Monthly Archives: January 2012

J. Christian Adams, Miracle in Virginia, An Unexpected and Unusual Ordination of a Priest, Father Rich Dyer

J. Christian Adams, Miracle in Virginia, An Unexpected and Unusual Ordination of a Priest, Father Rich Dyer

From Family Security Matters January 31, 2012.

“This is a true story about Rich Dyer, a Virginia man who never expected to become a priest, but became one sooner than he expected. Dyer, 48, left behind a successful career in business after hearing a calling to the priesthood.

Some of you don’t believe in miracles, and others are certain they exist. But, this is a story for the multitudes who still wonder. C.S. Lewis, in Surprised by Joy, his autobiography of his journey from atheism to faith said, “You may take any number of wrong turnings; but keep your eyes open and you will not be allowed to go very far before the warning signs appear.”

Naturally, it would be easy if bushes regularly burned and spoke, erasing all doubt. But revelations so cheap and easy, dispense with human freewill. How difficult would moral choices be when faith has no role? If the answers were so obvious, goodness and grace would not be human choices, but rather servile obedience to a revealed omnipotent.

Instead of miracles, many have experienced a weighty and unmistakable synchronicity, where seemingly impossible events occur. Answered prayers fall into this category. But so do smaller revelations, joyous moments when blessings reveal themselves in hindsight, blessings that once seemed ordinary, or even dreadful. Those who have experienced this weighty synchronicity know there is no such thing as a coincidence.

C.S. Lewis described moments of revelations as being “surprised by joy.” Sometimes they are as gentle as an unseen sparrow’s song that reminds you spring has arrived. Other times, they are as bold and unforgettable as a grand pastel sunset.

Last December, the unusual ordination of Father Rich Dyer took place in Virginia.

For those unfamiliar with the Catholic priesthood, a brief aside. Holy orders, when a priest is ordained, is one of the seven Catholic sacraments. Seminarians study for years before being ordained. Beyond study, seminarians seek to discern whether they are truly called to the priesthood. After they complete their studies, conclude that they are committed to the vocation, and are called to orders by their local bishop, priests are ordained by the bishop of the diocese. In the Diocese of Arlington (Virginia), this occurs in June of each year in a celebratory mass. Canon law vests the bishop with authority to alter the date of the ordination, but use of this power is not common.

In the summer of 2011, Rich Dyer learned that his father was sick with cancer. His fellow seminarians asked him if he considered asking Bishop Paul Loverde for special permission to be ordained early.

The week before his December finals at Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary in Maryland, Dyer had his regular meeting with a representative of Bishop Loverde. He wondered if anyone had ever been ordained ahead of schedule. He wrote to Bishop Loverde: “I seek God’s will. I do not know what His will is regarding the date of my priestly ordination, but I know and trust that He speaks through you. I am not asking that you accelerate my ordination date, only that you prayerfully discern God’s will regarding it and then communicate this will to me.”

It appeared to Dyer, and anybody else, that a December ordination was impossible, and January was unlikely because the bishop would be in Rome. An early ordination, if it were to occur, could only be in February.

Then on Tuesday, December 20, Dyer received a telephone call. The bishop had read and considered the letter. Dyer was given the choice to be ordained as regularly scheduled on June 9, 2012, or, if Dyer wished to be ordained earlier, the Bishop was available … the following Tuesday, December 27.

Being the feast of St. John the Apostle, December 27, was a special day to Dyer. For years, his computer’s screen saver had a quote from St. John – “Perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:18).Dyer did not come to the priesthood the traditional way. He obtained a degree in electrical engineering from Notre Dame, and joined the Air Force on graduation. After the Air Force, he returned to Notre Dame and received a masters degree in business. He went on to a successful career as an executive with an independent power producer in Virginia before hearing a calling to become a priest. “I had a great life, but I knew I was called to the priesthood, even if sometimes I didn’t want to do it,” Dyer told me by telephone.

Bishop Loverde ordained Dyer as a priest in a ceremony at St. Andrew the Apostle Church in Clifton, Virginia on December 27. His father Richard Dyer was at the ordination.

The next day, December 28, Dyer celebrated his first mass at St. Andrews, a mass which began at 11:00 a.m. His father, meanwhile, was with two family friends miles away. As Father Dyer said mass, the two friends taking care of his father noticed the elder Dyer’s breathing became heavy and labored. They adjusted him in the bed and “he became alert,” Father Dyer told me.

The family friends reported Richard Dyer “seemed to be looking at things all around the room, his eyes moving all around,” looking at things that nobody else could see. While the friends then prayed aloud around Richard Dyer, and his son continued celebrating mass miles away, the elder Dyer hushed their prayers. “I’m trying to listen to it,” he told them.

The friends continued their prayers in silence before one of them came to the elder Dyer’s bedside, held his hand, and prayed that the Holy Spirit come and take the elder Dyer home. The friend’s eyelids began to flutter uncontrollably, his body began to shake, and he became very warm as he felt something like an energy pass through him to the elder Dyer. The elder Dyer’s face became very peaceful as he looked to the ceiling and asked for his wife before saying, “I have to go now,” Richard Dyer said, and then died. The elder Dyer died at 12:05 pm just as his eldest son finished celebrating his first Mass.

Not far away, the son of the friends watching the elder Dyer was playing outside. This now-healthy child had been cured of a rare form of cancer. Richard Dyer had prayed for just such a cure for the boy. Looking up at a break in the clouds, at the rays of the sun, the boy said aloud to his companions, “I think Mr. Dyer just went to the Lord.”

It is beyond our capability to say with certainty what these events mean. But one thing is certain, these events occurred. They occurred not on the pages of a dusty storybook, or in a fable passed through generations. They occurred in Virginia, just a few weeks ago.

Some will reflexively suggest worldly explanations. They will afford no possibility other than the laws of science, and random chance when those laws prove inadequate. Others, like the “mouse chasing the cat,” have experienced the awe of stumbling into a new understanding, of unintentionally running into the cat.

Next June, the Bishop of Arlington will assign Father Dyer to a parish somewhere in Northern Virginia. Father Dyer didn’t expect to find himself where he is now, or will be next June. “I’m rather shy,” he told me. For people who wonder, who question whether something guides our course, perhaps there is something in the contemporary story of one shy, already successful, 48 year old man becoming a priest, and how it happened.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor J. Christian Adams is an election attorney who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. He is author of the bestselling book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery) His website is http://www.electionlawcenter.com.”

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11330/pub_detail.asp

 

Advertisements

Obama NC ballot challenge, GA ruling Judge Michael Malihi, North Carolina Secretary of State and Election Board warned in 2008, Governor Easley conviction

Obama NC ballot challenge, GA ruling Judge Michael Malihi, North Carolina Secretary of State and Election Board warned in 2008, Governor Easley conviction

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

It is timely and appropriate to reprint an article from 2008 on NC election law. In 2008 I contacted the NC Secretary of State’s office as well as the Board of elections multiple times. I provided information about the Philip J. Berg lawsuit as well as Obama eligibility concerns. The gentleman from the Board of Elections office was aware of the lawsuit. One of the state officers listed in the article, former Governor Mike Easley, has since been indicted and convicted of other crimes. His successor, Beverly Perdue, an Obama Democrat, was recently cited for receiving government employment reports prematurely. She has just indicated she will not run for office again.

I just perused the NC Election statutes looking for any significant changes and found none. NC still has a reference to replacing an ineligible candidate but no clear protocol for challenges. The state of Georgia is to be commended for provisions allowing ballot challenges in accordance with the US Constitution. We await a ruling from Judge Michael Malihi in GA on such challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/judge-michael-malihi-ruling-obama-ga-ballot-challenges-january-26-2012-summary-judgement-entered-brian-p-kemp-georgia-secretary-of-state/

Of course, the Democrat National Convention will be held in Charlotte, NC this year. You can bet that the State of NC will prioritize that event over upholding the US Constitution.

Politics as usual.

There are some challenges underway in NC and I will keep you apprised of their progress. More information can be found here:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/complaint-in-nc-underway

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/election-complaint-filed-in-north-carolina-nc-page-updated-with-law

The State of NC was warned in 2008, ignorance is no excuse.

From Citizen Wells November 17, 2008.

NC State Officers and Election Officials are in Violation of the Law
2008 Presidential Election

Eligibility for presidency

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

How President is elected

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events leading up to the Electoral College vote

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

NC Officials responsible for upholding the US Constitution and Federal and State Election Laws

Governor Mike Easley has overall responsibilities as well as Electoral College certification.

Attorney General Roy Cooper is charged with compliance with all Federal and State laws.

Secretary Elaine Marshall is responsible for the NC Election process.

NC Board of Elections is responsible for the NC Election process.

NC Electoral College Electors are responsible for complying with Federal and State laws.

NC Judges ruling on election matters are bound to uphold the US Constitution and Federal and State laws.

Laws that apply to NC State Officials

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1. Presidential eligibility.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1. States are responsible for Presidential Elections up to Electoral College vote.

Federal Election Law dictates that Electors must vote in a “manner directed by the Constitution.”

Article VI of the US Constitution states:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”

NC Statute § 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

“If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of national executive
committee of political party in which vacancy occurs”

NC Statute § 163‑19.  State Board of Elections; appointment; term of office; vacancies; oath of office.

“At the first meeting held after new appointments are made, the members of the State Board of Elections shall take the following oath:

I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, and that I will well and truly execute the duties of the office of member of the State Board of Elections according to the best of my knowledge and ability, according to law, so help me, God.”
NC Statute § 163‑23.  Powers of chairman in execution of Board duties.

“In the performance of the duties enumerated in this Chapter, the chairman of the State Board of Elections shall have power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. Upon the written request or requests of two or more members of the State Board of Elections, he shall issue subpoenas for designated witnesses or identified papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any two members of the State Board of Elections may issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any member of the Board may administer oaths. (1901, c. 89, s. 7; Rev., s. 4302; C.S., s. 5923; 1933, c. 165, s. 1; 1945, c. 982; 1967, c. 775, s. 1; 1973, c. 793, s. 4.)”

The following facts and conclusions are self evident:

  • The State of NC, State Officials and Election Officials are responsible for the Presidential Election in NC up to and including the vote by the Electoral College Electors of NC.
  • The Electoral College Electors of NC are bound by the US Constitution and Federal and State Election law to vote for an eligible presidential candidate.
  • The Governor’s office, the Secretary of State’s office, the NC State Board of Elections and the Electoral College of NC has been notified in public and private of major issues surrounding the eligibility of
    Barack Obama.
  • The office of the Secretary of State and Board of Elections was notified multiple times, prior to the general election, of the Philip J Berg lawsuit and facts regarding Barack Obama’s ineligibility. The
    notification was via telephone conversation and emails as well as notification on the internet. The Board of Elections stated they had been aware of these issues for several months.
  • There are pending lawsuits in NC courts, other state courts, as well as US Supreme Court, challenging the eligibilty of Barack Obama.
  • Barack Obama has refused to supply legal proof of eligibility.
  • Pending or dismissed lawsuits have no bearing on the obligation of NC officials to uphold the rule of law.
  • Failure of NC officials to uphold the law and their election duties may result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.
  • The state of NC has complete control of the presidential election process in NC up to and including the Electoral College vote.
  • Placing a candidate on the ballot at the direction of a major political party does not relieve NC election officials of their duty to ensure eligibility of candidates.
  • The state of NC in NC Statute § 163-114 provides for replacing a candidate that “for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified”.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives power to the people not reserved for the federal government or the states.
  • The laws on the books not only allow, but require that NC officers and Elections Officials demand proof from any presidential candidate of eligibility.

If the officers and Election Officials do not perform their legal obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate, they will be subject to one or more of the following:

  • Prosecution
  • Lawsuit
  • Impeachment
  • Recall
  • Expulsion
  • Dismissal

Citizen Wells will be providing this information to the officers and Election officials of NC. If a satisfactory answer is not received soon, petitions will be initiated to remove non compliant officials from office. Judges are not immune.

What is the alternative?

The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.
 
 
 

Obama FL ballot challenge, Florida advisory opinion, Abdul Hassan and Obama not natural born citizens, Litigation or contested election

Obama FL ballot challenge, Florida advisory opinion, Abdul Hassan and Obama not natural born citizens, Litigation or contested election

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

This article began as a reminder, a plea, for someone in Florida, after the primary, as we were all led to believe, to contest Obama winning the FL primary due to his lack of eligibility as a non natural born citizen. I vaguely remembered someone getting a response from the FL Secretary of State’s office and an internet search returned little. I found an advisory opinion from the FL Election Department in response to an inquiry from Abdul Hassan, the same person who queried the FEC and got an advisory opinion stating that he was not eligible foe presidential matching funds because he is not a natural born citizen. After a request for assistance on this blog, I was redirected back to the Obama Ballot Challenge where I discovered they had reported the Hassan opinion. So, this article will remain a reminder for someone to challenge Obama in FL and as to how this played out from 2008 to the present.

In November of 2008, after reading the Florida Election Statutes, I contacted the FL Secretary of State’s office for clarification and was told that the only way to remove a candidate was to contest an election after the fact.

From Citizen Wells November 24, 2008.

“The state of Florida has a statute provision for challenging the “certification of election or nomination of any person to office…”.

Florida Election statutes

Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by
referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in
the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after
midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the
election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

Citizen Wells verified this statute with the office of the Secretary of State of Florida.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/florida-2008-election-obama-not-eligible-us-constitution-florida-election-statutes-fl-secretary-of-state-kurt-browning-contest-of-election-unsuccessful-candidate-qualified-elector-taxpayer-p/

From Obama Ballot Challenge January 1, 2012.

“Florida SOS’s unsatisfactory answer to Obama Ballot Challenge”

“This (non)response from Florida Assistant General Counsel Gary Holland suggests that since there is no specific procedure to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot, that it simply cannot be done and that officials cannot even try to figure out a way to do it. So, they would have him wait until the election is over, with the nation waiting with bated breath, while a court action is initiated and litigated. Simply asinine. Florida: what are you paying your overpriced civil servants for?”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/florida-soss-unsatisfactory-answer-to-obama-ballot-challenge

This is consistent with what I read and was told in 2008.

Florida has a procedure for advisory opinions.

“Division of Election Advisory Opinions

Who May Request an Opinion?

By law, the Division of Elections may provide advisory opinions only to a supervisor of elections, candidate, local officer having election related duties, political party, political committee, committee of continuous existence or other person or organization engaged in political activity, relating to any provisions or possible violations of Florida election laws.
Legal Effect of an Opinion:

The Division of Elections provides a historical database of advisory opinions for reference purposes only. An advisory opinion represents the Division’s interpretation of the law applicable at the time the opinion is issued, as applied to a particular set of facts or chcircumstances, and is binding solely on the person or organization who requested the opinion. A previously issued advisory opinion may or may not apply to your situation depending upon your particular facts and circumstances and the current state of applicable law. Therefore, before drawing any legal conclusions based upon the information in this database, you or an attorney engaged on your behalf should refer to the current Florida Statutes, rules adopted by the Division of Elections, and applicable case law.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/TOC_Opinions.shtml

Abdul Hassan requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in July 2011.

“No, as a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (“Matching Payment Act”).

The United States Constitution provides that “[n]o Person except a natural born
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-fec-hassan-opinion-quotes-natural-born-citizen-requirement-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-5-fec-us-constitution-presidential-eli/

Mr. Hassan received the following advisory opinion response from Florida.

“Section 103.021, Florida Statutes, as amended by Ch. 2011-40, § 45, Laws of Florida (2011), governs ballot access in Florida for presidential candidates who have no party affiliation and those who_are the nominees of political parties. Assuming you satisfy all requirements of section 103.021, the Secretary of State of Florida performs only a ministerial function as a filing officer for such candidates. The Secretary of State has no authority to look beyond the filing documents to determine i f a candidate is eligible. The Florida Supreme Court long ago stated: “The law does not give the secretary of state any power or authority to inquire into or pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.” Davis ex rel. Taylor v. Crawford, 116 So. 41, 42 (Fla. 1928). I f a presidential candidate (or the party in the
case of a political party nominee) files the required papers under Chapter 1 03, Florida Statutes, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must grant ballot access to the candidate. However, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot i f the candidate does not satisfy
the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/new/2011/de1103.pdf

Perhaps the following

“However, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot if the candidate does not satisfy the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.”

is stating the obvious. However, in my estimation, it proclaims that the Secretary of State is not the final arbiter and specifically mentions the eligibility aspect. Of course what is left open to interpretation is “proper plaintiffs.”

The Florida Primary takes place next Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Judge Michael Malihi has indicated he will provide a ruling in the GA Obama ballot hearing by February 5 and Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp has stated that he will abide by the ruling. A ruling in favor of Obama could result in appeals that, even with expedited handling, could drag on for weeks.

We need to have a strong challenge to contest Obama after the primary. In 2008 I contacted and spoke with Bob Barr’s assistant on several occasions to no avail. Let’s get the ball rolling on this initiative.

For more info on a FL challenge:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-challenge-obama-being-on-ballot.html

 

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Obama GA ballot challenges, January 26, 2012, Summary judgement entered?, Brian P. Kemp Georgia Secretary of State

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Obama GA ballot challenges, January 26, 2012, Summary judgement entered?, Brian P. Kemp Georgia Secretary of State

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

Today a historic event took place. Challenges to Obama’s natural born citizen status and eligibility for the GA ballot were presented to Judge Michael Malihi. In addition to evidence presented challenging Obama’s natural born citizen status based on his father being Kenyan, Orly Taitz presented evidence regarding the image placed on WhiteHouse.com purported to be Obama’s birth certificate and regarding social security number(s) used by Obama.

Neither Obama or his attorney Michael Jablonski appeared before Judge Malihi. Unsubstantiated rumors have surfaced that Judge Michael Malihi stated that he would enter a summary Judgement. When confirmation of Judge Malihi’s actions has been received, it will be reported. Regardless of the responses from Judge Michael Malihi or Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, the following Georgia Election Statutes will dictate what avenues are available for action.

“TITLE 21. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2. ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2011)

§ 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.”

(d) In the event that a candidate pays his or her qualifying fee with a check that is subsequently returned for insufficient funds, the Secretary of State shall automatically find that such candidate has not met the qualifications for holding the office being sought, unless the bank, credit union, or other financial institution returning the check certifies in writing by an officer’s or director’s oath that the bank, credit union, or financial institution erred in returning the check.

(e) The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are:

(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.

An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law.”

Some websites covering the hearing today have been inundated and it appears that The Post & Email is one of them. I have emailed Sharon Rondeau offering my assistance. The following site has gathered info on the hearing:

http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/

I just got a response from Sharon Rondeau of The Post & Email:

Temporarily publishing at www.gulagbound.com

GA Secretary of State warns Obama, Brian P. Kemp cautions Obama attorney Michael Jablonski, Georgia ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency

GA Secretary of State warns Obama, Brian P. Kemp cautions Obama attorney Michael Jablonski, Georgia ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

The following letter was sent from Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp to Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski:

The Office of Secretary of State

January 25, 2012

VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
michael.jablonski@comcast.com

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:

I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I
do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.
Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Brian P. Kemp

cc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal – kbeal@osah.ga.gov)
Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)
Orly Taitz, Esq. (orly.taitz@gmail.com)
Mark Hatfield, Esq. (mhatfield@wayxcable.com)
Stefan Ritter, Esq. (sritter@law.ga.gov)
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov)

Obama GA ballot challenge, Circumstantial Evidence convicts Obama, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 6, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

Obama GA ballot challenge, Circumstantial Evidence convicts Obama, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 6, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 6

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen


The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.
Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot, to run for president or to occupy the White House. The Georgia
ballot challenge to Obama continues tomorrow, January 26, 2012, with Judge Michael Malihi presiding.

Obama is not a natural born citizen regardless of his birthplace because he did not have 2 US Citizen parents. We know this from the context of the times and
language of the US Constitution and court cases. We have affirmation of this in Senate Resolution 511, that Obama signed, which declared that John McCain was
a natural born citizen and that he had 2 US Citizen parents.

Not only do we have direct evidence that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. We also have strong Circumstantial Evidence that he is ineligible and
hiding more than just his eligibility deficiencies.

Circumstantial Evidence defined:

“Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence
of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a
particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to
be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to
be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann
and that Ann then fell to the ground, John’s testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John’s testimony, then it must conclude
that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going
to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John’s testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred
that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John’s testimony is credible.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused’s guilt in a criminal matter,
including the accused’s resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused’s presence at the time and place of
the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence
is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a
jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is
incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the
jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme
Court has stated that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence”(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75
S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or
admissibility of evidence in trials.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

From Parts 1 – 5 of this series we know:

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in February of 2007 to determine if Obama could keep his option to receive
presidential matching funds. Bauer and Obama both knew that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

The FEC, in March 2007, responded in the affirmative. Ellen Weintraub, a former Perkins Coie staff member was a committee member.

Obama, in late 2007, in conjuction with other Senators, blocked FEC appointee approval.

For the first half of 2008, the commission has only had two members. Republican Chairman David Mason and Democrat Ellen Weintraub.

On June 19, 2008, Obama announced that he was not accepting presidential matching funds despite being an advocate for and pledging earlier to accept them.

Ellen Weintraub is still on the commission 4 years past the end of her tenure.

Per a Citizen Wells FOIA request to the FEC in August 2008 we learn that an inquiry was made to the FEC on August 18, 2008. The inquiry has information about Obama not being a natural born citizen and requests an opinion. The request is denied. An email from David Kolker, FEC Counsel to Rebekah Harvey, assistant to Ellen Weintraub states “Victory in Berg v. Obama.” The email is dated August 22, 2008, one day after the Philip J. Berg lawsuit was filed and before the FEC was served on August 27, 2008.

On September 2, 2011 the FEC provided an advisory opinion in response to a request from presidential candidate Abdul Hassan. The FEC stated that Hassan was not eligible for presidential matching funds because he is a naturalized and not a natural born citizen. THe FEC acknowledges that although they do not have the power to keep a candidate off of ballots, they have a duty to make certain that only eligible candidates receive matching funds.

“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility
requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the
steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury
funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5″”

Further reading of court cases confirms that the FEC was empowered to do so.

It is clear that Obama did not receive presidential matching funds because if he had done so, a challenge to his natural born citizen status from the FEC or
an election official would have ensued.

Furthermore:

No court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen nor has any case against Obama been dismissed on merits.

Robert Bauer defended Obama in lawsuits challenging Obama’s natural born citizen status in 2008 and was made general counsel by Obama in 2009.

Since occupying the White House in 2009, Obama has used a large number of US Justice Department attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to keep his birth certificate and college records hidden and to avoid proving that he is a natural born citizen.

Obama has employed numerous private attorneys in a number of states, including Georgia, to keep his name on the ballot despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen.

Guilty!

Obama GA ballot challenge, FEC Hassan opinion quotes Natural born citizen requirement, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 5, Fec US Constitution presidential eligibility

Obama GA ballot challenge, FEC Hassan opinion quotes Natural born citizen requirement, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 5, Fec US Constitution presidential eligibility

“I am certain that the devil is watching Barack Obama and taking notes.”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 5

FEC Hassan opinion quotes Natural born citizen requirement

On July 5, 2011, Abdul Hassan, an attorney from NY, submitted a request for an advisory opinion from the FEC. Hassan acknowledged that he was a naturalized citizen and not a natural born citizen. Abdul Hassan posed the following questions:

“1. Whether, as a naturalized American citizen, I am included in the meaning of
“candidate” or “person” or “individual” running for President as used in the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”)?

2. Whether, as a naturalized American citizen, I am prohibited from receiving matching funds under the FECA?

3. Whether, as a naturalized American citizen, I would be in violation of 2 USC §
441h(b) ifi solicit and/or receive presidential campaign contributions?

4. Whether, in light of the steps I have taken in my presidential run as outlined above, I am subject to the expenditure, contribution and record-keeping requirements of FECA and the regulations thereunder? (Note: I have not yet crossed the $5,000 threshold that triggers the registration and reporting requirements – it is therefore important that I receive an answer before
these requirements are triggered.).”

http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/63383043?extension=pdf

The FEC responded with an Advisory Opinion on September 2, 2011.

Here are some interesting exerpts:
“We are responding to your advisory opinion request concerning the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, as amended, and Commission regulations to your campaign for President of the United States, given your status as a naturalized citizen.

The Commission concludes that the Act does not prohibit Mr. Hassan, a
naturalized citizen, from becoming a “candidate” as that term is defined under the Act. However, Mr. Hassan will not be eligible to receive Federal matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act.”
“Mr. Hassan indicates that he satisfies all of the constitutional requirements for
serving as President, except the natural born citizen requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. 1”
“2. As a naturalized American citizen, is Mr. Hassan eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act?”
“No, as a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (“Matching Payment Act”).

The United States Constitution provides that “[n]o Person except a natural born
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.”
“2 The Act does not contain separate definitions for candidates for different Federal offices. The Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” provision only pertains to “the Office of President.” U.S. Const., art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.
3 Mr. Hassan’s status as a “candidate” under the Act does not in any way affect whether Mr. Hassan will be eligible to appear on State ballots or to be a candidate under various State laws. In fact, it is the Commission’s understanding that some State ballot access laws provide that a person cannot appear on the
ballot or be considered a candidate unless the person will be qualified for the office he or she purports to seek.”
“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5”
“The Commission is charged under the Matching Payment Act with administering the Federal matching funds program and has some discretion when certifying eligibility for matching funds. While the Commission may not “appraise candidates’ good faith, honesty, probity or general reliability when reviewing the agreements and other forwardlooking commitments required” by the Matching Payment Act, see LaRouche v. FEC, 996 F.2d 1263, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1993), situations may exist in which, “without assessment of subjective candidate intent, the Commission might conceivably withhold funds despite
formal compliance with the statutorily expressed criteria.” Id. Clear and self-avowed constitutional ineligibility for office is one of the few instances where the Commission’s exercise of its discretion to withhold funds is appropriate.”

http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/AO%202011-15.pdf

Observations

The FEC refers to the US Constitition requirement for the presidency, natural born citizen.

The FEC notes the distinction between a natural born citizen and naturalized citizen.

The Fec states that a naturalized citizen is not eligible for the presidency.

The FEC states that only a natural born citizen may receive presidential matching funds.

The FEC acknowledges that although they do not have the authority to keep ineligible candidates off of ballots, some of the states do.

“3 Mr. Hassan’s status as a “candidate” under the Act does not in any way affect whether Mr. Hassan will be  eligible to appear on State ballots or to be a candidate under various State laws. In fact, it is the Commission’s understanding that some State ballot access laws provide that a person cannot appear on the
ballot or be considered a candidate unless the person will be qualified for the office he or she purports to seek.”

Hence the GA and other state ballot challenges to Obama.

Conclusions

The FEC still acknowledges the US Constitution.

However, in 2007 when Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie submitted an advisory opinion request on behalf of Barack Obama to keep open the option for presidential matching funds, Bauer knew that Obama was not a natural born citizen. Ellen Weintraub, on the FEC committee that responded with an advisory opinion in the affirmative for Obama, was a former Perkins Coie staff member. Fraud was committed by Obama and Bauer and one has to question the ethics of Weintraub’s involvement.

The FEC acknowledges with these statements:

“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5”

“The Commission is charged under the Matching Payment Act with administering the Federal matching funds program and has some discretion when certifying eligibility for matching funds. While the Commission may not “appraise candidates’ good faith, honesty, probity or general reliability when reviewing the agreements and other forwardlooking commitments required” by the Matching Payment Act, see LaRouche v. FEC, 996 F.2d 1263, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1993), situations may exist in which, “without assessment of subjective candidate intent, the Commission might conceivably withhold funds despite
formal compliance with the statutorily expressed criteria.” Id. Clear and self-avowed constitutional ineligibility for office is one of the few instances where the Commission’s exercise of its discretion to withhold funds is appropriate.”

that there are eligibility requirements for receiving presidential matching funds and that the FEC is charged with administering these funds. It is clear
that the FEC should always require proof of eligibility. It should have done so in 2007. We know there was inherent bias in 2007 (see part 4 of this series).

Court cases also clarify the powers given to the FEC. The FEC has more power than they have alluded to.

See Doug Teper, et al V. Zell Miller, et al, April 24, 1996.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/82/82.F3d.989.96-8147.html