Category Archives: constitution

Obama GA ballot challenge administrative court January 26, 2012, Atlanta Georgia, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama motion to dismiss, Natural born citizen ruling

Posted on January 8, 2012 | 49 comments

Obama GA ballot challenge administrative court January 26, 2012, Atlanta Georgia, Judge Michael Malihi denied Obama motion to dismiss, Natural born citizen ruling

“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

My hat is off once again to to Sharon Rondeau and the Post & Email for their efforts to report the news that counts.

From The Post & Email January 7, 2012.

“Atty. Van Irion Discusses Georgia Ballot Challenge and the Constitution”

“Constitutional attorney Van Irion, who is also founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation, spoke with The Post & Email regarding the ballot challenge he has filed on behalf of his client, David Welden, which claims that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president.
The interview was completed one day before Judge Michael Malihi denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski.
Welden had originally filed the challenge pro se and Irion later agreed to represent him. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2012 at the Justice Center Building located at 160 Pryor Street, Atlanta, in courtroom G40. Irion’s case is the first of three cases expected to be heard that day.

On January 3, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi affirmed that Georgia statute 21-2-5(s) gave registered voters standing to challenge the eligibility of a candidate for state or federal office. In response to the judge’s decision, Irion stated on his foundation website, “Hopefully the Georgia court will set the groundwork for victories across the country. If any court rules that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, it will be a major victory and should make international news.“

Irion had also requested that his case be separated from those of Atty. Orly Taitz and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield, which the judge granted. Hatfield, also a Georgia state representative, is acting as counsel to two Georgia voters whose case has received television coverage.
We asked Irion what kind of action he has filed, and he responded: “I represent one person in an administrative action very specific to Georgia state law. We’re actually not going to a civil court. It’s an administrative court specifically set up by Georgia statute, and the entire purpose of the court is to advise the Secretary of State. I’m going to be starting by saying, ‘We recognize that your main purpose for being here is to be able to advise the Secretary of State on the facts and the law.’ Ultimately, regardless of what the court does, either side can appeal to a law court in Georgia, and that’s certainly what’s going to happen regardless of who wins.”

Irion continued:

Liberty Legal got involved after David Welden, who is our client, filed the challenge himself. Georgia law allows for any voter who is qualified to vote for a candidate to challenge the constitutional and statutory qualifications of that particular candidate. He and a handful of others did that. There’s a very short period of time: two weeks after the candidate qualifies with the Secretary of State. He did that, and after that, he contacted me. He based his complaint largely on Liberty Legal’s complaint in our Certification lawsuit in Arizona. He looked at our complaints and used a lot of the same language and citations. He didn’t ask us for our help right off the bat, and he didn’t expect our help, which was important to us, because he did it right, following Georgia code the way it needed to be done; and also, he came to us with a very gracious attitude of “I’m doing this because I think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t expect your help, but if you can, if you’d like to, I wouldn’t mind talking with you about this.” So we ended up having several conversations and at the end of the day, we said, “Hey, I think we can help you.” So that’s how we ended up representing David Welden.

David Welden and Liberty Legal are going first on the 26th. Atty. Orly Taitz will be there representing other plaintiffs, and there are other plaintiffs who may not have attorneys. I hope that we both win.

The reason we are going first and being heard separately is that I plan on calling one witness — my client, David Welden. I plan on asking him three questions; that’s it, we’re done, and making one argument. The presentation of evidence and testimony will take 15 minutes or less. We’ll probably argue the law for quite some time after that, but that’s the whole point. That’s the way I do law: I generally try to find the clearest, easiest-to-understand argument that I can support, and that’s what we present. If it doesn’t work, I rarely argue alternatives. Most lawyers do that habitually; there’s good reason for it; I understand why, but I also think it’s become very ineffective because courts have become numb to multiple alternative arguments.

The Post & Email asked, “What is your argument?”

Here it is: Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, defined “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution as “being born in this country with both parents being U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born.” That’s “natural born Citizen;” that’s the Supreme Court’s definition; it’s never been overturned or challenged or questioned; therefore, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president by his own admission. Here’s the thing: the defense still has not addressed that substantive argument. They throw up all kinds of procedural arguments; they throw up all kinds of interpretations of Georgia code that don’t allow us to get to our argument. But at the end of the day, there’s one thing that’s very simple: Georgia code is very clear such that even if my client doesn’t have standing to raise this, even if no voter has standing, the Secretary of State, according to one specific code, “shall determine the qualifications of the candidate before the election.” It’s one sentence. It does not give them any option to not do it. And they can, at any time before the election, look into those qualifications. So if this court decides that David Welden doesn’t have the ability to raise this because of the procedural arguments brought up by the defendant, this court’s purpose is only to advise the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State absolutely has to address, by law, the substantive qualifications of this candidate. “So even if you find that you have to dismiss our case, you still have to tell the Secretary of State what to do with this argument wherein the Supreme Court has defined the term “natural born Citizen,” and Barack Obama has repeatedly admitted that he doesn’t meet those qualifications. You can’t avoid the substantive issue even if you rule against us on a procedural matter.”

“Is there a way that the judge could declare that having one citizen parent is enough to qualify a person as a ‘natural born Citizen?’”

Let me answer your question with a truism: a judge can do anything he wants. They are the final arbiters of what’s right and wrong. The fact that a higher court can overturn them is always there. It’s also true that that usually doesn’t happen. No matter how many levels of appeal you have, getting a higher court to overturn a lower court is always an unlikely outcome in any appeal. It’s difficult. They do it only when the lower court has made a glaring error or they philosophically completely disagree with the judge who happens to be sitting in the lower court.

The good news is that Judge Michael Malihi was the first judge anywhere to actually issue a subpoena to the Hawaii Department of Health to a) show up and be questioned, and b) have the original written birth certificate with you or a darn good explanation why you don’t, and the microfilm. This is a judge who understands that he has some authority here, and the court has the authority to force documents and witnesses to show up, and he’s doing it. Just that fact made me think, “We might actually get a fair hearing here.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/07/atty-van-irion-discusses-georgia-ballot-challenge-and-the-constitution/

 

49 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Hawaii, Judges, 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 ballot challenge reveals Democrat Party agenda, Party first, Obama natural born citizen status, Faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party

Posted on January 8, 2012 | 22 comments

GA ballot challenge reveals Democrat Party agenda, Party first, Obama natural born citizen status, Faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“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

From WXIA TV 11 Alive, January 6, 2012.

“Atlanta court hearing set on President Obama’s disputed citizenship”

“A judge in Atlanta has breathed new life into an old dispute.

The judge decided Tuesday he will hold a hearing in Atlanta on January 26, on whether President Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

The judge, Michael Malihi of Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings, ruled in favor of eight Georgia voters who were asking him to hold the hearing as part of their lawsuits aimed at removing President Obama’s name from the Georgia primary ballot in March unless the President can prove to their satisfaction that he is a natural-born U.S. Citizen.

“This is all about Constitutional eligibility to be on the ballot,” said one of the plaintiffs, Carl Swensson of Clayton County.

Swensson and the others will, through their attorneys, make various legal arguments at the hearing in support of their claim that the long-running dispute over President Obama’s citizenship has never been settled, so Obama’s name does not belong on the presidential preference ballot in the primary March 6.

“I, as a voting citizen of Georgia, have the right, responsibility, to ask this question before a state judge,” Swensson said Thursday night. “I have the responsibility to challenge, when I see that there’s a possibility that somebody is going to be put on our ballot that doesn’t deserve to be there.””

“”It’s gotten to the point where this is about the 69th or 70th time they’ve tried doing this, and they’ve lost every time,” Jablonski said. “We will prove, once again, what must be obvious to most Americans, Republican and Democrat, that the President of the United States was born in a state of the United States, and meets all the Constitutional requirements to be President…. We’re getting lots of calls from moderate Democrats and swing voters who are just, the only word I can use is, disgusted that this issue still lives. They don’t necessarily agree with him [the President], but they don’t think we should be spending our time and the state’s money holding hearings on an issue that, frankly, helps no one and is going to go nowhere.”

Swensson, a Republican, said the unique issues he is raising about how to define “natural born citizen” have never been addressed in any court since the Obama dispute arose, and deserve to be, not just for this upcoming primary election, but for future elections.”

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/220710/40/Atlanta-court-hearing-set-on-President-Obamas-disputed-citizenship

From above:

“We’re getting lots of calls from moderate Democrats and swing voters who are just, the only word I can use is, disgusted that this issue still lives. They don’t necessarily agree with him [the President], but they don’t think we should be spending our time and the state’s money holding hearings on an issue that, frankly, helps no one and is going to go nowhere.”

This comes as no surprise since the mantra of the modern day Democrat Party is the end justifies the means. This includes lies, misrepresentations and denial. The Democrat Party Platform is another example of this.

From Citizen Wells   December 18, 2009 .

“As Adopted by the Democratic National Committee, February 2, 2007″

“Citizen Wells: “faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States”

“II. QUALIFICATIONS OF STATE DELEGATIONS”
“C. It is presumed that the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, when certified pursuant to the Call, are bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, who subscribe to the substance, intent and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith. Therefore, no additional assurances shall be
required of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in the absence of a credentials contest or challenge.”
Citizen Wells: Priorities. The DNC is beholden to unions.

“V. THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE, INC.”
“1. Contractors: The DNCC shall as a policy seek to engage the services of unionized firms, including those owned by minorities, women and people with disabilities.”
Citizen Wells: Presidential qualifications. The only thing that matters is allegiance to the party.

“VI. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for his or her nomination as the
Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the
United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.”

Citizen Wells

This is presented not to praise the Republicans or other political parties. It is also recognized that rules are necessary for any organized group. However, it is clear that the 2008 DNC rules are convoluted, overly complicated and designed as self serving for the preservation of the Democrat Party. The only qualification for the presidency that they address is allegiance to the party. And saddest of all, there is no mention of looking out for the best interest of the United States and citizens.

This should help you understand what is going on in the senate and White House. It is all about the Democrat Party.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/senate-health-care-bill-democrat-party-politics-party-first-2008-dnc-convention-rules-why-democrats-push-unwanted-bill/

 

22 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

Obama ballot challenge cases update, Obama eligibility, Natural Born Citizen Status, Georgia New Hampshire cases, Orly taitz

Posted on January 4, 2012 | 105 comments

Obama ballot challenge cases update, Obama eligibility, Natural Born Citizen Status, Georgia New Hampshire cases, Orly taitz

“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 Citizen Wells January 3, 2012.

“The Obama motion to dismiss the Georgia ballot challenge has been denied.”

“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.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/obama-motion-to-dismiss-georgia-ballot-challenge-denied-david-farrar-et-al-vs-barack-obama-judge-michael-m-malihi/

Here is another excellent report from The Post & Email on the Obama ballot challenge cases in Georgia and New Hampshire.

“Is Barack Hussein Obama constitutionally eligible to serve as president?”

“Atty. Orly Taitz has provided an update on six active cases, the first of which has a hearing on January 6 in Hawaii. In Taitz v. Fuddy, Taitz has filed a Motion for Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement against Loretta Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which she has requested be heard in addition to the scheduled motion for “production of documents.”

The Reciprocal Subpoena motion is a request for Fuddy to comply with a subpoena issued to her by the state of Georgia in a case there. Taitz reported that Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine wrote a letter to Taitz stating that her client, Fuddy, “will not comply with a a subpoena from Georgia,” which Taitz is attempting to enforce.

Taitz has requested to inspect the original birth record of Barack Hussein Obama as well as the original long-form birth certificate of a deceased infant born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, Virginia Sunahara, whose long-form birth certificate was not provided to the family and the short-form birth certificate, which was provided, contained a number which was suspiciously out of sequence.

The Georgia case is scheduled for trial on January 26, 2012. Taitz represents a registered voter, David Farrar, and four presidential candidates in a lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp and the Executive Committee of the Democrat Party of Georgia. “There is one more presidential candidate who might join as well,” Taitz said. “The case began as a ballot challenge by one person, and it was transferred to the Administrative Court of the state of Georgia. It’s currently a legal action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction which would prevent Obama from being on the ballot in Georgia.”

Taitz reported that after David Farrar filed his challenge, the judge joined his case with two others cases, challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility. One case is being brought by Atty. Mark Hatfield, who is also a Georgia State Representative; the other has been filed by Atty. Van Irion, who has also filed lawsuits against the DNC in three states on behalf of Liberty Legal Foundation. Taitz stated that separation of the cases was requested by the other attorneys. She said it was granted to one of them, and the other request is pending.”

“Taitz stated that she believes there has to be a holding issued directly on point in regard to the definition of “natural born Citizen” as it applies to the US Presidency, there has to be a holding, as to whose responsibility it is, to vet Constitutional and factual eligibility of candidates. ”I believe that based on the writings of the Framers of the Constitution, their intent was to include children of citizens, not children of foreigners. The court needs to come up with a holding directly on point in regards to this issue, in regards to children of one citizen parent, their eligibility for the U.S. Presidency.

In New Hampshire, Taitz has filed, an appeal with the state Supreme Court regarding its recent denial to hear a case brought against the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission. “Actions of the Ballot Law Commission were outside the norm of what is normally done by the agency,” she said. She filed an application for stay which the court denied. She stated that she “will be going further, either with a Motion for Reconsideration in New Hampshire or straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Taitz is planning to file a Motion for Rehearing en Banc in which she represents former Ambassador Alan Keyes, ten state representatives, and 30 members of the military. The case was heard on May 2, 2011, by a three-judge panel, which issued a decision stating that presidential contenders have the right to challenge another candidate’s eligibility during the campaign period.

Two cases filed in Washington, DC are Taitz v. Astrue and Taitz v. Ruemmler, which are currently in the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit, in which Taitz stated that she is waiting for the schedule which contains the docket of pleadings.

Regarding the costs and hours of work involved in the various cases on which she is working, Taitz said, “People don’t realize how much time it takes to prepare the filings and exhibits. The filing with the New Hampshire Supreme Court came to almost 300 pages. I had to prepare seven books for the New Hampshire Supreme Court which had to be printed, bound and mailed, and filing fees have to be paid. People have no idea how much I’m spending. Travel to New Hampshire and all of the other trips is very, very expensive. I am spending hundreds of hours as well; it took me a full week to prepare the New Hampshire filing. I had to spend $1,221 for my plane ticket to Honolulu. I ask that people donate to this cause.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/02/atty-orly-taitz-upcoming-actions-on-six-obama-eligibility-cases/

105 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birthers, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, 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, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, 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 , ,

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 19 comments

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.

19 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election 2012, Election update, Electors, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, politicians, Politics, polls, Presidential candidate, Primary polls, republicans, Rick Santorum, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US economy, Washington DC, white house

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 , , , , ,

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 119 comments

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

My friends have been asking me for weeks what my preference in a presidential candidate is. For weeks I have been stating, Rick Santorum. An intelligent, well informed friend of mine who I have known for many years agrees.

So far my biggest gripe with Santorum was his response to Obama’s eligibility deficiency. However, many otherwise good Americans have been fooled by the Orwellian brainwashing of the mainstream media. Like many decisions in life, Santorum for me is the lesser of evils, however, I find most of his positions appealing.

From the DesMoines Register August 7, 2011.

“Candidate profile: Rick Santorum refuses to compromise on principles”

“Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum knew he was in trouble as he sought re-election to his third term in 2006.

Public opinion was hardening against the war in Iraq and the president who started it. All signs pointed to a bad year for Republicans.

His supporters were blunt, recalled Charlie Artz, a Harrisburg lawyer and a friend since they were in their 20s. To win, they said, you need to change
course. You need to soften your opinions.

But Santorum wouldn’t budge. He described the state of America’s families as a moral crisis. He declared the nation at a critical crossroads in a fight
against radical Islamists. And he ultimately lost by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr., the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980.

“Rick is a very devout Catholic guy, and he believes in the principles of the founding fathers of this country,” Artz said. “He is not willing to compromise
on that. He will stand for his beliefs and his principles above any political expediency.”

Santorum, 53, is not about to start mincing words now that he’s seeking the Republican presidential nomination. That leaves little room in the middle between his supporters and his detractors.

Jamie Johnson of Stratford is a Christian pastor who has worked in 40 Republican political campaigns over the past two decades. He said he was drawn to join Santorum’s presidential bid after watching him lead the charge on family values legislation in Congress.

“I thought, ‘Wow. This guy is a guy of energy and passion and convictions,’ ” Johnson said. “If there was ever a time for a muscular Republican leader to
stand up against President Obama, it is now. I don’t see Michele Bachmann or Tim Pawlenty or Rick Perry having the intellectual or spiritual muscle to go toe
to toe with Barack Obama.”

Jim Burn, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has closely monitored Santorum’s political career, too, but sees him in an entirely different light.
By 2006, Pennsylvanians had come to view Santorum as completely out of touch with their values, he said.

“He was viewed as a Republican with extreme right-wing beliefs and was not viable,” Burn said.

His story starts with emigrating granddad
Santorum’s political outlook is firmly rooted in family.

On the campaign trail, he frequently tells the story of how his grandfather came to America from Italy in the 1920s because he detested living under fascist
dictator Benito Mussolini. His grandfather worked in Pennsylvania’s coal mines until he was 72, Santorum said.

During a campaign stop in July in Marion, Ia., Santorum told of kneeling before his grandfather’s casket as a teenager and looking at his large folded hands,
holding a rosary. His grandfather’s independence and hard work brought freedom to his family, he said.

“He gave me the opportunities that I have,” Santorum said. “I feel like I am standing on his shoulders.”

He describes his grandfather, Pietro, known as Pete, and his father, Aldo, a psychologist, as strong-willed, a trait he shares.

His dad was a typical Italian father who “would always yell first and speak softly later,” he said.

Santorum grew up in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Both his father and mother, Catherine, a nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration.

After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees, he became a staffer for Republican state Sen. Doyle Corman while he earned a law degree. Then, too, he
demonstrated his strong-willed streak.

Corman said he hired Santorum because he was bright and ambitious, and Corman let Santorum know he was free to argue with his boss about politics.

“If Rick thought that I was headed in the wrong direction, we would have debates over it, and the staff couldn’t believe how hot our debates would get at
times,” Corman recalled in a phone interview. “You could hear us through the walls, but I wanted that, and Rick made me think things out well.”

Fast-rising career in U.S. House, Senate
He was a young man on a fast track. He started work for a prominent Pittsburgh law firm and did some lobbying at the Pennsylvania Capitol. Four years after
graduating from law school, he launched a bid for Congress.

Corman and others told him to forget it because it would be too difficult to defeat a long-term Democratic incumbent.

“He beat that seven-term incumbent, and the rest is history,” Corman said.

As a 32-year-old freshman, Santorum joined former U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa and others to focus on government reform, becoming a member of the “Gang of Seven” that exposed the House banking and post office scandals.

In 1994, at 36, he won election to the Senate, once again unseating an incumbent, Democrat Harris Wofford. Two years later, he was an author and floor manager of a landmark welfare reform act that moved millions of people from the welfare rolls to the work force.

Again and again, he pressed abortion fight
It was about this time that he and his family experienced a defining moment, underlining his commitment to reverence for life.

After Santorum and his wife arrived in Washington, D.C., their family quickly grew to three children. But in 1996, Karen Santorum, who had worked as a neo-
natal nurse and a lawyer, experienced a difficult pregnancy.

During labor, she developed a severe infection in her uterus, and her temperature soared to 105 degrees. Their son was born prematurely and lived only two hours.

Karen Santorum describes how she and her husband brought their deceased infant home instead of allowing the child to be placed in a refrigerated morgue.
Their daughter, Elizabeth, cuddled the infant and announced, “This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.”

A priest celebrated the Mass of the Angels in his grandparents’ living room, and the casket was placed in the back seat of the family’s van as they drove to
the cemetery.

Karen Santorum wrote a book about her son, “Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,” which includes a forward by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

At the same time, Rick Santorum was leading efforts in the U.S. Senate to ban what he describes as partial-birth abortions.

Santorum acknowledges that other Republican presidential candidates also say they oppose abortion. But he portrays himself as the candidate who has a proven
record fighting to restrict it.

He has spoken of losing a battle against President Bill Clinton for a partial-birth abortion act.

“I didn’t just offer (the bill), but I stood there and fought … year in and year out,” Santorum said. “We lost because Bill Clinton would veto the bill. …
But I continued to fight. I continued to stand up for life, and God blessed us.” (The bill was signed into law under President George W. Bush.)

As senator, called for balancing the budget
Besides championing anti-abortion legislation in the Senate, he supported a balanced federal budget and a line-item veto to curb spending.

That record makes him the right choice to lead a nation confronting out-of-control spending and a downgraded credit rating, he says.

Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Santorum proposed transforming the U.S. military from a Cold War force to a more agile one to meet modern threats. He was also a leader on U.S.-Israeli relations, authoring the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” despite initial opposition from President Bush.”

“Santorum has campaigned more days and conducted more events in Iowa than any other candidate. But he has had difficulty gaining traction. In The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll in June, he registered 4 percent support among likely Republican caucusgoers.

But he takes heart in a Quinnipiac University poll released last week that showed him in a dead heat with Obama in a theoretical presidential matchup in
Pennsylvania, a key swing state. And he reminds voters that he has twice defeated incumbent Democrats.

He also notes that Abraham Lincoln lost two Senate races before he was elected president.

His friend Artz says Santorum will outwork other candidates and would make a great president because he would always put the country first.

“I think he is going to surprise some people out there,” Artz said.”

““Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform,
and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“I don’t comment on who would be a good president or a bad president, but I can tell you that a lot of Rick Santorum’s policies and priorities are not in
keeping with core constitutional principles.” — Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/07/santorum-refuses-to-compromise-on-principles/

Rick Santorum meets my priorities of :

God
Family
Constitution
Defense
Budget

Rick Santorum, like other decent members of Congress such as Howard Coble was brainwashed by the mainstream media and their own congressional resources.

Rick Santorum told WND, “My understanding is that issue was solved. If there’s evidence to the contrary [showing Obama is not eligible], they should bring it forth.”

When Santorum was reminded about the Natural Born Citizen requirement he allegedly responded “I don’t think that’s what the Constitution requires, and he (President Obama) was born in the country, so it doesn’t matter.”

I personally believe that Rick Santorum, when properly advised , will reconsider his position on Obama’s eligibility and will be open to ask more questions and seek more answers.

Mr. Santorum, I am at your service.

Contact me.

Wells

119 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, conservatives, constitution, Election 2012, Eligibility, Family, Glenn Beck, God, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, Politics, Presidential candidate, Presidential debate, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 41 comments

Obama Georgia ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status deficient, Attorney Van Irion for David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Obama Motion to Dismiss

“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

First, I would like to thank Birther Report for their efforts to monitor the unconstitutional machinations of Obama, et al.

From Birther Report December December 28, 2011.

“Attorney Van Irion on behalf of David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Defendant’s(Obama) Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge”

“For the reasons set forth below, none of the facts asserted by the Defendant are relevant. The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, Defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by Plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with Plaintiff’s pre-trial order and apparently authenticated by Defendant’s citation to this exhibit in Defendant’s “Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,” number 7.”

“C. Right to Associate Doesn’t Negate Georgia Election Law

The Democratic Party of Georgia’s Constitutional right to determine its membership coexists with Georgia’s right to govern Georgia. Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of the political party’s internal decision making because it does nothing to prohibit the parties from submitting any name to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Presidential primary. The Party is free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse as their next Presidential candidate. However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.

Georgia code does not prevent the political parties from submitting any name. Instead the code simply determines what the State does with the Party’s list of candidates after the Party has forwarded its list to the State. See O.C.G.A. §21-2 et seq. This code does nothing to prevent any political party from excluding, or including, any person they choose to exclude or include. Nor does it prevent the Party from choosing candidates to submit, in its “sole discretion.” Georgia’s code simply exercises the State’s right to administer elections in a manner that best serves the citizens of the State.

In the instant case Georgia’s Election code does nothing to infringe on the Democratic Party of Georgia’s right of association because the Party can and did include the Defendant in its organization. The Party can and did include the Defendant in the Party’s list of candidates. The Party’s rights, however, end there. Its rights cannot force the State to place the Defendant’s name on a ballot after the State determines that the Defendant is obviously not qualified “to hold the office sought.” §21-2-5. The rights of the Party and of the State simply do not conflict.4

The Defendant’s argument would logically require a conclusion that no state can preclude any candidate from any primary ballot for any reason without violating a political party’s right to freely associate. Since many candidates have been disqualified from primary ballots for lack of qualification to hold the office sought, we can safely conclude that the Defendant’s argument fails. If his argument succeeds, many election codes across the country will need to be re-drafted.

D. Defendant’s Conclusion is Offensive to the Constitution

The Defendant states that the issue raised by the Plaintiff was “soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” See Def.’s Mtn. at 5. This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding Constitutional protections.

Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.

The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority. Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections any law enacted by Congress would be valid, even if it denied an individual their right to life, liberty, or property. Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be, because they are in place to protect the minority.

The Defendant’s presumption that popular vote overrides the Constitution demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Constitution and emphasizes the critical role played by this Court in protecting Americans from a tyrannical majority. Contrary to the Defendant’s statement, a minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President.

E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/attorney-van-irion-files-opposition-to.html

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

41 Comments

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

Tagged , ,

Spiro Agnew qualified for president, Obama not eligible, 2 US citizen parents mandatory for natural born citizen status, John McCain eligible

Posted on December 26, 2011 | 3 comments

Spiro Agnew qualified for president, Obama not eligible, 2 US citizen parents mandatory for natural born citizen status, John McCain eligible

“Why in 2008 did the American press challenge the eligibility of John McCain and not Barack Obama?”…Citizen Wells

From Leo Donofrio, Esq.

“The Agnew Funeral.

Today we can finally bury, and lay to rest, the slander that Spiro Agnew, Vice President under Richard Nixon, did not meet the two citizen parent standard defined in Minor v. Happersett.

I was at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. yesterday and today double checking the information I found at Princeton’s amazing Firestone library earlier this week. Before that, I was in Baltimore where I received a couple of important clues.

A few weeks ago, I was researching this issue at the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore, only blocks from where Spiro Agnew grew up. I asked the head reference librarian to help me track down the 1910 census. I was hoping it would provide more information than the 1920 and 1930 census info, which contain a serious discrepancy. The 1920 census indicates Spiro’s father was not naturalized by 1920, two years after Spiro was born, which, if true, would mean Agnew was born to an alien. This has been alleged as precedent for Obama, who was born of an alien father.

The 1930 census indicates that Spiro’s father Theodore had been naturalized by then. It was also common knowledge that the 1920 census info contradicts a World War I draft registration card on file for Theodore Agnew dating back to September 12, 1918, which indicates he was naturalized just prior to Spiro’s birth on November 9, 1918.

In Baltimore, the librarian told me that Agnew’s father lived in Schenectady, N.Y. in 1910 and that I should check the census for that city. He also warned me that the name might be spelled wrong so I should try various spellings. This turned out to be quite prophetic.

At Princeton, I found catalogue records for many biographies on Spiro Agnew, but most of them were not available on the shelves. I had to order them from a special annex and it took 24 hours for them to arrive. Meanwhile, I began Googling these biographies and was able to unearth a very relevant fact from the snippet view at Google for, “What Makes Spiro Run: The Life And Times Of Spiro Agnew“, by Joseph Albright (published by Dodd, Mead & Company New York, 1972). The snippet told me something I did not know, that Spiro’s father first shortened his full Greek name to Theodore Anagnost, not Agnew.

I then plugged the name “Theodore Anagnost” into the database at Ancestry.com and searched the Schenectady N.Y. area. Direct hit. And the Md. Historical Society librarian was spot on, the name was listed on the 1910 census, and Ancestry.com had it catalogued as both Theodore Anagnost as well as Amagnost. It clearly shows that Theodore entered the U.S. in 1902 and that he was naturalized by the time this census was taken in 1910. It also contains the correct year of birth, 1878, and it includes the other members of his family.”

“Spiro Agnew was born in the U.S. of two parents who were citizens.  Therefore, he was a “natural born Citizen”.”

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/the-agnew-funeral/

Senate Resolution 511 from April 2008 states:
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Barack Obama signed the Resolution.

Thanks to several commenters for the info.

3 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Leo Donofrio, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , ,

Jonathan Turley, Obama stated that he can have any American Citizen killed anywhere, CSPAN interview, Video, Professor Turley legal scholar

Posted on December 22, 2011 | 55 comments

Jonathan Turley, Obama stated that he can have any American Citizen killed anywhere, CSPAN interview, Video, Professor Turley legal scholar

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”...Benjamin Franklin

“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

Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar, was interviewed on CSPAN. He was asked by a Democrat caller about Obama’s statement that he can
have any American Citizen killed anywhere.

Jonathan Turley Bio.

“Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients.

In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.

In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).

Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. He also represents Dr. Sami Al-Arian, accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. He also currently represents pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represents David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia. Most recently, Professor Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. He also agreed to serve as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions.

Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.

Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest 2010 rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in 2010 and 2011 as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world.

Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 750 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.Professor Turley teaches courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.

His award-winning blog is ranked in the ten most popular legal blogs by AVVO.

Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.”

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

 

55 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Founding Fathers, Government, Justice, Martial law, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,