Category Archives: US Constitution

Obama GA ballot ruling Judge Malihi, Attorney Mark Hatfield letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, Flaws in ruling

Posted on February 7, 2012 | 14 comments

Obama GA ballot ruling Judge Malihi, Attorney Mark Hatfield letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, Flaws in ruling

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

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

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

From the letter from Attorney Mark Hatfield  to Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, February 7, 2012.
“Dear Secretary Kemp:

As you are aware, Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi issued
a “Decision” in the above-referenced matters on this past Friday,
February 3, 2012, holding Defendant Barack Obama eligible as a
candidate for the presidential primary election. Because you are
now charged, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(c), with making a
final determination of Defendant Obama’s eligibility to appear on
the ballot in Georgia, I am writing to respectfully point out
several significant flaws in Judge Malihi’s findings and
conclusions.

Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my
clients’ cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs
Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge
Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients’ cases as
requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single “Decision”
applicable to all of the Plaintiffs’ cases, despite the fact that
the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my
clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

The adverse impact upon my clients of Judge Malihi’s erroneous
issuance of a single “Decision” as to all Plaintiffs is
immediately apparent when one reviews certain alleged “facts”
which were “considered” by Judge Malihi (“Decision,” p. 6).
Specifically, Judge Malihi found as “fact”: 1) that Defendant
Obama was born in the United States; and 2) that Defendant
Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of
Defendant’s birth. Both of these “facts” found by Judge Malihi
constitute a second significant flaw in the judge’s ruling and
serve as the stated factual basis for his erroneous conclusion
that Defendant Obama is eligible for the presidency.

Simply put, a review of the record in my clients’ above -captioned
cases reveals no evidence of Defendant’s place of birth and no
evidence of Defendant’s mother’s citizenship at the time of
Defendant’s birth. My clients did not enter into evidence any
copy of Defendant Obama’s purported birth certificate in these
cases. And while my clients’ evidence did include a copy of the
divorce proceedings between Defendant Obama’s parents, and while
these divorce records did establish the identities of Defendant’s
parents and the date of Defendant’s birth, the divorce records
did not establish the location of Defendant’s birth or the
citizenship of his mother at the time of his birth.

As you know, Defendant Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski,
failed to appear for the trial of these actions and failed to
submit any evidence or testimony into the record. Moreover, they
failed to appear notwithstanding the fact that I timely served
defense counsel with a Notice to Produce, directing his client to
appear at trial and to produce certain documents and items to be
used as evidence by the Plaintiffs. Defense counsel, in fact,
never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash
same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.

However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to
“back door” into the record two (2) electronic images of
Defendant Obama’s purported “long form” and “short form” birth
certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed
to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially
informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial.

Nevertheless, Mr. Jablonski’s attempt to inject these “documents”
into the record is legally ineffective. O.C.G.A. § 50 – 13 – 15 (1)
provides in pertinent part that “[t]he rules of evidence as
applied in the trial of civil nonjury cases in the superior
courts shall be followed.” Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 50-13-15 (2)
provides that “[d]ocumentary evidence may be received in the form
of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available.
Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare
the copy with the original or have it established as documentary
evidence according to the rules of evidence applicable to the
superior courts of this state” (emphasis supplied). In the
instant cases, Plaintiffs’ Notice to Produce, served on January
19, 2012, had already requested Defendant Obama to produce one
(1) of the two (2) original certified copies of Defendant’s “long
form” birth certificate in his possession, as well as all
medical; religious; administrative; or other records of or
relating to Defendant’s birth. Of course, Defendant Obama and
his lawyer deliberately ignored Plaintiffs’ valid requests, and
Mr. Jablonski’s misguided attempt to inappropriately place
documents into the record through the “back door” should likewise
be ignored.”

Read more:

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Powell-SwenssonvObamaAttorneyHatfieldLetterBrieftoGeorgiaSecretaryofStateRegardingDecisionbyJudgeMichaelMalihi2-7-2012.pdf

 

14 Comments

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

Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

Posted on February 6, 2012 | 32 comments

Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

“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
“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

You gotta love Free Republic!

When I first discovered the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal ruling I smelled a rat. I am smelling a much larger rat now.

When I wrote the article yesterday on the GA Obama ballot challenge ruling by Judge Michael Malihi, I based my comments on the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal decision based purely on my reading and analyzing the Indiana “judge’s” ruling. In the article I wrote several times “Was this written by a judge?” There are obvious reasons for my doing so. In one instance, I call the author a liar.

I just came across a Free Republic article posted on January 10, 2012, several weeks before the Judge Michael Malihi ruling. As is often the case at Free Republic, it is interesting and insightful.

From Free Republic January 10, 2012.

“Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?”

“As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama’s eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn’t the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.”

Some very interesting comments:

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 14:43:14 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Mr. Lucky

To: Fantasywriter; LucyT; Elderberry; hoosiermama; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; …
This entire issue is like reading Dickens in the original newspaper serial format. It goes on forever. At least Dickens got a penny a word! All we get is a headache.
The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. But the fact that Team Obama does harp upon it, makes it worthy of some inquiry.

The lack of appeal is troubling. Could it have been a “set-up?””

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 15:15:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Kenny Bunk ((So, you’re telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can’t figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
“Gold standard” is a misnomer for describing the case. There are a variety of problems with it that, when itemized, turns Obots into namecallers or makes them flee. The case was appealed to the state supreme court, but it’s not clear if new arguments were presented to the higher court. Not sure this would be eligible for SCOTUS appeal. And of course the decision to appeal is up to the plaintiff who filed the case, so it should be asked of him.

This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle … failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.

Again, there are several problems and outright contradictions in the section on NBC. I’ve illustrated those before, but can do so again if need be.”
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:15:45 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
The decision contradicts itself. First it claims guidance and then admits that the decision from which it divined that guidance doesn’t actually make the same conclusion:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language is immaterial.
The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn’t follow this so-called “guidance.” Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial. Why do they say this??

For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
They’re claiming this is irrelevant to everyone but the people who were elected president. This is sheer stupidity. The natural-born citizen requirement isn’t there for the benefit or the convenience of the electee. It’s there to ensure the best leadership for this government of the people. It’s not irrelevant to everyone else. We know this because of John Jay’s letter suggesting that it would help prevent foreign influence. The Ankeny decision does nothing to support this presumption.

The Ankeny decision cites this citation from Wong Kim Ark:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.
This paragraph is talking about people born in the United States. It’s saying you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. This citation is describing a passage from Shanks v. Dupont which noted that the Treaty of 1783 said those who were natives or otherwise were either citizens OR British subjects depending on whether the parents adhered to the Crown or United States allegiance. You can’t be both. Under this citation, Obama is a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.

Ankeny makes this ridiculous claim about the Minor definition of NBC:

… the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
A) This isn’t true. Such persons were characterized as foreigners or aliens in the passage they quoted. B) Minor went on to discuss the naturalization act of 1790 which said that the children of aliens could become citizens AFTER their fathers naturalized. Further, Ankney contradicts themselves in their own footnote on this point:

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Here it says the court contemplated situations where both parents are aliens. Note, there’s nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they “contemplate” something and leave a question open?? Contemplate means “to consider at length.” IOW, if they contemplated the scenario, then they addressed it, rather than left the question open.

Then Ankeny says this:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”
Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law. The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim. The Law of Nations was a principle and history which were famiilarly known to the framers.

Ankeny stabs itself in the foot here:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. IOW, the 14th amendment doesn’t say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, the guidance that Ankeny claims is simply NOT there.

Here’s another error. They quote Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors? Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
That’s all well and good if we’re trying to determine who British subjects are. The person Story was talking about was born in the U.S. but he was considered to be a British subject (which would mean Obama is too, under this doctrine). This wasn’t about making someone a citizen by birth in the country.

It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.
Further, from the same decision, it is acknowledged in the opinion of the court, that citizenship descends from the father:

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.
Finally, I just wanted to address a couple of the sloppy points in the Ankeny decision. They can’t seem to get the facts straight:

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 ….

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. 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.”
Now, Ankeny says the plaintiffs aren’t arguing place of birth, but just a few pages earlier, the court said:

Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
Okay, so which is it?? The plaintiffs are or are NOT arguing where Obama was born??? And then stuff like this is just bizarre:

The bases of the Plaintiffs? arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11

11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.
Now, I just showed where a Supreme Court case that Ankeny cited, Inglis, quoted Vattel from The Law of Nations. They don’t seem to understand the Supreme Court has regularly used Vattel as a legal resource. Second, the “ninenteenth century congressional debate” citations were being used as the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does this court downplay original intent?? Then the Ankeny court quotes Wong Kim Ark citing things like Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” …. how is that okay, but not Vattel?? The Ankney court concludes with this doozy:

To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court?s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs? arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
A) Vattel does NOT conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of natural-born citizen. The ONE definition that Ankeny cited matches Law of Nations verbatim. B) This court basically just says it doesn’t have to accept the plaintiffs assertions as true, even though the Supreme Court regularly relies on such authorities as were used by the plaintiffs. This decision is simply an embarrassment to the legal profession.

27 posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:38:24 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
You’re welcome. Please feel free to PM me if you ever have any questions or other issues, and I will be happy to answer if I can.

Happy FReeping!”

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 18:43:01 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
Your link goes to the appellate review.

Not sure if you have been exposed to the term – dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:

“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2”

That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop – basically an politician or government official.

The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:

“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:
…
(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; “

See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/#_Toc313019775

So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.

….unless someone wrote it for him……”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831111/posts

Again, this was posted several weeks before the Judge Malihi ruling.

Also, the last sentence above:

“….unless someone wrote it for him……”

Law expert and attorney Mario Apuzzo has dissected the Indiana Appeal Court ruling and the improper references to English Common Law.

“Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.”

I urge you to read the entire article:

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

Orly Taitz has provided an update on her appeal to Judge Michael Malihi’s ruling as well as some interesting comments:

“EMERGENCY APPEAL

PETITION TO SET ASIDE RECOMMENDATION ISSUED BY JUDGE MALIHI IN FARRAR V OBAMA OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALHI, AS RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE IN ERROR, WITH GROSS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF ALL LAW, PRECEDENTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE; AND FIND CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA INELIGIBLE TO APPEAR ON THE STATE OF GA BALLOT AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES”

“This behavior of judge Malihi was so outrageous, that not only his advisory opinion needs to be  set aside, as not grounded in any fact or law, but state and county grand juries and the Attorney General of Georgia need to launch a criminal investigation into actions of judge Malihi and possible direct or indirect undue influence by Obama. Decision by Malihi reads, as if it was entirely written by Obama’s personal attorneys Robert Bauer and Judith Corley of Perkins Coie and rubber stamped by Malihi. It is noteworthy, that both Robert Bauer and Judith Corley need to be criminally investigated as well, as both of them were complicit in aiding and abetting Obama  in presenting to the public on April 27, 2011 a computer generated forgery and claiming it to be a true and correct copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Such assumption by Malihi, that Obama was born in the U.S., without any documentary evidence to that extent from Obama, goes beyond an abuse of judicial disretion, it represents judicial misconduct.”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31271

We clearly have a flawed ruling in GA based on a flawed ruling in IN. It is not uncommon for lower court decisions to be reversed based on errors or misinterpretation of the law. However, the Indiana ruling was either written by a baised or incompetent judge.

Did Chief Judge Margret G. Robb read the ruling?

Judges Crone and May concurred with Judge Elaine B. Brown. Did they read it?

I will contact the Indiana Court of Appeals and find out.

32 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, 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, Judicial misconduct, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Mario Apuzzo, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

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 , , , , , ,

FL primary opens door to Obama eligibilty challenge, Florida statutes allow contest, 10 day window, Circuit court, Obama natural born citizen deficiency

Posted on February 1, 2012 | 83 comments

FL primary opens door to Obama eligibilty challenge, Florida statutes allow contest, 10 day window, Circuit court, Obama natural born citizen deficiency

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

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

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

The Florida 2012 presidential preference primary took place yesterday, January 31, 2012. The big news in the mainstream media is Mitt Romney winning by a substantial margin. The big news here, news you can sink your teeth into, is that now, Obama’s eligibilty to be on the Florida ballot can be challenged. There are 10 days to file a challenge in circuit court.

A  challenger discovered this recently.

“Below and attached is a scanned copy of the letter I just received from the Secretary of State, AKA Florida Supervisor of Elections, in response to the Obama Ballot Challenge I filed 9 January 2012 with him and Attorney General Pam Bundi. The Constitution of the State of Florida (1838) and as amended through 2008 and by adoption of the 2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook (October 2011) the State of Florida has accepted the qualifications for President and Vice President listed therein, based solely on the Certifications of Qualifications from the Political Parties.Read carefully, looks like we have no protection from fraud by either Party. Still waiting for response from the Attorney General.

Vern H. Goding, Ret. OathKeeper.
Melbourne Village, Fl 32904”

Response from Gary Holland, Assistant General Counsel.

“After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/sunshine-state-shenanigans

As reported at Citizen Wells in 2008 and 2012, the Florida Statutes.

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.”

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0102/Sections/0102.168.html

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 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

83 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Florida, 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 , , , ,

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

Posted on January 29, 2012 | 264 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics as usual.

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

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

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

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

From Citizen Wells November 17, 2008.

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

Eligibility for presidency

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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

How President is elected

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

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

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

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

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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

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

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

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

Secretary Elaine Marshall is responsible for the NC Election process.

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

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

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

Laws that apply to NC State Officials

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

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

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

Article VI of the US Constitution states:

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

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

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

President 

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

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

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

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

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

The following facts and conclusions are self evident:

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

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

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

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

What is the alternative?

The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.
 
 
 

264 Comments

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

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 27, 2012 | 197 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Citizen Wells November 24, 2008.

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

Florida Election statutes

Title IX

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Obama Ballot Challenge January 1, 2012.

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

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

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

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

Florida has a procedure for advisory opinions.

“Division of Election Advisory Opinions

Who May Request an Opinion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the following

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

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

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

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

For more info on a FL challenge:

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

 

197 Comments

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

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 26, 2012 | 208 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

(1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

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

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

http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/

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

Temporarily publishing at www.gulagbound.com

208 Comments

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

Tagged , , , , ,

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

Posted on January 26, 2012 | 190 comments

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

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

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

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

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

The Office of Secretary of State

January 25, 2012

VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

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

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian P. Kemp

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

190 Comments

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

Tagged , , ,

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

Posted on January 25, 2012 | 76 comments

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

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

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

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

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 6

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen


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

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

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

Circumstantial Evidence defined:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Parts 1 – 5 of this series we know:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore:

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

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

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

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

Guilty!

76 Comments

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

Tagged , , , , ,