Category Archives: Board of Elections

Obama kept on GA ballot by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Kemp upheld Judge Malihi ruling, Obama attorney Jablonski on Kemp Advisory Council

Posted on February 7, 2012 | 128 comments

Obama kept on GA ballot by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Kemp upheld Judge Malihi ruling, Obama attorney Jablonski on Kemp Advisory Council

“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 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 Indiana Appeals Court Judge Elaine B. Brown place the following in her ruling: “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.””...Citizen Wells

From the Obama Ballot Challenge February 7, 2012.

“Kemp Upholds Deeply Flawed Georgia Ballot Challenge Ruling”

“Well, it appears tha GA Secy of State Kemp has upheld Malihi’s denial of the ballot challenges.

Last Friday’s ruling (see hearing video, transcripts) on the Obama Eligibility Challenge cases of attorneys Hatfield, Irion and Taitz was so over the top absurd, that it may cause tectonic shifts in the movement’s aproach to Obama’s obvious ineligibility.

Attorney Mark Hatfiled offered his strong RESPONSE to the Friday ruling by Malihi.

Taitz offered her APPEAL. No attorney has fought more battles in this war, nor suffered more defeats and ridicule.

Kemp, who previously said he would follow the recommendations, was presented with a dilemma. The question was, would he follow recommendations which obviously not only ignored, but twisted law and facts into a pretzel shape? Now we know the sad answer. There are precedents for SOS overruling of administrative judge rulings, even for Judge Malihi.

There appeared to be reasons for hope, when the Secretary of State assigned the Ballot Challenge cases to Malihi, when Malihi struck down motions to dismiss, to cancel subpoenas for Obama’s appearance in court and to compel providing documents.

When Obama attorney Jablonski tried to make an end run around Mahili’s court and quash the entire hearing, Kemp fought back and even said Obama and his attorney’s boycott would be at their peril.

In judge’s chambers, Mahili supposedly wanted to declare default judgment and the attorneys resisted, favoring an open hearing with evidence formally read into the record. They had only two hours to plead the biggest political scandal in history.

At this point, reasonable people need to contemplate whether we even have rule of law anymore and whether it could even be restored via working within the system. I am hearing much talk of extraordinary measures. God help us.”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/kemp-upholds-deeply-flawed-georgia-ballot-challenge-ruling

And what a surprise this will be to you….right.

Michael Jablonski, General Counsel, Democratic Party of Georgia, who represented Obama in the Georgia ballot challenge and who defiantly refused to attend the hearing with Judge Malihi, is on the GA Secretary of State Elections Advisory Council.

http://www.sos.ga.gov/GAEAC/

 

Thanks to commenter SueK

128 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, corruption, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, 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 , ,

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

Posted on February 5, 2012 | 91 comments

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Indiana has been in the news recently for political corruption.

From Fox News October 18, 2011.

“Shocking election fraud allegations have stained a state’s 2008
presidential primary – and it took a college student to uncover them.

“This fraud was obvious, far-reaching and appeared to be systemic,”
22-year-old Ryan Nees told Fox News, referring to evidence he
uncovered while researching electoral petitions from the 2008
Democratic Party primary in Indiana.

Nees’ investigation centered on the petitions that put then-senators
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot. As many as 150 of the
names and signatures, it is alleged, were faked. So many, in fact,
that the numbers raise questions about whether Obama’s campaign had
enough legitimate signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/18/college-student-credited-with-uncovering-possible-election-fraud-in-indianas
Who wrote the Indiana Appeals Court decision that Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia quoted? The Obama camp? Mainstream media?

Did a judge actually write this?
STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE, Appellants-Plaintiffs,

vs.

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.

November 12, 2009
OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION
BROWN, Judge

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
“B. Natural Born Citizen

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be
President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution”

“As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States”

Did a judge actually write the above? If so it is at best unprofessional and inaccurate and at worst biased.

“Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction
between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign
allegiance. Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom,
President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.”

Once again, did a judge write the above? First, there is a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen. Secondly, the judge cannot possibly know what most people think. Thirdly, the law is not based on what a group of people think.

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the
present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the
protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was
born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States
afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

The following

“and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

is a damn lie!

Anyone who has studied law and or history, anyone who has followed the natural born citizen debate, knows that although American Law was influenced by British Common Law, once we broke from the British Empire, we developed our own set of laws that are not identical to those of our ancestral lands.

For example:

US Constitution

Article I Section 2

“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.”

Third Congress,  1795 .

“…children of citizens  of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

Further evidence can be found here:

Citizen Wells January 6, 2011.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/112th-congress-ron-paul-et-al-do-your-damn-job-us-constitution-natural-born-citizen-obama-eligibility/

From Sam Sewell of The Steady Drip.

“The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution.”

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer.  But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

From attorneys and legal scholars:

From Attorney Mario Apuzzo February 3, 2012.

“Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html

I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.””

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

From Attorney Leo Donofrio February 4, 2012.

“There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ””

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/

I recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State to have the Attorney General of GA read the Malihi ruling and that Judge Malihi be drug tested.

91 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Leo Donofrio, Lies, Mario Apuzzo, 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

Tagged , , , ,

NC elections 2012, Ballot challenges, North Carolina election law, SBOE, State Board of Elections, Laws bias or corruption, Part 1

Posted on February 3, 2012 | 152 comments

NC elections 2012, Ballot challenges, North Carolina election law, SBOE, State Board of Elections, Laws bias or corruption, Part 1

“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

NC elections 2012

North Carolina election law

Laws, bias, corruption

Part 1

I begin Part 1 of this series on NC Elections 2012, NC election law at a historic moment. As I sit here in NC writing this, Judge Michael Malihi may still
be pondering his decision for a ruling on the Obama ballot challenges in Georgia. His ruling is expected soon and the GA Secretary of State, Brian P. Kemp,
has stated he will abide by the judge’s decision. Regardless, this is significant for 2 main reasons. First, it the the first time I am aware of that a judge
is ruling on Obama’s eligibility based on merits and not some other issue like standing. Second, regardless of the ruling, there are stated avenues of appeal
in the GA Statutes.

Another historic aspect of NC elections and election law in 2012 is the Democrat National convention being held in Charlotte, NC this year. Obama won NC by a
very narrow margin in 2008. So small that had the outcome made a difference in the election, I would have been more involved in disputing it. Nevertheless,
individuals were indicted in 2011 in the Raleigh area for flagrant voter fraud in 2008. There was much controversy in Alamance County and other areas about
illegal aliens beeing allowed to register to vote. There is no reason to believe this has diminished.

In 2008, I read the election statutes of approximately one half of the states, emailed nearly all Secretary of States or other appropriate departments and
contacted several offices by phone. My intent was to inform them of deficiencies in the eligibility of Barack Obama and to get clarification of their
statutes. I also insured that they were forewarned so as not to have ignorance as an excuse later.

I am now focusing my energy on NC statutes and performance of duties. Sadly, in my home state, the aura of corruption in high and lower places must be
addressed. This has become a multi part series for several reasons. One is the sheer volume of items to be addressed. Another is going through protocols,
channels in an orderly fashion. However, I did not want to let much time elapse before informing you of the methodology and progress.

In 2008 I and others contacted the NC Secretary of State as well as SBOE, State Board of Elections. I must admit that my expections were low and the state
met them. However as I stated above, they were warned and consequently will be held accountable. It is no wonder that since then, former Governor Mike
Easley has been indicted and convicted of other infractions. Current Governor Beverly Perdue just announced that she will not run again. It is no wonder she
is backing off. Her administration has been plagued with scandal, some of which is tied to the NC State Board of Elections.

I will be addressing 2 main areas of concern as I attempt to get clarification of our statutes. One is the powers and duties of the board, not as tradition
dictates but as the US Constitution and State Law demands. The other is the level of corruption and bias within the board and other departments.

What will rule the priorities of NC Government this year? Will it be the US Constitution, State Laws and the rule of law

or

will it be the Democrat Party and the desire to look good hosting the Democrat Convention.

Our state motto is:

“Esse quam videri”

To be rather than to seem.

I guess we will find out.

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times February 2, 2012.

“North Carolina Gov. Beverly “Dumpling” Perdue announced last week that to benefit the school children of North Carolina she was not going to run for reelection. One might assume that Perdue thinks the school children of North Carolina will be better off without Perdue in the governor’s mansion. I agree with her, but for some reason I don’t think that is what she meant.

She tried to say in her terse announcement that by being a lame duck governor she would be better able to fight for school children. It makes no sense. There is a reason why they call someone in office who is not running for reelection a lame duck and that is because they don’t have much power. They cannot threaten to make opponents’ lives miserable for the next four years or threaten to veto legislation coming up in the next session. They can beg and plead, but a governor can do that whether they are running or not.

There are only two reasons that come to mind that would explain why a sitting governor who has repeatedly said she was going to run for reelection would, two weeks before filing opens, announce she isn’t going to run. One is health. I have it on good authority that the governor is not stepping down because of any health issues.

The other is because she has learned that she is about to be indicted. Her mentor, former Gov. Mike Easley, was indicted after leaving office and was convicted of a felony.

Several of Perdue’s 2008 campaign staff have been indicted: Her finance chairman, Peter Reichard, who is the former president of the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, was convicted of one felony in connection with the 2008 Perdue campaign. Two other people associated with the Perdue campaign were also indicted.

It is certainly possible that Perdue agreed not to run for reelection as part of a deal. Perhaps the US attorney agreed not to indict her until after she served her term if she agreed not to run for reelection

Of course it could be that Perdue realized there was no way she was going to beat Pat McCrory again and decided not to prolong the agony. However, that seems highly unlikely. Candidates almost always think they are going to win. They may say that they know they don’t have a chance but in their hearts they have this belief that somehow at the end of the night they will be declared the winner. I have interviewed candidates on the eve of the election who finished with less than 20 percent of the vote but they could explain in detail why despite the odds they were going to win.

Perdue beat McCrory once, even though the polls had said early on that McCrory was ahead.

One theory is that the National Democratic Party asked Perdue to step aside because she couldn’t win, and not having a strong candidate would hurt President Barack Hussein Obama’s chances of winning North Carolina. Right now it looks like Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton is going to be the Democratic candidate, and although he holds statewide office the vast majority of the people in the state have no idea who he is.

It just doesn’t seem possible that the National Democratic Party is so out of touch that it believes Dalton would help Obama more than Perdue. Of course, someone should tell the Obama campaign that they are not going to win North Carolina. Four years ago the Republicans ran an extremely poor candidate and the Democrats had an extremely charismatic one. Plus four years ago Obama was making history by becoming the first black person elected president of the United States. He can’t do that again.

Four years ago no one could blame Obama for the economy. Today people do blame Obama for the economy and it appears that his solutions have not worked, although he is going to campaign like they have.

It doesn’t look like Obama has much chance in North Carolina, but then again the Republicans could nominate a candidate who will give the race to Obama.”

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-02-01-210912.112113-Under-the-Hammer.html

 

152 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, democratic convention, Democrats, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Government, Judges, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, NC, NC primary, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, US Constitution, voters

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 , , ,

SC primary January 21, 2012, Retired teacher undecided, I don’t want Obama for another four years, Rick Santorum endorsement

Posted on January 12, 2012 | 28 comments

SC primary January 21, 2012, Retired teacher undecided, I don’t want Obama for another four years, Rick Santorum endorsement

From the Wall Street Journal January 12, 2012.

“A Lesson on the S.C. Primary”

“After 30 years of running the mock elections at a public school in Orangeburg, S.C.,  retired teacher Linda Davis is enjoying the first Republican primary race where she can show her true colors.”

““My students never knew I normally vote Republican,” Ms. Davis said Thursday at a campaign stop in Orangeburg for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. As a teacher of third, fourth and fifth graders, “I couldn’t put a yard sign out — the kids knew where I lived,” she said. “Now I have the opportunity to go out and speak my mind.”

Ms. Davis hasn’t yet decided who she will support in the state’s Jan. 21 primary, even after watching every debate.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has “a lot of baggage,” and she worried about Mr. Perry’s ability to beat President Barack Obama in a general election. “I’m leaning toward [Mitt] Romney because I don’t want Obama for another four years,” she said. But he hasn’t sealed the deal.

“I probably won’t make my final decision until the morning I go to vote,” she said.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/12/a-lesson-on-the-s-c-primary/

From the Chicago tribune January 8, 2012.

“Rick Santorum says South Carolina his ‘best chance to win'”

“Rick Santorum’s campaign continued to gain momentum Sunday as he made two campaign stops in South Carolina, where he was met with cheering crowds and picked up an endorsement from conservative leader Gary Bauer.

“For me, Ronald Reagan has always defined what the right political position was in the U.S. I gave up on the idea that I would ever find another Ronald Reagan,” Bauer, a former Reagan advisor, said at a Republican fundraiser in Greenville. “Over the last year I’ve watched [Santorum] as he’s gone out and talked to the American people…. I realized the next Ronald Reagan was standing in front of me the whole time.”

The endorsement is another feather in the cap of Santorum, who has seen his poll numbers surge in the past two weeks. Recent polls show Mitt Romneyleading the state with about one-third of the vote, with Santorum and Gingrich tied for second with about 20% each. But even that is a surprising change for Santorum, who had polled as low as 2% in South Carolina in December.

The surge in popularity follows his second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, and is a strong contrast to just a few weeks ago, when many of Santorum’s events drew only a few dozen people and little media attention.

“People were always saying to us, ‘We like him; he’s just not doing well in the polls and we don’t want to throw our vote away.’ ” Santorum said Sunday. “As soon as it became apparent that we could actually do well, our numbers went from, in the last five days, from 15 to 25, and that’s momentum.””
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-south-carolina-best-chance-santorum-20120108,0,4930274.story

28 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 71 comments

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…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 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 Obama motion to dismiss the Georgia ballot challenge has been denied.

First some background.

From Citizen Wells December 20, 2011.

“Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.”

“From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

“The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-georgia-ballot-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-attorney-michael-jablonski-motion-ga-election-laws/

From Orly Taitz January 3, 2012.

Order to deny Obama motion:

“ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.”

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. Discussion
1.

The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that “[e]very 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.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

2.

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

3.

The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that “[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. § 21-
2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama’s name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential
candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4.

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party’s nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5.

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.”
Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6.

Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word “candidate” is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference primary “shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7.

Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

71 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC

Tagged , ,

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

Posted on January 1, 2012 | 178 comments

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…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 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 the Post & Email January 1, 2012.

“New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3”

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
“On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.

The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:

Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.

Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.

Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.

Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”

Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.

“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/01/new-hampshire-house-of-representatives-members-to-hold-press-conference-on-obamas-eligibility-on-january-3/

Thanks to commenter Imuha.

178 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

Posted on December 20, 2011 | 67 comments

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…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 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

Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.

Some information on Attorney Michael Jablonski.

“Michael Jablonski represents select clients in matters related to politics: campaigns with contract problems; candidates facing ethics charges; political consultants charged with trademark and copyright violations; media buyers and candidates confused by the FCC’s lowest unit charge rules; businesses with campaign contribution problems; citizens using the Georgia Open Records Act or the Federal Freedom of Information Act; and others that have been caught in the mire of campaign finance and ethics law.”

Read more:

http://taarradhin.net/

Looks like Obama has picked the right attorney.

From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

Two segments from Mr. Jablonski’s motion.

“The Democratic Party of Georgia determines names to include on its Presidential Preference Primary ballot at its sole discretion. O.C.G.A. 21 -2-193. A state political party “enjoys a constitutionally protected freedom which includes the right to identify the people who constitute this association to those people only.”
“Furthermore, the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, as it has been by every judicial body ever to have considered it.”

My response.

The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.

From the motion filed December 16, 2011 by attorney  Michael Jablonski.

“President Obama asks for dismissal of this attempt to deprive the Democratic Party of Georgia of its statutory right to name candidates to the Presidential Preference Party held to apportion Gerogia’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention. No provision of Georgia law authorizes a challenge to a political party’s identification of names it wishes its members to consider in a preference primary for purposes of apportioning delegates to its National Convention.The Democratic Party of Georgia properly identified Barack Obama as a candidate to whom National Convention delegates will be pledged based upon votes in the preference poll. Georgia law does not authorize the Secretary of State to exercise any discretion or oversight over the actions of a political party participating in a preference primary. Indeed, any review by the Secretary of State would interfere with associational rights of the Democratic Party guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
“The Time Limit for filing any challenge under O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (if it appplies) specifies a two week period after qualifying in which a challenge can be filed.”
“The Secretary of State’s involvement in the Presidential Preference Primary process, other than conducting balloting, is limited to receiving names submitted by political parties for inclusion in the preference primary, publishing the submitted names on a website, and including the names on the ballot.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-193. The Presidential Preference Primary statute does not empower the Secretary of State to review submissions of names by political parties.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 does not apply to the Presidential Preference Primary because the preference primary is not an election”
“Nothing in the context of O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 “clearly requires” applicability to the preference primary.”

From the Georgia Election Statutes.

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193  (2011)

§ 21-2-193.  List of names of candidates to appear on ballot; publication of list
   On a date set by the Secretary of State, but not later than 60 days preceding the date on which a presidential preference primary is to be held, the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. Such lists shall be published on the website of the Secretary of State during the fourth week immediately preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-200  (2011)

§ 21-2-200.  Applicability of general primary provisions; form of ballot
   A presidential preference primary shall be conducted, insofar as practicable, pursuant to this chapter respecting general primaries, except as otherwise provided in this article. In setting up the form of the ballot, the Secretary of State shall provide for designating the name of the candidate to whom a candidate for delegate or delegate alternate is pledged, if any.”

“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.”

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 5.  PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191  (2011)

§ 21-2-191.  Parties entitled to hold primaries; dates; decision to elect delegates to presidential nominating convention in primary; qualifying periods for candidates for delegate
   As provided in this article, a presidential preference primary shall be held in 2012 and every four years thereafter for each political party or body which has cast for its candidates for President and Vice President in the last presidential election more than 20 percent of the total vote cast for President and Vice President in this state, so that the electors may express their preference for one person to be the candidate for nomination by such person’s party or body for the office of President of the United States; provided, however, that no elector shall vote in the primary of more than one political party or body in the same presidential preference primary. Such primary shall be held in each year in which a presidential election is to be conducted on a date selected by the Secretary of State which shall not be later than the second Tuesday in June in such year. The Secretary of State shall select such date no later than December 1 of the year immediately preceding such primary. A state political party or body may by rule choose to elect any portion of its delegates to that party’s or body’s presidential nominating convention in the primary; and, if a state political party or body chooses to elect any portion of its delegates, such state political party or body shall establish the qualifying period for those candidates for delegate and delegate alternate positions which are to be elected in the primary and for any party officials to be elected in the primary and shall also establish the date on which state and county party executive committees shall certify to the Secretary of State or the superintendent, as the case may be, the names of any such candidates who are to be elected in the primary; provided, however, that such dates shall not be later than 60 days preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521  (2011)

§ 21-2-521.  Primaries and elections which are subject to contest; persons who may bring contest
   The nomination of any person who is declared nominated at a primary as a candidate for any federal, state, county, or municipal office; the election of any person who is declared elected to any such office (except when otherwise prescribed by the federal Constitution or the Constitution of Georgia); the eligibility of any person declared eligible to seek any such nomination or office in a run-off primary or election; or the approval or disapproval of any question submitted to electors at an election may be contested by any person who was a candidate at such primary or election for such nomination or office, or by any aggrieved elector who was entitled to vote for such person or for or against such question.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522  (2011)

§ 21-2-522.  Grounds for contest
   A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of the following grounds:

   (1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;

   (3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the result; or

   (5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.”

David Farrar filing:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-first.html
Attorney Michael Jablonski filing

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/obamas-private-attorney-files-motion-to.html

67 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Delegate, democratic convention, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, First Amendment, 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, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Concord Monitor NH Obama ballot eligibility articles, Maddie Hanna, Obama birth certificate, Orly Taitz challenge, New Hampshire law violation?, Citizen Wells email

Posted on November 19, 2011 | 30 comments

Concord Monitor NH Obama ballot eligibility articles, Maddie Hanna, Obama birth certificate, Orly Taitz challenge, New Hampshire law violation?, Citizen Wells email

“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

“Live Free or Die”…New Hampshire State Motto

First of all I would like to thank Maddie Hanna and the Concord Monitor for covering the Orly Taitz challenge of Obama’s eligibility to be on the New Hampshire ballot. It appears that an attempt was made to present both sides of the story. However, the incorrect, often repeated, mainstream media version of Obama’s birth certificate stories was presented. I sent Maddie Hanna the following email this morning.
“In your recent articles about the Obama eligibility ballot challenge you stated:
 
“The administration released Obama’s birth certificate from the state
of Hawaii in 2008. When that didn’t satisfy the skeptics, it posted a
long-form version online earlier this year.”
 
That is incorrect.
The document placed on the internet by some entities in 2008 is a COLB.
We have no proof that the image was legitimate. But given what a COLB represents, it does not matter.
Certification of Live Birth. Or as Lou Dobbs on CNN stated “A document that refers to another document.”
Per Hawaii law one did not have to be born in Hawaii to get one.
 
The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov this year is not proven by a legitimate chain of document.
Also, particulary damning is the following from the bottom of the image.
“I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file”
Since Obama could be born elsewhere and per HI law have birth records on file,
the word abstract immediately rules out the image as absolute proof of HI birth.
 
Perhaps the most damning information of all is what I have been presenting for years.
 
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?
 
I hope that you want the truth.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact me.”

I would also like to point out that news sites outside of the state of NH revealed that apparently the NH Ballot Law Commission is in violation of NH law.

“CHAPTER 665
BALLOT LAW COMMISSION

General Provisions

665:1 Organization. I. There shall be a ballot law commission
consisting of 5 members. Two members shall be appointed by the speaker
of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major
political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the
most recent state general election. Two members shall be appointed by
the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political
parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most
recent state general election.”

http://www.sos.nh.gov/665-web2011.pdf

The Concord Monitor article:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293382/birther-bid-to-derail-obama-blocked

I anxiously await a response from Maddie Hanna and welcome any dialogue to arrive at the truth in any of these matters.

Wells

30 Comments

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

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama voter fraud, October 26, 2011, 2008 Indiana fake signatures, ACORN Project Vote, Obama 2012 to repeat tactics

Posted on October 26, 2011 | 28 comments

Obama voter fraud, October 26, 2011, 2008 Indiana fake signatures, ACORN Project Vote, Obama 2012 to repeat tactics

“However, in light of the politically oriented thrust of ACORN’s activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to ACORN are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.”

“This commentary does not oppose CHD funding of genuine, grassroots community organizations, run and supported by individual members of a parish or diocese. There is potential value and virtue in the collective voice. However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”

“To accomplish its goals, as outlined in the People’s Platform, ACORN has developed a political alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Together with others, ACORN and the DSA have formed a political party, the New Party.”…Report to the  Catholic Bishops of the US, 1999

“Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).”…New Party website October 1996

 

From Citizenwells September 13, 2011.

“The Obama campaign has decided to call their in-house voter
registration and activation program “Project Vote.” Ironically, there
is already an organization with this same name that focuses on
registering voters in “historically underrepresented communities.”
This Project Vote worked side by side ACORN to register voters in 21
battleground states in 2008…and President Obama served as its
director in Chicago in 1992. In 2008, the Obama campaign paid more
than $800,000 to an ACORN organization to help deliver votes in the
primary election against Hillary Clinton.”

From Chicago Magazine January 1993.

“None of this, of course, was accidental. The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization. “It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics,” says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side’s 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives.

At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama. The son of a black Kenyan political activist and a white American anthropologist”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/project-vote-obama-2012-acorn-obama-2012-campaign-stop-at-nothing-strategy-2008-election-fraud/

From Fox News October 18, 2011.

“Shocking election fraud allegations have stained a state’s 2008
presidential primary – and it took a college student to uncover them.

“This fraud was obvious, far-reaching and appeared to be systemic,”
22-year-old Ryan Nees told Fox News, referring to evidence he
uncovered while researching electoral petitions from the 2008
Democratic Party primary in Indiana.

Nees’ investigation centered on the petitions that put then-senators
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot. As many as 150 of the
names and signatures, it is alleged, were faked. So many, in fact,
that the numbers raise questions about whether Obama’s campaign had
enough legitimate signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/18/college-student-credited-with-uncovering-possible-election-fraud-in-indianas/

Why should we be concerned about this?

From my home state of NC.

August 16, 2011.

“Authorities have charged four Wake County residents with voter fraud in connection with the last presidential election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/nc-voter-fraud-2008-election-voting-twice-for-obama-four-wake-county-residents-charged-raleigh-nc/

April 5, 2011.
“Students from area universities have been working behind the scenes to protest the proposed voter ID bill that is currently in the House. They held a forum Monday morning to discuss the bill and followed it with a press conference to voice their concerns.”
“According to the FEC, Obama won NC in 2008 by 14,177 votes out of a total of 4,310,789 votes cast.

From Citizen Wells November 2, 2010.

“From the Alamance County Sheriff’s Ofice, Alamance County Health Department Investigation, 2008.
(Alamance County is just east of Greensboro)

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an
investigation into allegations that employees of the
Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were
knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical
records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance
County Health Department provided work
notes and prescriptions in alias names.

 Providing these services would assist illegal
aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen
identities, which may be a violation of state, or
federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”
“The staff was divided with some believing the practice of writing
work notes (utilizing aliases) to suspected illegal aliens was wrong
and therefore they refused to do so. Subsequently they reported
feeling pressured or feared repercussions.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/obama-camp-nc-voter-fraud-initiative-enlist-college-students-in-obama-youth-hitler-youth-obama-camp-lies/

The biggest Obama voter fraud of all.

Affidavit:

Any written document in which the signer swears under oath before a Notary Public or someone authorized to take oaths (like a County Clerk), that the statements in the document are true

An affiant is strictly responsible for the truth and accuracy of the contents of the affidavit. If false statements are made, the affiant can be prosecuted for perjury.

Tim Adams , a elections official in Honolulu in 2008 signed an affifavit stating there was no birth certificate for Obama in 2008.

28 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Acorn voter fraud, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Community Organizer, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, fraud, NC, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama signature, Obama thugs, Presidential candidate, Project vote, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Department of Justice, Voter fraud, voters, white house

Tagged , , , , ,