get the jurisdiction issue resolved once and for all. He may even want to try for a finding that in general, the parties get to make all the substantive decisions about their primary candidates, including the PPP. The best argument is that the SoS has no jurisdiction to block a candidate from the PPP based on supposed federal requirements.

I have no doubt that the pugs would use this statute to harass Democratic candidates in the future with the slightest excuse or an entirely imaginary excuse. Imagine some nut in 5 years who challenges Hillary because Miner '49er v. Hassenpfeffer says you need a penis to run for President.

Getting a favorable determination on the jurisdiction issue gets rid of that headache for good. No more Malihi-style freakshows.

The reason Jablonski was correct in boycotting the Malihi proceedings is that they were an ultra vires sideshow that was a disgrace, from a tribunal that had no power to demand Obama's presence or, frankly, do anything but put him on the ballot.

A court will not do such a thing, and a default before an actual court would be foolish.

I was under the impression that Miner'49er v. Hassenpfeffer was only a precedent for issues pertaining to women's health insurance.

Welcome, vic.

Er... that's what I wrote if you would read the first paragraph as well as the second:





We don't know what the fee arrangement is. Obviously he is back in the game right now, but it's quite possible that he was told that that his responsibilities were over when Kemp's decision was issued. You can't bill the client without a retainer agreement. If Obama or the campaign made the mistake of assuming that the respective counsel had some rudimentary understanding of procedure, they may have thought that their involvement in the Georgia cases was over. You know, that the birthers would have figured out that they needed to sue Kemp, not Obama, since it says so right in the very same statute that they brought their challenge under.

So while of course I would lay out some basic options for a client I no longer represented if there was a possibility of my coming on board... I wouldn't be counting billable hours until after I had confirmed that the client wanted me to continue representation.

My guess is that he's pretty far down the ladder in the decision-making loop. It's got nothing to do with his qualifications, it's just that the campaign lawyers are likely to be running the show on this. I mean ... ever once in awhile in my career I would get hired by some out of state lawyers to do something relatively minor for a client of theirs-- in those circumstances I understood that I was just being hired in the role of local counsel, not really being made a member of the team that was calling the shots. It would have been considered rather poor professional etiquette if I had overstepped my bounds by initiating a new action or strategy without clearance from whoever hired me.

No, we don't. The billable hours wisecrack was just a wisecrack.

I think it's hilarious that Hatfirion pretty obviously don't have Clue One that this "side" argument is at the heart of whatever deference they are being shown -- NOT their own bizarre twists on history and the Constitution.


IANAL but I find myself agreeing with this. It's politics, people. Here's a reason to consolidate, early, even before proper service has been achieved or parties properly named: you take away the opportunity for FOUR nutcases to go around to the Nutcase Blogverse x 4 declaiming their FOUR cases smear vehicles against 0bummer the Zero, and marking every motion, reply, and hearing x 4 with breathless craptitude on WND.

I doubt he's going to assert the jurisdictional objections related to election challenges. I think he'll simply move to dismiss on grounds that Obama isn't the Secretary of State of Georgia, and thus is not properly joined as a party.



This case isn't about Jablonski. The client is Barack Obama, and there is no particular value for Obama to get caught up in a jurisdictional argument that is certain to be appealed through the Georgia state court system.

I know with Orly as a model, its easy to forget that the case is not about the lawyers. But a lawyer who prolongs a case because he want to get a ruling on a particular issue, when the case can be resolved beneficially to the client in a more expedient manner, is simply not serving his client's interest.

The jurisdictional argument is moot as to Obama. The ALJ's holding and Kemp's subsequent decision rendered it moot. It is also barely relevant to the issues now before the court. It doesn't matter whether or not Kemp properly referred the case to the ALJ because the end result was that the status quo was maintained. So factually, this actually makes for a very poor case to litigate the jurisdiction issue.



What "default"? Didn't Orly serve Jablonski with a 30-day summons? Whether or not the service was proper, if the summons says 30 days it means no one can be entering any defaults until the last week of March. Obviously the petition becomes moot on March 7th.

As I noted, I think that if the case are consolidated, Jablonski will probably come in with a brief motion on grounds that Obama is not a proper party to the action. He should contest jurisdiction, but on a different grounds than the one raised before the ALJ -- now its simply a matter of subject matter jurisdiction that applies in all cases. Obama is not the Secretary of State of Georgia.

But then again he may wait. If the idiot lawyers had followed proper procedure, they wouldn't be worrying about serving a summons. Obviously the petition is in the nature of an extraordinary writ, and should be governed according to the procedures set forth in Title 9,Chapter 6 of the Georgia code.

I don't think he'll waste his time on a technicality. Although it's written poorly, the complaint means to name "Barack Obama" and "Secretary of State", not "Barack Obama, The Secretary of State". Since it's in a Georgia court, it means the Secretary of State of Georgia. I think the judge would even say, "Oh come on, you know who they're filing against. Don't get cute." It's all moot on March 7th anyway. I think Jablonski will file a motion to dismiss on March 7th.

Edit: I know this isn't an original idea on my part, but I can't find the post from which it came. I think it was the day after it was filed.

Ironically, Orly is the only one that even came close to naming Kemp. The others did not. Obama is a named party in all 4 "appeals" and therefore an improper party in all four.

You misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that Jablonski would complain about the way that the Taitz worded her pleading, I'm saying that an appeal of an election challenge must be brought by a Petition directed at the Secretary of State. Since Obama is not the Secretary of State of Georgia, he is not a proper party and there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

Taitz's pleading could theoretically survive because she did name the Secretary of State, but Obama would be dismissed as a party defendant. The other cases would be dismissed outright because they didn't name the Secretary of State, though perhaps they are saved by the act of consolidation. Jablonski goes home; and someone from the Georgia State Attorney General's office is stuck with the task of having to sit in a courtroom and listen to birthers babble on.

Beg to differ a bit. The President is a FEDERAL Officer, the next line lists Secretary of State (without a name). It would be an assumption, but since it is a fed officer on the line you would think that the second line SOS would be federal also. The Federal SOS could show up also enforcing the confusion.

While the birfers are nitpicking, hell nitpick back.

I think by asking to consolidate the 4 cases, Jablonski is just cutting to the chase. If he'd asked that the 3 that name only his client be dismissed, the fools would just re-file, or ask to amend their complaints, dragging things out. He knows they'll get consolidated under Judge Wright. He can then wait until Mar 7th when they're all moot. Or maybe he and the campaign lawyers would like Judge Wright to rule that Kemp's decision was correct. They'd have one more win in their pockets to use against new cases filed for the general election. A win the birthers couldn't call a "technicality".

And on top of that NONE of the others listed ANY SOS on their petitions, so what's the deal? To me the ID of which SOS is being tagged is pretty obscure.

If you called me into court as "the System Engineer" without naming me, which system engineer???? What if he was looking for a detective. Listing "some detective" isn't going to cut it.

Just IMHO - more coffee.

I miss kitteh - she had gotten in the habit of the 4 am doo doo, but it gets me up for the day.

Actually, I don't think there will be any need for a motion to dismiss. Here's what I think will happen.

All cases will be consolidated and assigned to Judge Wright.

Wright will review Hatfield's motion along with the other pleadings and determine that, notwithstanding the case captions that it is clear that the parties are attempting to appeal the Secty of State's determination of their election challenge, and are just too stoopid to know how. She will issue a sua sponte ruling opting to treat all of the actions as the petitions for extraordinary relief they are meant to be. (Courts do this routinely, as even smart lawyers seem to muck things up regularly when it comes to writ procedure).

Then, Judge Wright will do one of two things:

A. She will issue a ruling that none of the petitions/appeals/lawsuits/ lay out the proper set of allegations supporting relief, and, having opted to treat the proceedings as a properly brought petition, summarily deny them all.

or

B. She will issue an order directed to the Secretary of State, calling for written opposition, at some specified date between now and the election. The State AG will file a memo... and THEN the Judge will dismiss all the actions.

The advantage of option B is that with Option A, the parties could get their act together and refile. Though having read Judge Wright's denial of Orly's pro hac vice app, I'm thinking she's more likely to go with option A.

I'd add one thing to what CB wrote, above: If there is an opportunity for the Obama campaign to seek costs and attorney's fees, I don't think there will be an empty chair on the other side this time. It's time to make the birthers pay for their attacks on the Constitution and the election process. Since President Obama has been frivolously named as a party (although arguably he could have intervened), I would make the birthers pay.

I think the politics of the situation would militate against stirring the pot too much. If they can do it all with a simple written motion, why not? But if it's going to be a lawyers vs. birthers catfight in a courtroom, I think they'll pass.

Best case scenario would be if Judge Wright sanctions them on her own, for whatever reason.. without it having to rest on a motion brought by Obama.

Assuming "A," would that leave the door open to go through this again for the General Election?

Yes, but the SOS would not refer the general election ballot challenge. He would summarily determine Obama is eligible. Then Hatirion would have to figure out how to get the Superior Court to rule. Are they teachable? Who knows.

IANL, but I'm not sure how much Team Chair could actually do in this case beyond moving for dismissal. While they have been named as the defendant, they are not actually being asked to defend any actions that they have or have not taken.

Again, IANL, but it would not surprise me if there are ethics issues involved in defending someone without their consent, and that kind of seems like what would be happening if the cases proceed without Kemp being added as a defendant. Effectively, Obama would be in the position of having to defend the actions that Kemp took in the case. Can they do that? I don't know, but I suspect it's a tricky question. It may ever one that's made trickier due to a scarcity of precedent, what with few breathing human beings that are stupid enough to make the kind of mistakes that birthers manage as a matter of course.

Whoever is nominally the party, the party and the candidate clearly have standing to intervene. It is, after all, the party's right to choose its own candidates in a manner of its own choosing, and the candidate's right to appear on the ballot, that is at issue. These two parties are also representing the right of voters to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. Considering that an adverse result would directly impact the rights of both the party and the candidate, they have the right to intervene as parties or otherwise.

I expect a motion to dismiss and a dismissal will occur promptly. Conceivably, the consolidation and dismissal could be simultaneous, not leaving time to file a motion to dismiss.

Very true, given the ability of the Judge to make sua sponte orders when papers are facially defective or obviously lack merit.

That's the best part of American justice. Take the time and give it a serious look, THEN zap it.

One time, a really bad judge looked at me and said "All hypes (needle-using drug addicts) are thieves and all thieves are hypes."

I'm proud to say that I looked back at him and said, "No, your honor. There are exceptions to that, and our job is to find those exceptions."

We have the worst justice system in the world, except for all the others.