Monthly Archives: January 2012

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

Posted on January 31, 2012 | 98 comments

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

 

98 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Catholics, Faith, Family, God, Virginia

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 29, 2012 | 264 comments

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.
 
 
 

264 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen Journalism, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, constitution, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Eligibility, FEC, Government, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, NC, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 27, 2012 | 197 comments

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

 

197 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Bob Barr, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, FEC, Florida, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 26, 2012 | 208 comments

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

208 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

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

Posted on January 26, 2012 | 190 comments

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)

190 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 25, 2012 | 76 comments

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!

76 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, fraud, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

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

Posted on January 24, 2012 | 183 comments

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

 

183 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, FEC, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , , , ,

William Cellini retrial hearing, Tuesday, January 24, 2012, Judge James Zagel, Where is Daniel Frawley?, Obama GA ballot court challenge, Stuart Levine Steven Loren status hearing

Posted on January 24, 2012 | 15 comments

William Cellini retrial hearing, Tuesday, January 24, 2012, Judge James Zagel, Where is Daniel Frawley?, Obama GA ballot court challenge, Stuart Levine Steven Loren status hearing

“Why was Obama promoting Capri Capital and other investment firms at the same time that Rezko, Levine and Cellini were shaking them down?”…Citizen Wells

“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 going to be a busy court week for Barack Obama. One of his corruption cronies, William Cellini, has a hearing today for a ruling on a possible retrial. Judge James Zagel may make that ruling today. Tomorrow, January 25, 2012, Stuart Levine and Steven Loren have a status hearing in the courtroom of Judge Amy J. St. Eve. And conspicuously absent from the courtroom is Daniel Frawley, ex partner of Tony Rezko. Frawley’s sentencing has been repeatedly delayed. Daniel Frawley linked a payment from Tony Rezko to Barack Obama in a deposition.

And of course, Obama has a court date on January 26, 2012 in GA regarding his eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot and his Natural Born Citizen Status.

Daily Calendar

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 (As of 01/23/12 at 05:47:05 PM)

Honorable James B. Zagel                    Courtroom 2503 (JBZ)

1:08-cr-00888   USA v. Cellini                         04:00   In Court Hearing

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/DailyCal/0.htm

Stuart Levine knows almost as much about Obama ties to corruption as Tony Rezko.

15 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, corruption, Courts, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Federal Court, Judges, Jury, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Rezko, Stuart Levine, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, William Cellini

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Obama GA ballot challenge, Donofrio Amicus brief, Natural Born Citizen defined, Judge Michael Malihi, Georgia POTUS eligibility cases

Posted on January 23, 2012 | 25 comments

Obama GA ballot challenge, Donofrio Amicus brief, Natural Born Citizen defined, Judge Michael Malihi, Georgia POTUS eligibility cases

“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

From Leo Donofrio January 23, 2012.

“AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.”

“This morning, I filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Georgia POTUS eligibilitycases. The brief complies with all Rules and procedures of the Administrative Court. The brief is 54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages. The Rules of Court require attachment to the brief of all legal authorities, other than those issued by the federal government, or the State of Georgia. There’s some very esoteric law attached thereto.

I seriously urge everyone to familiarize themselves with Lord Coke’s Report from Calvin’s Case, as well as Chancellor Ellesmere’s argument, also in Calvin’s Case, for this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law that has been completely misunderstood in this country for too long now. Calvin’s Case is universally recognized as the common law precedent relating to jus soli, but it is so much more fascinating than you can imagine. And it will forever revolutionize understanding of the words “natural-born”.

This book contains all of the relevant arguments and reports. But the original text of Lord Coke’s Report is the proper starting point. (This document is also in the appendix to my brief.) And here’s another source with slightly modernized English and extras.”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/

Amicus brief.

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/georgia-brief-merged-final-redacted.pdf

 

25 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, FEC, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Leo Donofrio, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 4, Obama attorneys Democrats control FEC

Posted on January 23, 2012 | 49 comments

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 4, Obama attorneys Democrats control FEC

“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 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative. Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub”

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.”
December 11, 2007

George Will in the Washington Post writes.

“Paralyze The FEC? Splendid.”

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write
advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”

“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics. You
thought the First Amendment said enough about that participation? Silly you.

The FEC’s policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed.

Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends —
unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.

Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky. Republicans have responded: “All three or none.” If this standoff persists until
Congress adjourns, the three recess appointments will expire and the FEC will have just two members — a Republican vacancy has existed since April. If so,
the commission will be prohibited from official actions, including the disbursement of funds for presidential candidates seeking taxpayer financing.”

The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001559.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/

June 24, 2008

Senate confirms FEC Nominees.

From the Wall Street Journal.

“The Senate confirmed five new members to the Federal Election Commission, ending a bitter political battle that had hobbled the elections watchdog for
months.

But the Senate action came with a final twist: Republicans accused Democrats of delaying the confirmation vote one day to allow the Democratic National
Committee to file a lawsuit against the presidential campaign of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

The six-member elections agency had been without a quorum since December as Democrats objected to Republican nominee Hans Von Spakovsky for what they said was his partisan handling of voting-rights matters in his former job as a Department of Justice attorney. The dispute prevented the two parties from reaching an agreement to vote on any of the nominees.”

“Other commissioners confirmed Tuesday included Democrats Steve Walther and Cynthia Bauerly. The new Republican commissioners are Mr. Petersen, Don McGahn and Caroline Hunter. They join sitting commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat. The commission needs at least four members to take official action on election complaints, new campaign-financing rules and requests from campaigns for legal guidance.”

http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BAC81D4FF-0476-4E28-B9B1-7619D271A334%7D&DE=%7B620D20F2-742F-4979-B8D6-6597558A6716%7D

From Fox News.

“Since the beginning of the year, the commission has only had two members: Republican Chairman David Mason and Democrat Ellen Weintraub.”

August 18, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

The individual, redacted, is requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC on Obama’s eligibility to be president. An email was sent with the request. The
email provides information on why Obama is not eligible. It begins with

“It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:”

It ends with

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help
answer this question?”
August 21, 2008

 

Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court

Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.
August 22, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

An email from David Kolker, FEC counsel, to Rebekah Harvey is certainly interesting. Rebekah Harvey was the assistant to Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub . Prior to being appointed to the FEC, Weintraub was on the staff of Perkins Coie LLP and a member of it’s Political Law Group.

“Victory in Berg v. Obama”

August 27, 2008

Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC

August 27, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

FEC response to advisory opinion dated August 18, 2008.

“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or
activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”

“your inquiry does not qualify as an advisory opinion request.”
November 11, 2008

“Obama to Most Likely Avoid FEC Audit”

“The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not
years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an
audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to
launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a
sitting president.

So, by declining public funding, Obama decreased the odds of an audit. And the FEC may not investigate due to political party affiliations of the FEC
commission members.”

http://obamashrugged.com/?p=267

May 1, 2009

“At midnight Thursday, the terms of Federal Election Commissioner Donald F. McGahn II (a Republican) and FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther (a Democrat) expired. Combined with Democrat Ellen L. Weintraub’s seat — she remains on the commission even though her term expired two years ago — President Obama has the opportunity to make his first three appointments to the six-member commission. Though FEC terms are set for six years, members are free to stay on until replacements are selected by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

“Josh Zaharoff, deputy program director for Common Cause, argues that, short of complete overhaul, such a proposal would be the best way to ensure real
enforcement of election laws. The long-standing existing practice “ensures that the commissioners are likely to be loyal to their political party rather than
to election laws and the American people as a whole.”

After seven months without a quorum, the restocked FEC has drawn significant criticism from campaign-finance-reform advocates for its lack of serious,
independent enforcement. There have been a series of 3-3 deadlocks on key issues, resulting in a significant increase in the percentage of dismissed cases.”

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2009/05/01/2875/president-obama%E2%80%99s-opportunity-mold-fec
April 4, 2011

“More FEC Terms Expire, But Replacements Unlikely”

“The terms of Chairwoman Cynthia Bauerly (D) and Commissioner Matthew Petersen (R) expire at the end of April. The terms of Donald McGahn (R) and Steven Walther (D) expired almost two years ago.

The longest-serving commissioner is Ellen Weintraub (D), whose term expired almost four years ago. The only commissioner who will be serving an unexpired term at the end of the month is Republican Caroline C. Hunter, whom Bush nominated in 2008, for a term that expires in April 2013.

Further complicating the confirmation process is a large list of pending issues before the FEC that will affect Obama’s own re-election campaign.
One of the biggest issues is how the FEC will write new rules in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which would set boundaries for how
hundreds of millions of dollars can be spent by third parties in the presidential election and Congressional campaigns. The issue was so important to Obama
that he admonished the Supreme Court a few days after its decision in the case during his 2010 State of the Union address.”

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_105/-204592-1.html?zkMobileView=true
April 16, 2011

“FEC Launches Audit Of Obama’s 2008 Campaign”

“The FEC’s decision to audit the campaign is not surprising, given that it was the largest federal campaign in history, raising more than $750 million in
receipts. If Obama’s campaign were not audited, it would have been the first presidential nominee’s campaign to escape such scrutiny since the public
financing system was created in 1976.

The potential for the FEC’s audit became increasingly more likely as the FEC questioned some of Obama campaign filings. In all, the FEC wrote 26 letters to
Obama for America warning the campaign that if it did not adequately respond to the agency’s questions that it “could result in an audit or enforcement
action.””

“As of the end of March, Obama for America had spent nearly $3 million on legal fees since the 2008 election. In all, the president’s campaign spent three
times more on lawyers after Election Day than in the two years preceding it.

The lion’s share of Obama’s legal spending went to Perkins Coie, a well-known Democratic legal and accounting firm. Perkins Coie is representing the Obama
campaign in all major legal matters, including seven of the FEC’s known investigations involving the White House bid. In each of these cases, the FEC voted to dismiss the case or found “no reason to believe” that the Obama for America or related committees had violated any laws.

Perkins Coie may be also representing Obama for America in the FEC’s spending investigation of a Republican National Committee complaint. A few weeks before the election, the RNC alleged that Obama’s campaign accepted donations from foreign nationals, received contributions that had exceed limits and submitted fictitious donor names to the agency. The status of this investigation is unknown, though the FEC confirmed it received the complaint.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/FEC-Launches-Obama-Campaign-Audie-205014-1.html
Jan 12, 2012

“Election Watchdogs Assail Obama on FEC Appointments”

“The groups are demanding that Obama shake up the board of commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, the only agency able to enforce campaign laws.
They say political divisions among the agency’s panel of six leaders have rendered it toothless.

“The bottom line is nothing can happen to change the commission unless the White House names new commissioners, and they are refusing to do so,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “The result is going to be an election with no enforcement.””

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/election-watchdogs-assail-obama-on-fec-appointments/

Why would Obama, as we know him, replace the FEC board. Since early 2007, Obama has been shielded by Robert Bauer and Ellen Weintraub. That’s right, as you read above, Weintraub is still on the FEC board, four years after her term expired. And don’t forget, after Obama secured the White House, he hired Robert Bauer as general counsel. Bauer has since returned to Perkins Coie to continue helping Obama keep his records hidden.

This is a clear conflict of interest!!!

And what about attorney ethics?

As stated above, Robert Bauer knew about Obama’s natural born citizen deficiency in February of 2007 and yet he filed a request for an advisory opinion on Obama’s behalf regarding Federal Matching Funds. This is fraud!

From Citizen Wells June 2, 2011.

“From the American Bar Association.

“A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent””

“Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
Rule 8.4 Misconduct”

“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/robert-bauer-leaving-white-house-counsel-position-perkins-coie-attorney-helped-obama-hide-records-bauer-assists-obama-2012-campaign/

49 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, FEC, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,