Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

[Ares]

Attorney Orly Taitz website is reporting that a Georgia Judge has issued a subpoena demanding Barack Obama appear in court January 26 AND produce his original long form birth certificate, passport records, collegeregistration records and more.
Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia eligibility cases working their way rapidly through the courts, posted a copy of what is reportedly a subpoena, issued by Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia.The subpoena demands that Barack Obama himself appear in court on January 26, and bring with him a laundry list of official documents that will prove or disprove his eligibility for office.The list is frankly a “birther’s” dream. Unlike previous cases, where only certain documents were requested or discussed, this subpoena issued by Judge Malihi includes every document that serious eligibility experts have been discussing from the beginning. The list requires Obama to produce each of the following:

Any and all certified birth records including a long form birth certificate.

Certified school/university registration records. Certified immigration/naturalization records.

Certified passport records

Redacted certified Social Security card applications for each of the aliases and other legal names used by Barack Obama, including but not limited to his legal surname when adopted by step-father Lolo Soetoro.

In addition, Judge Malihi has reportedly also subpoenaed Hawaii Health Department officials and commanded them to produce an original certified copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate.

While we take a moment to rejoice in a court finally willing to examine the Constitutional status of Obama, who evidence supports as beingnot a lawful president but a Usurper-in-Chief, we cannot rest upon our laurels.

While we may hope that Georgia will be the beginning of the end of the line for the Obama campaign, motions to quash and vicious legal push back by Team Obama are a given. We must work MUCH harder now to open battle on many more fronts, and compel the rest of the States to do their due diligence and demand Obama provide PROOF POSITIVE evidence of eligibility to appear on our ballots!

NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW; GEORGIA JUDGE RULES OBAMA MUST PROVE ELIGIBILITY!

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi has ordered Obama’s attorneys to appear in court January 26 holding that, according to state law, every federal and state candidate must prove eligibility for office – including Barack Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama II, has some of the highest-rent attorneys in the country working tirelessly to keep the question of his eligibility for office out of court. And no wonder, because whether he was born in Hawaii or not, it can be compellingly argued under law that according to binding precedents laid out by the Supreme Court, Barack Hussein Obama II does not qualify as a natural born Citizen.

The U.S. Constitution very clearly requires, in a unique usage and application of the term, that the president must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible for the nation’s highest office. “Natural born Citizen” is demonstrably held by the Founders in Article II, Section 1 as distinct and different than “Citizen” and even “native born Citizen” – that is, born under jus soli, on native soil.

Documentary evidence shows that in the Founding era, the common law view was that a natural born Citizen was that person born within United States territory to parents who were themselves United States Citizens.

KEEP INELIGIBLE OBAMA OFF 2012 ELECTION BALLOTS – FAX THE STATES NOW!

Nearly one hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, in the 1875 unanimous Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happerset, the Supreme Court explicitly held a “natural born Citizen” to be a Citizen whose parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of the person’s birth.

This finding was, and continues to be, fully consistent with U.S. history in Supreme Court case decisions, and law enacted and enforced by the United States Congress.

This time-honored historical record stands against the strenuous lying, dissembling and countless other Alinsky-esque strategies deployed to discredit the legitimacy and derail the legal efforts of all those Citizens who are raising objections to Obama’s eligibility for office.

By Barak Obama’s own admission, his father was a native of Kenya and was NEVER a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II would, under long-standing custom, common law, and Supreme Court precedent, automatically be INELIGIBLE to hold the office of President of the United States.

It is no wonder Barack Hussein Obama II has spent millions of dollars in an attempt to keep the matter of his qualifications for eligibility out of court. But even the most expensive attorneys are no match for a judge who understands the Constitution and the rule of law.

As we reported earlier, a number of Georgia voters filed lawsuits questioning Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to appear on the Georgia Presidential ballot. Obama’s lawyers attempted to get the case thrown out, but Georgia Judge Malihi responded with a resounding NO.

In an order written January 3, 2012, Malihi ruled that Georgia state law is very clear – any candidate for federal or state office must meet the qualifications of that office and that Georgia electors have the right to challenge those qualifications in court. As a result, Malihi flatly denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing for January 26.

The January 26th hearing should be a blockbuster, as it is the first in the nation that proposes to consider on the merits whether Barack Hussein Obama II is eligible to be President of the United States of America.

ut we CANNOT rest now and hope the Georgia case is permitted to hear REAL evidence, and settles all large questions in this murky mess of Obama’s eligibility for office. Even if Obama is ultimately kept off Georgia’s presidential ballot, Obama will only lose 16 electoral votes. While this is an important precedent, and not an insignificant number, we must fight to ensure that many other states follow Georgia’s lead.

WASHINGTON DC HAS SHOWN ITS COWARDICE! OUR ONLY HOPE OF SAVING AMERICA IS TO KEEP THE DUPLICITOUS AND FRAUDULENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II OFF OUR STATES’ ELECTION BALLOTS!

GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE DEMANDS PROOF POSITIVE!

Georgia becomes the first state to pursue Obama ineligibility complaints and the end result may keep Barack Obama OFF the Georgia 2012 ballot!

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s office is pursuing FIVE separate ineligibility complaints filed by Georgia residents. Each complaint argues that Barack Hussein Obama II is ineligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia Presidential ballot. Secretary Kemp has assigned 5 different hearings under five different judges, so that the complaints can move forward.

FAILURE TO APPEAR ON THE GEORGIA BALLOT WOULD COST OBAMA DEVASTATING MEDIA, AND 15 ELECTORAL VOTES!

As our Founding Fathers intended, it is the States which protect us from all out tyranny. The federal election in 2012 and the constitutional eligibility of the candidates is no different. In the end, OUR STATES are responsible for ensuring the eligibility of candidates and OUR STATES will protect us from the tyranny of a Presidential usurper.

With primary season about to hit full swing, time is running short. We MUST compel more states to follow Georgia’s lead and DEMAND PROOF POSITIVE ELIGIBILITY for ANY candidate placed on election ballots.

America cannot survive further trampling of our right to constitutionally eligible leadership. WE MUST ACT NOW!

The White House’s badly forged “birth certificate” has not ended the debate on Barack Obama’s eligibility. Rather, it has opened the door for further allegations of fraud and ineligibility. Georgia resident Kevin R. Powell wrote in his complaint, “Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born citizen of the United States…”

Citizen Powell is correct that the legal question of natural born citizenship is unresolved in American jurisprudence, and in the nefarious case of Barack Hussein Obama sits as a gaping wound to the Constitution’s integrity, and to our ordered liberty. America is left in an abject posture of unprecedented vulnerability to our national security, sovereignty and prosperity UNLESS AND UNTIL THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS RESOLVED!

We MUST continue the outcry to determine the truth, and restore the Constitution.

KEEP INELIGIBLE OBAMA OFF 2012 ELECTION BALLOTS – FAX THE STATES NOW!
demand_proof_positive

YOUR FAXES helped to compel the State of Georgia into action. We must now apply the same pressure to the rest of the 49 states and DEMAND PROOF POSITIVE!

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/14/breaking-update-judge-subpoenas-obama-and-multiple-documents/

[osoab]

I was just getting read to post this in the thread with the judge's order.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?paged=4

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/subpoenas-Farrar-v-Obama_0001.jpg


http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/subpoenas-Farrar-v-Obama_0002.jpg

[osoab]

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/subpoenas-Farrar-v-Obama_0003.jpg

[JohnQPublic]

Atty. Van Irion Discusses Georgia Ballot Challenge and the Constitutio (http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/07/atty-van-irion-discusses-georgia-ballot-challenge-and-the-constitution/)n

by Sharon Rondeau
Atty. Van Irion, founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation, is representing a Georgia plaintiff with a ballot challenge against Barack Hussein Obama

(Jan. 7, 2012) — Constitutional attorney Van Irion, who is also founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation, spoke with The Post & Email regarding the ballot challenge he has filed on behalf of his client, David Welden, which claims that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president. The interview was completed one day before Judge Michael Malihi denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski.
Welden had originally filed the challenge pro se and Irion later agreed to represent him. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2012 at the Justice Center Building located at 160 Pryor Street, Atlanta, in courtroom G40. Irion’s case is the first of three cases expected to be heard that day.
On January 3, 2012, Judge Michael Malihi affirmed that Georgia statute 21-2-5(s) gave registered voters standing to challenge the eligibility of a candidate for state or federal office. In response to the judge’s decision, Irion stated on his foundation website, “Hopefully the Georgia court will set the groundwork for victories across the country. If any court rules that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, it will be a major victory and should make international news.“
Irion had also requested that his case be separated from those of Atty. Orly Taitz and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield, which the judge granted. Hatfield, also a Georgia state representative, is acting as counsel to two Georgia voters whose case has received television coverage.
We asked Irion what kind of action he has filed, and he responded: “I represent one person in an administrative action very specific to Georgia state law. We’re actually not going to a civil court. It’s an administrative court specifically set up by Georgia statute, and the entire purpose of the court is to advise the Secretary of State. I’m going to be starting by saying, ‘We recognize that your main purpose for being here is to be able to advise the Secretary of State on the facts and the law.’ Ultimately, regardless of what the court does, either side can appeal to a law court in Georgia, and that’s certainly what’s going to happen regardless of who wins.”
Irion continued:
Liberty Legal got involved after David Welden, who is our client, filed the challenge himself. Georgia law allows for any voter who is qualified to vote for a candidate to challenge the constitutional and statutory qualifications of that particular candidate. He and a handful of others did that. There’s a very short period of time: two weeks after the candidate qualifies with the Secretary of State. He did that, and after that, he contacted me. He based his complaint largely on Liberty Legal’s complaint in our Certification lawsuit in Arizona. He looked at our complaints and used a lot of the same language and citations. He didn’t ask us for our help right off the bat, and he didn’t expect our help, which was important to us, because he did it right, following Georgia code the way it needed to be done; and also, he came to us with a very gracious attitude of “I’m doing this because I think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t expect your help, but if you can, if you’d like to, I wouldn’t mind talking with you about this.” So we ended up having several conversations and at the end of the day, we said, “Hey, I think we can help you.” So that’s how we ended up representing David Welden.
David Welden and Liberty Legal are going first on the 26th. Atty. Orly Taitz will be there representing other plaintiffs, and there are other plaintiffs who may not have attorneys. I hope that we both win.
The reason we are going first and being heard separately is that I plan on calling one witness — my client, David Welden. I plan on asking him three questions; that’s it, we’re done, and making one argument. The presentation of evidence and testimony will take 15 minutes or less. We’ll probably argue the law for quite some time after that, but that’s the whole point. That’s the way I do law: I generally try to find the clearest, easiest-to-understand argument that I can support, and that’s what we present. If it doesn’t work, I rarely argue alternatives. Most lawyers do that habitually; there’s good reason for it; I understand why, but I also think it’s become very ineffective because courts have become numb to multiple alternative arguments.
The Post & Email asked, “What is your argument?”
Here it is: Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, defined “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution as “being born in this country with both parents being U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born.” That’s “natural born Citizen;” that’s the Supreme Court’s definition; it’s never been overturned or challenged or questioned; therefore, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president by his own admission. Here’s the thing: the defense still has not addressed that substantive argument. They throw up all kinds of procedural arguments; they throw up all kinds of interpretations of Georgia code that don’t allow us to get to our argument. But at the end of the day, there’s one thing that’s very simple: Georgia code is very clear such that even if my client doesn’t have standing to raise this, even if no voter has standing, the Secretary of State, according to one specific code, “shall determine the qualifications of the candidate before the election.” It’s one sentence. It does not give them any option to not do it. And they can, at any time before the election, look into those qualifications. So if this court decides that David Welden doesn’t have the ability to raise this because of the procedural arguments brought up by the defendant, this court’s purpose is only to advise the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State absolutely has to address, by law, the substantive qualifications of this candidate. “So even if you find that you have to dismiss our case, you still have to tell the Secretary of State what to do with this argument wherein the Supreme Court has defined the term “natural born Citizen,” and Barack Obama has repeatedly admitted that he doesn’t meet those qualifications. You can’t avoid the substantive issue even if you rule against us on a procedural matter.”
“Is there a way that the judge could declare that having one citizen parent is enough to qualify a person as a ‘natural born Citizen?’”
Let me answer your question with a truism: a judge can do anything he wants. They are the final arbiters of what’s right and wrong. The fact that a higher court can overturn them is always there. It’s also true that that usually doesn’t happen. No matter how many levels of appeal you have, getting a higher court to overturn a lower court is always an unlikely outcome in any appeal. It’s difficult. They do it only when the lower court has made a glaring error or they philosophically completely disagree with the judge who happens to be sitting in the lower court.
The good news is that Judge Michael Malihi was the first judge anywhere to actually issue a subpoena to the Hawaii Department of Health to a) show up and be questioned, and b) have the original written birth certificate with you or a darn good explanation why you don’t, and the microfilm. This is a judge who understands that he has some authority here, and the court has the authority to force documents and witnesses to show up, and he’s doing it. Just that fact made me think, “We might actually get a fair hearing here.”
I was told that the Deputy Attorney General, Jill Nagamine, has said that Hawaii doesn’t have to answer a subpoena from another state.
Oh, that’s hilarious. That violates the Constitution of the United States and is akin to seceding from the nation. If the state of Hawaii does that, the judge has the right to jail them. The way that works is that he writes a contempt order and sends it to the law enforcement of the state of Hawaii, and if they fail, then they’re violating the Constitution and we need to get the federal court in Hawaii involved. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution states “must honor the judgments from courts duly constituted in other states.” They don’t have a choice, and law enforcement must follow the orders of courts from other states. If they don’t, they’re violating their oath. That’s where we’re at now!
“They seem to be going to great lengths to cover up whatever they’re hiding.”
It’s because they’re run by a bunch of liberal Democrats who don’t understand government or authority and think that they’re just the kings of the roost…and they are, unless someone does something about it.
This is what Americans have never understood. If people we have put in places of authority are not willing to follow the letter of the law and break their oath and ignore the law, then we have no nation. It’s just chaos from that point. This is what this represents: with a president sitting there for three years who’s clearly not even qualified to be president. Why are we arguing about the interpretation of the Constitution when the Supreme Court has already ruled on this and we can’t get it enforced! We’re so far beyond absurd that it takes light from “absurd” decades to get here from there!
“What do you think is the first thing Americans need to do to turn around this out-of-control government?”
At the end of the day, the only thing that’s going to change anything is absolute insistence that their representatives follow the Constitution to the letter. You have to start with every member of Congress who has not called for the impeachment of Obama based on his lack of qualifications under the Constitution. Any congressman who has not called for that should be impeached himself. They have failed their duty. Until Americans start calling for that, we really don’t have a government. We’re out here living without a government because it’s basically just whoever has the most people following them with the most guns. That’s what it devolves to and that’s where we’re at now. That’s why you have sheriffs breaking people’s doors down and nobody’s doing anything about it. It’s just chaos.
As far as this hearing goes, if we get a victory, I hope that that would make world news. I would hope that even an administrative court in one state ruling that Obama is not qualified would make world news enough to get people talking about it again. That’s the only reason we’re doing it. We’re doing it so that we can get someone in authority to rule that he’s not constitutionally qualified. Even if at the end of the day, the Supreme Court says, “No, you’re wrong; you’ve misinterpreted Minor v. Happersett, we might not agree with that, but at least then I could go to bed at night knowing that somebody cared! Even if we’re wrong, we’re at least trying to follow the Constitution again. Basically, we’re saying, “The emperor has no clothes; he sure looks naked to me…what do you think?”
———————-
Editor’s Note: On January 6, 2012, a Hawaii judge set a hearing date in Honolulu for January 26 involving Atty. Orly Taitz, who is scheduled to be in Georgia that day presenting a ballot challenge as noted by Atty. Irion.

[mick silver]

wake me up if something comes from this ... i know it all looks good . but have we not all seen this before . money talks and obama has a bank full of it and just as many law men

[madfranks]

wake me up if something comes from this ... i know it all looks good . but have we not all seen this before . money talks and obama has a bank full of it and just as many law men

I tend to agree with you mick. What's stopping the feds from simply ignoring the Georgia court?

[Spectrism]

Sounds like a brave judge.

[iOWNme]

Does this courts ruling have authority over Soetoro's Executive Orders about blocking Presidential records? Interesting....

[midnight rambler]

Awesome!

Good on Orly.

"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." --Calvin Coolidge

[JohnQPublic]

What Obama may do is just not list in Georgia. It is only 16 delegates out of ~2000. The MSM will just say, '...due to technicalities, the Obama campaign is not listed on the Georgia ballot'. Still, this could cause a media firestorm, and with the internet, the truth may come out.

DO NOT GIVE UP.

[iOWNme]

What Obama may do is just not list in Georgia. It is only 16 delegates out of ~2000. The MSM will just say, '...due to technicalities, the Obama campaign is not listed on the Georgia ballot'. Still, this could cause a media firestorm, and with the internet, the truth may come out.

DO NOT GIVE UP.

How does that get him out of this subpoena?

[Neuro]

What Obama needs now is a Major War. With emergency executive powers he is untouchable, and that pesky judge will be indefinitely detained and tortured for threatening national security, without recourse...

How is troup build up in Persian Gulf?

[mightymanx]

It does not really matter He will serve his term he is not any better than the asshat before and probably after. If Ron Paul wins and survives untill inaugration there might be some change. In all reality it will trigger WW3. and we will lose even more freedom.

All is going according to plan

[JohnQPublic]

How does that get him out of this subpoena?

From the article I posted, regarding on e of the suits at least:

"We asked Irion what kind of action he has filed, and he responded: “I represent one person in an administrative action very specific to Georgia state law. We’re actually not going to a civil court. It’s an administrative court specifically set up by Georgia statute, and the entire purpose of the court is to advise the Secretary of State. I’m going to be starting by saying, ‘We recognize that your main purpose for being here is to be able to advise the Secretary of State on the facts and the law.’ Ultimately, regardless of what the court does, either side can appeal to a law court in Georgia, and that’s certainly what’s going to happen regardless of who wins.” "

He may be able to ignore that. Less sure about Orly Taitz' suit, but it may follow the same administrative procedure (especially since he suits are being heard by the same judge on the same day).

[osoab]

What Obama may do is just not list in Georgia. It is only 16 delegates out of ~2000. The MSM will just say, '...due to technicalities, the Obama campaign is not listed on the Georgia ballot'. Still, this could cause a media firestorm, and with the internet, the truth may come out.

DO NOT GIVE UP.

He may have issues in illinois too. Basically, 3k of his 5k signatures were not valid registered voters. I cannot remember the website I heard this morning for the group that is challenging the signatures. I heard it on WLS before 7 am.

http://www.illinoisreview.typepad.com/

GOP presidential candidates face last minute petition objections in Illinois (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/01/gop-presidential-candidates-face-last-minute-petition-objections-in-illinois.html)



SPRINGFIELD - During the final minutes before 5:00 PM at the State Board of Elections Friday, there was an avalanche of objections filed against presidential candidates and their delegates, placing contenders Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum's March 20th GOP primary candidacies in jeopardy. Barack Obama's petitions face two official challenges, as well.
At about 4:35 PM, Romney alternate delegate Sherri Griffith of the 1st CD filed an objection to Santorum's delegate slate in the 1st CD, led by Eric Wallace. Ten of Santorum's delegates filed less than the minimum required number of petition signatures. Subsequently, one by one, Romney delegates or alternates filed objections to Santorum slates in their respective congressional districts.
In return, Santorum's Illinois coordinator Jon Zahm filed objections to Paul, Romney, Perry and Gingrich's petitions. Another objection to Barack Obama's petitions and several other candidates were added, all within the final 30 minutes before the 5:00 PM deadline.
Hearings will be scheduled and held to hear the objectors complaints, and a ruling on each will determine whether or not the opposed candidacies will be upheld.


http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/CandDetail.aspx?CandidateID=17550&ElectionID=32

[JohnQPublic]

He may have issues in illinois too. Basically, 3k of his 5k signatures were not valid registered voters. I cannot remember the website I heard this morning for the group that is challenging the signatures. I heard it on WLS before 7 am.

...


http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/CandDetail.aspx?CandidateID=17550&ElectionID=32

And we thought Michael Jackson was dead! (http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/ObjectionDetail.aspx?ObjectionID=1230&ElectionID=32)

GENERAL PRIMARY - 3/20/2012

JACKSON V OBAMA
1/13/2012 10:46 AM
PENDING


Objectors Address
JACKSON, MICHAEL
100 CAROLINE STREET
MORTON, IL 61550


NameOffice/PartyStatus
OBAMA, BARACK
(Obj. Pending) (http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/CandDetail.aspx?CandidateID=17550&ElectionID=32)
5046 S. GREENWOOD AVE.
CHICAGO, IL 60615PRESIDENT
(http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/CandList.aspx?SearchType=OfficeID&ElectionID=32&OfficeID=5881&OrderBy=ORDER%20BY%20OfficeBallotGroup,%20OfficeSe quence,%20PartySequence,%20FileDateTime,%20vwCandi dates.Sequence,%20LotteryLastName,%20LotteryFirstN ame)DEMOCRATICActive
1/6/2012 8:35 AM

[osoab]

Here is the podcast I heard this morning.

Chris Cleveland of The Chicago Objectors joins Don & Roma

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2373245&spid=17424

Chris Cleveland, Republican Committeeman of the 43rd Ward, joins Don & Roma. Who are The Chicago Objectors? What was wrong with Obama's petition signatures? What does it mean for Obama if The Chicago Objectors (http://www.wlsam.com/goout.asp?u=http://theobjectors.wordpress.com/) knock him off the primary ballot?

[JohnQPublic]

The Rejection of Obama's dismissa (http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html)l:

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/9fjcyp0k741booot/images/1-8e35cef6e4.jpg


http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/9fjcyp0k741booot/images/2-21a7d27572.jpg

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/9fjcyp0k741booot/images/3-e7f41b2d94.jpg





http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9fjcyp0k741booot/images/4-7a7288b689.jpg

[JohnQPublic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GexC4HiWInQ

[midnight rambler]

Queen Jezebel 2012!!!

[EE_]

http://www.fuentek.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/images/DeadEndAheadSign-Cropped_iStock_000006595942XSmall.jpg

[Golden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSrIeTU8Ck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaSrIeTU8Ck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ

SIGH

[MNeagle]

ATLANTA (AP) -
A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing

**Comment section is a good read too**

[palani]

ATLANTA (AP) - A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta

Don't you think he would have much better success if he didn't address him as "President" prior to the determination of his ability to fill the office?

It is the same as your relationship with a presumed police officer. The moment you address him as "officer" you have acknowledged his position. So you don't address him as "officer". You ask for identification that proves him to have authority in the plane of the constitutional state. Rarely will you find a coppiceman who carries a copy of his oath and bond with him. I doubt if you will even find any with an oath and bond of any kind.

[Glass]

For anyone who thinks is putting the president out of his way to do this, your wrong, and I'm sure he would agree. It's a privledge to run for president. Our President has traveled the globe to have a beer with the irish, dance with people in India, Brazil, France, accept nobel peace prize in Norway, aids tests in Kenya. Going to Georgia to respect Georgia law and it's citizens and our constitution is an opportunity he will not pass up. He is very patriotic and loves the people of Georgia and our American constitution. Since getting elected he started wearing the American flag. Now that's an American hero.

from the comments section CBS Atlanta (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing)

note: its the same page from MNeagles post

[MAGNES]

.

SAVE THIS COURT ORDER
http://wtpotus.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ga-summons-soetoro-ballot-challenge.jpg


http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/obama-romney.jpg?w=588


JUDGE SUBPOENAS OBAMA
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/14/breaking-update-judge-subpoenas-obama-and-multiple-documents/


Romney Presidential Eligibility Unconfirmed: Murdered Polygamist Parley P. Pratt Is Great-Great Grandparent To Both Jon Huntsman & Mitt Romney. (http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/08/breaking-mitt-romney-not-fit-romney-not-natural-born-to-be-u-s-president/)


UPDATE – JUDGE SUBPOENAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena) OBAMA AND MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS

[JohnQPublic]

In the news again:


http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6660973

Georgia judge orders Obama to appear in court for hearing on attempt to keep him off ballot (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/georgia-judge-orders-obama-to-appear-in-court-for-hearing-on-attempt-to-keep-him-off-ballot/2012/01/20/gIQAsayeEQ_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop)

[osoab]

In the news again:

Georgia judge orders Obama to appear in court for hearing on attempt to keep him off ballot (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/georgia-judge-orders-obama-to-appear-in-court-for-hearing-on-attempt-to-keep-him-off-ballot/2012/01/20/gIQAsayeEQ_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop)

What a weird piece.



ATLANTA — A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.

It’s one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama’s name off the state’s ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.


Why would you quote an anonymous campaign aid?

The comments will make your head explode for the most part. :(

[JohnQPublic]

AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/)



I have not read it yet. It's around 54 pages.

[Ponce]

If he is proven not to be a US citizen then ALL LAWS, including declaration of war on other countries, made and or signed by him should be thrown out.........as far as I am concern all that would be the fruits of a rotten tree.

Only post of the day.........good morning to one and all.

[Cebu_4_2]

Watch for updates this Thursday.

[JohnQPublic]

If he is proven not to be a US citizen then ALL LAWS, including declaration of war on other countries, made and or signed by him should be thrown out.........as far as I am concern all that would be the fruits of a rotten tree.

Only post of the day.........good morning to one and all.

Morning, Ponce!

Interestingly, there has been no declaration of war from the US since WWII. This is one of Ron Paul's big points. I agree on the idea though. What a mess it could be.

[jbeck57143]

Obama could show up with no documents and it wouldn't matter; remember--it's the fact that he was a dual citizen at birth that automatically disqualifies him--that's what Taitz needs to bring up. (Of course proof that he was born in Kenya would be nice to have too, it's just not absolutely necessary for challenging Obama's eligibility). So all legislation signed by him really does have to be thrown out. In fact, since he's not the President, he hasn't signed any legislation into law.

This is the situation that's existed ever since Obama was "sworn in":
(This is from Edwin Vieira's article at:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm)

"Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people."

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking."

Here's another article by Edwin:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

[JohnQPublic]

jbeck

"...it's the fact that he was a dual citizen at birth that automatically disqualifies him..."

If you look at the Leo Donofrio brief (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?58336-Ga.-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing&p=510285&viewfull=1#post510285), this is his contention. He lays out a legal theory for this contention.

[Glass]

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people."


This is good except it does not take "some other public officials" to have him arrested. Any one can have him arrested. You call the Sheriff. You issue the Sheriff with a Warrant. You present the Sheriff with an indemnity bond. He goes and does his thing. Anyone can do it. You don't have to charge a public official other than the Sheriff with the job. Would it be easy? Probably not BUT if enough state Sheriffs are in receipt of a warrant for his arrest from a state resident then he won't be able to move outside of DC.

Do you see what I am saying. It's a game of chess. If you block his moves then he can't (move). He would have to stay in DC or go "out of" the USA.

Same as bush, cheney, blair and all those f'wits. So many places those guys cannot travel to now because of the warrants outstanding on them.

[JohnQPublic]

Obama and his attorney are acting like frightened 5 year olds (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30746)



January 25, 2012 Hon. Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
via email to Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq.
(vrusso@sos.ga.gov)
Re: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Secretary Kemp:

This is to advise you of serious problems that have developed in the conduct of the hearings pending before the Office of State Administrative Hearings. At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements. As you know, such allegations have been the subject of numerous judicial proceedings around the country, all of which have concluded that they were baseless and, in some instances – including in the State of Georgia - that those bringing the challenges have engaged in sanctionable abuse of our legal process.
Nonetheless, the Administrative Law Judge has exercised no control whatsoever over this proceeding, and it threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the State and your Office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the President in his capacity as a candidate. Only last week, he denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena he approved on the request of plaintiff’s counsel for the personal appearance of the President at the hearing, now scheduled for January 26.
For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.
It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here—a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The State of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the President made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website. “Under the United States Constitution, a public record of a state is required to be given ‘full faith and credit’ by all other states in the country. Even if a state were to require its election officials for the first time ever to receive a ‘birth certificate’ as a requirement for a federal candidate’s ballot placement, a document certified by another state, such as a ‘short form’ birth certificate, or the certified long form, would be required to be accepted by all states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the United States Constitution.” Maskell, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement,” Congressional Research Service (November 14, 2011), p.41.
Nonetheless, the ALJ has decided, for whatever reason, to lend assistance through his office—and by extension, yours—to the political and legally groundless tactics of the plaintiffs. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has downloaded form subpoenas which she tried to serve around the country. Plaintiff’s attorney sent subpoenas seeking to force attendance by an office machine salesman in Seattle; seeking to force the United States Attorney to bring an unnamed “Custodian of Records Department of Homeland Security” to attend the hearing with immunization records; and asking the same U.S. Attorney to bring the same records allegedly possessed by “Custodian of Records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.” She served subpoenas attempting to compel the production of documents and the attendance of Susan Daniels and John Daniels, both apparently out of state witnesses, regarding Social Security records. She is seeking to compel the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii to bring to Atlanta the “original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 08.08.1961 by Dr. David Sinclair…,” even though Hawaii courts had dismissed with prejudice the last attempt to force release of confidential records on November 9, 2011. Taitz v. Fuddy, CA No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN.
In Rhodes v. McDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1365 (USDC MD GA, 2009), Judge Clay Land wrote this of plaintiff’s attorney:
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law….
As a national leader in the so-called ‘birther movement,’ Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to use litigation to provide the ‘legal foundation’ for her political agenda. She seeks to use the Court’s power to compel discovery in her efforts force the President to produce a ‘birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to herself and her followers.” 670 F. Supp. 2d at 1366.
All issues were presented to your hearing officer—the clear-cut decision to be on the merits, and the flagrantly unethical and unprofessional conduct of counsel—and he has allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to run amok. He has not even addressed these issues—choosing to ignore them. Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office—that it address constitutional issues—is by law not within its authority. See, for example, Flint River Mills v. Henry, 234 Ga. 385, 216 S.E.2d 895 (1975); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.22(3).
The Secretary of State should withdraw the hearing request as being improvidently issued. A referring agency may withdraw the request at any time. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.17(1). Indeed, regardless of the collapse of proceedings before the ALJ, the original hearing request was defective as a matter of law. Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S (Superior Court Fulton County, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. S09D0284 (Ga. Supreme Court), reconsideration denied, No. S09A1373. (“The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified.”) Similarly, no law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Your duty is determined by the statutory requirement that the Executive Committee of a political party name presidential preference primary candidates. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193. Consequently, the attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.
We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.

Very truly yours,
MICHAEL JABLONSKI
Georgia State Bar Number 385850
Attorney for President Barack Obama
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)
Vincent R. Russo Jr., Esq. (vrusso@sos.ga.gov)
Stefan Ritter, Esq. (sritter@law.ga.gov)
Ann Brumbaugh, Esq. (abrumbaugh@law.ga.gov)
Darcy Coty, Esq. (darcy.coty@usdoj.gov)
Andrew B. Flake, Esq. (andrew.flake@agg.com)

[vacuum]

Interesting. They're trying to avoid showing up in court by sending out a counter-offer 24 hours in advance.

[JohnQPublic]

Live coverage of the 2012 Obama eligibility hearings set for January 26 (http://www.examiner.com/paulding-county-republican-in-atlanta/live-coverage-of-the-2012-obama-eligibility-hearings-set-for-january-26)



"...For live video coverage from the hearings, it will be presented here (http://www.art2superpac.com/) beginning at 9am eastern time.
These proceedings could lead to the removal of the incumbent from the Georgia ballot, which would raise questions nationwide. This would be the first time that these issues and related evidence are deliberated in open court..

[osoab]

Live coverage of the 2012 Obama eligibility hearings set for January 26 (http://www.examiner.com/paulding-county-republican-in-atlanta/live-coverage-of-the-2012-obama-eligibility-hearings-set-for-january-26)



"...For live video coverage from the hearings, it will be presented here (http://www.art2superpac.com/) beginning at 9am eastern time.
These proceedings could lead to the removal of the incumbent from the Georgia ballot, which would raise questions nationwide. This would be the first time that these issues and related evidence are deliberated in open court..


have to remember to bump this in the morning

[JohnQPublic]

have to remember to bump this in the morning

If bummer does not show up, it will be pretty boring. I suspect he will not (after all he'z playing prezident, and he'z kinda buzy).

If he does not show up, he may not get on the ballot in Georgia.

[JDRock]

isnt georgia melonheads home state? jus sayin...

[Ares]

Obama's Attorney Jablonski Slapped Down
By Georgia SOS Over Obama's Ballot Access Hearing

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
Georgia Secretary of State

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-attorney-jablonski-slapped-down.html

[Glass]

Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision;

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-attorney-jablonski-slapped-down.html

That bit's gold to me. Talking in court gets you know where if you don't have what you are talking about IN THE JUDGES RECORD. that is the Judges case file. If it is not in there then you can blab to your hearts content but it won't do you no good.

[JohnQPublic]

Getting interesting. Maybe we have a Sec of State in Georgia with cojones. Obama may forfeit Georgia (not a big deal in itself considernig he is currently the only candidate, but could lead to some interesting news stories at minimum).

[JohnQPublic]

Repost/bump:

Live coverage of the 2012 Obama eligibility hearings set for January 26 (http://www.examiner.com/paulding-county-republican-in-atlanta/live-coverage-of-the-2012-obama-eligibility-hearings-set-for-january-26)



"...For live video coverage from the hearings, it will be presented here (http://www.art2superpac.com/) beginning at 9am eastern time.
These proceedings could lead to the removal of the incumbent from the Georgia ballot, which would raise questions nationwide. This would be the first time that these issues and related evidence are deliberated in open court..

[JohnQPublic]

Live video is no. Folks are assemblin'

http://www.art2superpac.com/

I don't think the guest of honor is going to show.

[ArgenteumTelum]

Stream is up and running...judge just called plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys into private chambers.....everyone's just waiting until we know what that was about.
Update: Interesting...lots of white hair in the audience

[osoab]

They are talking.

Audio sucks

[General of Darkness]

Frankly I'm amazed to SEE this happening.

[General of Darkness]

The audio is fucking horrible

Well I have to get to work.

[JohnQPublic]

I tried to get on at ~6, couldn't connect. I'll have to wait for the YouTube version.

[chad]

the kenyan has demonstrated time & time again that he is above the law. i wouldn't put oo much stock in anything coming of this.

[osoab]

I tried to get on at ~6, couldn't connect. I'll have to wait for the YouTube version.

I stopped listening about the time GoD did. It hurts just listening to the crappy audio.

Trying to get back on now.

[jimswift]

the kenyan has demonstrated time & time again that he is above the law.

This is a sad sorry state that this country has ended up in.

Financiers have placed an unknown foreigner actor as the leader of the nation and everybody looks the other way as if it's not happening.

[osoab]

We have to wait till February 5th.

Maybe he is trying to add some spice to black history month? ;D

Judge Considers Whether to Keep Obama on Ballot (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/local_news/Judge-Considers-Whether-to-Keep-Obama-on-Ballot-20120126-ap-sd)

ATLANTA - A controversial court hearing has wrapped up in downtown Atlanta. Three different groups were suing to get President Barack Obama off the primary ballot in Georgia -- claiming he's not a natural-born citizen.

One of the groups present tried to kick President Obama off the ballot, even going as far as sending him a subpoena – ordering him to be in court on Thursday.

President Obama and his lawyer did not show up. That meant the defense table in front of Judge Michael Malihi was empty.

The argument he heard was that since one of President Obama's parents -- his father – was not a legal citizen, the president does not fit the court defined definition of a natural born citizen.

In a letter sent to the Georgia Secretary of State trying to get the case thrown out, the President's lawyer said there's no legitimate issue. He says the state of Hawaii has produced an official record of President Obama's birth. But witnesses in court say that document is a Photoshop fraud.

They produced evidence they say shows the President's social security number is also a fake and actually belongs to someone born in 1890.

Boycotting the hearing, the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia, Mike Berlon, said in a statement that "it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country. In light of these developments, the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases."

Judge Mahili has deferred making a decision until February 5 when another hearing will take place.

Georgia's primary is March 6.

So for now, President Obama's name remains on the ballot and that Democrats can vote for him.

[chad]

uh, if the defense table is empty, doesn't that mean you automatically lose? what do you get 8 chances or something?

[midnight rambler]

uh, if the defense table is empty, doesn't that mean you automatically lose? what do you get 8 chances or something?

Silence is acceptance...unless of course your puppetmasters have placed you above the law.

[Spectrism]

ANy delay like this means the goons talk to the judge and the judge sees the light. Case dismissed.

[Ares]

Update: Obama's Georgia Ballot Hearing: Judge Wanted To
Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama
Dean Haskins on the Scene at Hearing

As we are trying to get a quick lunch, and then do some interviews, this is just a very brief synopsis of what happened today. Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. At that point, Irion estimated he would need 20 minutes, Hatfield estimated he would need 30 minutes, and Taitz estimated she would need 2 hours.

Van Irion and Mark Hatfield made their arguments, and left. Taitz then presented her argument, calling several witnesses, until the judge asked her to make her closing statement. As her closing statement began, the judge asked if she was testifying, and, in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand to testify. The judge finally asked her just to make her closing statement, which she did.

We believe that the default judgment automatically translates into the judge's recommendation to the Sec. Of State being that Obama should not appear on the ballot in Georgia.

Back to work . . . more to come!

UPDATE: From Plaintiff, in one of the Georgia challenges, Carl Swensson: To all my friends in battle,

The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.

Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment. - Carl

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html

[jetgraphics]

Highlights from the hearing:
http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Articles/tabid/1387/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6697/OBAMA-ELIGIBILITY-COURT-CASEBLOW-BY-BLOW.aspx

[Neuro]

By not answering the subpoena to attend isn't Obama in contempt of court, iow he doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the court?

[Spectrism]

By not answering the subpoena to attend isn't Obama in contempt of court, iow he doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the court?

Since the fictional person does not exist, they may just wave it off. Part of his scheme might be that he is undefined as who or what he is. If they cannot put an accurate name on you, they cannot call you into court.

[madfranks]

Highlights from the hearing:
http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Articles/tabid/1387/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6697/OBAMA-ELIGIBILITY-COURT-CASEBLOW-BY-BLOW.aspx

Jetgraphics man, where ya been? I was wondering if you would show up around here again. 8)

[jimswift]

Jetgraphics man, where ya been? I was wondering if you would show up around here again. 8)

yeah.

[sirgonzo420]

Glad to see jetgraphics still around!

[DMac]

Highlights from the hearing:
http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Articles/tabid/1387/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6697/OBAMA-ELIGIBILITY-COURT-CASEBLOW-BY-BLOW.aspx

He lives!

[mick silver]

why would he have to show up ... did they use his brith name are the name he use here to run for office ?

[StreetsOfGold]

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.


Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

[Glass]

Right at the end it says


What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

I've read elsewhere that the Judge was going to rule "Default Judgement". The most favoured words of a redemptionist/sovereignist.

Unfortunately that judge is living on borrowed time now. He/She has a week to get the judgement on the record.

[StreetsOfGold]

http://bcove.me/0rqq5jgt

[iOWNme]

You gotta love this.....


Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

This is going to get very interesting. Heart attack? Car accident? Slip and fall?

[Neuro]

You gotta love this.....



This is going to get very interesting. Heart attack? Car accident? Slip and fall?Driven insane by mind altering drugs. Finally a high profile use for the CIA research into LSD in the 50-60's...

[General of Darkness]

Georgia democrats face dilemma as Obama may be kept off Georgia's ballot


http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/a6/ad/a6ad90b80811d82fcbf0220ec3b169d6.JPG (http://www.examiner.com/republican-in-atlanta/aprill-shines)Aprill Shines (http://www.examiner.com/republican-in-atlanta/aprill-shines)
Cobb County Republican Examiner
+ Subscribe (http://www.examiner.com/user/2526251/1931216/subscribe?render=overlay)




247



26




1



0

Submit

0

reddit

Print (http://www.examiner.com/republican-in-atlanta/georgia-democrats-face-dilema-as-obama-may-be-kept-off-georgia-s-ballot?render=print#print)
Email (http://www.examiner.com/node/42161406/forward?render=overlay)


President Barack Obama's Georgia supporters may be disappointed come election day. Five men challenged (http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/obamas-inclusion-on-georgia-1262319.html) Obama's eligibility to be a presidential candidate on the Georgia ballot arguing he is not a "natural-born citizen." This has been the stance of those now called "birthers" since former democratic presidential candidate and now secretary of the state, Hillary Clinton, brought forth the issue (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html) in 2008. Former Congressman and current Georgia Governor, republican Nathan Deal, was notably outspoken in questioning Obama's birth eligibility. December 10, 2009, a letter (http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/01/08/white-house-confirms-receipt-of-nathan-deal-letter-questioning-birthplace-of-barack-obama/) arrived at the White House impugning Obama's eligibility to be president. GOP Presidential teaser Donald Trump also jumped on the birther bandwagon in 2011. When Obama finally produced a birth certificate, many thought this case was closed.
David Weldon (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/certification-class-action/georgia-ballot-challenge/), Kevin Powell and Carl Swinson (http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/obamas-inclusion-on-georgia-1262319.html) are a few of the plaintiffs who, with the help of The Liberty Legal Foundation (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1477/georgia-court-ruled-against-obama/), have successfully challenged (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Welden_GA_Complaint.pdf) Obama's eligibility. In response, Obama filed a motion to dismiss (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Welden-OSAH-CE-121537-60-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf) the complaint. This motion was challenged (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Welden-GA-Opp.-Mtn.-Dismiss-1.4.pdf) by The Liberty Legal Foundation. The motion to dismiss was denied (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Order-Denying-Ds-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf) by Judge Malihi . All parties are ordered to appear in Federal Court on January 26th at 9 am.
Advertisement

The Liberty Legal Foundation states (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/certification-class-action/georgia-ballot-challenge/) this is a bold step because "this ruling ensures that the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed on procedural grounds."
The ramifications of this court possibly ruling against Obama and keeping him of the Georgia ballot would be significant. For Georgia's democratic candidates, it may leave them stranded. Voter apathy may increase and turn the democratic base completely off from the election process. Voter turn-out is crucial for democratic candidates. No democrat holds state office in Georgia thanks to the November 2010 election cycle. The only democratic voices left are those incumbent members of the Georgia General Assembly and a few democratic members of The House of Representatives. After reapportionment and redistricting, the possiblilty of white democratic representation in the state became almost nil. This could be the final blow that helps make the last few white democrats extinct.
In non-presidential elections, voting in democratic districts tends to be low and abysmal. Voter turn-out is higher in presidential elections than in non-presidential election cycles. For straight-down-the-ballot voters, who leads the ticket matters. If voters believe they are not able to vote for their presidential candidate, they may not show up to the polls. This would improve the chances of an already republican strong-hold becoming a republican superpower.
Although Obama certainly does not need Georgia to be re-elected, not having an incumbent president on the election ballot may give democrats the rallying cry they have been hoping for to galvanize support and overtake local, state and congressional majorities. Calls of disenfranchisement and discrimination could unite supporters, revive seemingly dead leadership and increase democratic presence in state and local legislature.
The hearing is open to the public. The location is the Justice Center Building, 160 Pryor St, Atlanta, GA Courtroom G40 on the ground floor.

[JohnQPublic]

...arguing he is not a "natural-born citizen." This has been the stance of those now called "birthers" since former democratic presidential candidate and now secretary of the state, Hillary Clinton, brought forth the issue (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html) in 2008. ...

At least they got the origin correct. It is not just those evil republicans to blame for this.

[Glass]

Is there anyone here who is in Atlanta? Got some time free in a couple days to go along and show support?

[Twisted Titan]

If that judge wants to collect his federal judicial pension( didn't know that judges have their own union did you?) this black robe terrorist is going to recuse himself when the moment of truth.comes.

[beefsteak]

Found on Skype this morning:



[1/27/2012 7:46:09 AM] POSTED IN A SEPARATE ROOM on 1/26/2012 5:24:01 PM

EXCLUSIVE! BREAKING NEWS!...JUDGE WILL ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OBAMA...
OBAMA JUST GOT PUNKED!

I just got off the phone with Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot! All of the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed.

How does the mainstream media spin this?

The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge's recommendation. That means that Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia!

Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2012/01/exclusive-breaking-newsjudge-will-enter.html

[Neuro]

Does this also mean that Georgia have ruled that Obama doesn't fulfill the requirements to be president of USA? Logically this must be the conclusion IMO, but I don't know how the judgement is interpreted in legalese...

It is very interesting that Obama preferred this outcome instead of disputing the charges and setting the records straight with the correct documents.

The war on Iran is inching closer, that would create the necessary distraction, for all to forget this...

[vacuum]

Why didn't Obama's legal team just produce the necessary documents? Makes zero sense, unless he's guilty.

[JohnQPublic]

A Rat Called Tandem. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/)

What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=100569) as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.
Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in depth exposure (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html) of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.
I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/), The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Order-Denying-Ds-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf) denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.
But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marhsall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=753#758)(1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=185&invol=83#87)-89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=308&invol=188#198)(1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
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 (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Order-Denying-Ds-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf) 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.’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.

[mick silver]

repeat after ME ............... nothing will come of THIS

[Neuro]

A Rat Called Tandem. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/)

What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=100569) as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds,
standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.
Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in depth exposure (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html) of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.
I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/), The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Order-Denying-Ds-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf) denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.
But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marhsall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=753#758)(1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=185&invol=83#87)-89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188,
198 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=308&invol=188#198)(1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
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 (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Order-Denying-Ds-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf) 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.’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.

So the not so honorable judge decided to save both his and probably Obamas skin, by this 'interpretation' of the constitution?

[JDRock]

a picture of your daughter with a knife to her throat will usually be sufficient reason to act "constitutionally" ( sarcasm)

[Glass]

So the not so honorable judge decided to save both his and probably Obamas skin, by this 'interpretation' of the constitution?

I wouldn't read it that way. I'd call it a vile twisting of what went on and making a comparison between things that are apples and oranges. He is comparing the constitution with the statutes as being at the same level. They are not. Statutes abhorent to the Constitution are null. He also seems to be claiming the 14th amendement is a statute. I don't think it is.

What his argument does point out between the lines is that the President is not a Constitutional President. I think that's the admission here and this is why they are trying to make the 14th to be a statute. Just my reading of it.

[midnight rambler]

If this judge relied upon the so-called 14th amendment he was relying on something which is null and void as it was NEVER lawfully ratified* per Art. V of the Constitution.

And the party at fault in this matter is 'the people' who allow swine like this to lie to them unchecked.

*an historical fact which cannot be altered

[Neuro]

I wouldn't read it that way. I'd call it a vile twisting of what went on and making a comparison between things that are apples and oranges. He is comparing the constitution with the statutes as being at the same level. They are not. Statutes abhorent to the Constitution are null. He also seems to be claiming the 14th amendement is a statute. I don't think it is.

What his argument does point out between the lines is that the President is not a Constitutional President. I think that's the admission here and this is why they are trying to make the 14th to be a statute. Just my reading of it.
Well that is pretty much what I read into it as well. However the result is that this vague judgement could be easily be tweaked to mean nothing and status quo is maintained...
And it opens the road to more unconstitutional presidents, especially if the legislative arm doesn't deal with the current Usurper... IOW this vague judgement establishes that Obama doesn't fulfill the constitutional requirements of the president being a natural born citizen. But the 14th amendment, which doesn't deal with this issue, has been interpreted to do so... (apart from the fact that the 14th amendment wasn't ratified).

[Buddha]

I'm repeating after Mick, nothing will come of this.

[JohnQPublic]

So the not so honorable judge decided to save both his and probably Obamas skin, by this 'interpretation' of the constitution?

I'm thinking more of a double zinnger:

1. Trip up Obama a bit
2. Clear any issues with Mitt Romney's potential natural born citizen situation (http://usa-wethepeople.com/2011/10/mitt-romney-barack-obama-vs-natural-born-citizenship-and-the-constitution/)

(not to mention, 3. save his ass from being suicided)

[Cebu_4_2]

if Mitts not a citizen that could be why the others are lingering in there?

[JohnQPublic]

if Mitts not a citizen that could be why the others are lingering in there?

Mitt is a citizen, the question is, is he a natural born citizen? Probably a lot less complicated case than Obama, but still some reasonable questions.

But, yes, good observation.

[JohnQPublic]

Here is Leo's latest article. It is interesting, but the most interesting part is that Google appears to be currently involved in scrubbing information.

The Mr. Binney Funeral Humiliates The Reputation Of The United States Supreme Court. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/the-mr-binney-funeral-humiliates-the-reputation-of-the-united-states-supreme-court/)



"...Besides Justice Gray’s infamous misleading quote from Binney appearing on pg. 666 of the Wong Kim Ark opinion, spookier anomalies have popped up throughout my research of the natural-born citizen issue. Of course, JustiaGate (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/) takes the prize and sets the standard for this kind of freaky malevolence. But just now it happened again with regard to the passage just quoted from the Great American Lawyers text. I downloaded the book from Google Books about eight weeks ago. And it’s to that downloaded copy which I have provided a link to above. The text is in the public domain and therefore, as of eight weeks ago, the entire book was available as a preview, and as a download from this link. (http://books.google.com/books?id=dAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22the+argument+for+the+appellee+in+that+case+a +paper+of+remarkable+ability%22&source=bl&ots=AwOxcSrnHQ&sig=PoNbC3bT5K65ddZo5qW7e1YO994&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GkAxT7ueCIr30gGk89nCBw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20argument%20for%20the%20appellee%20in%20 that%20case%20a%20paper%20of%20remarkable%20abilit y%22&f=false)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=dAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22the+argument+for+the+appellee+in+that+case+a +paper+of+remarkable+ability%22&source=bl&ots=AwOxcSrnHQ&sig=PoNbC3bT5K65ddZo5qW7e1YO994&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GkAxT7ueCIr30gGk89nCBw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20argument%20for%20the%20appellee%20in%20 that%20case%20a%20paper%20of%20remarkable%20abilit y%22&f=false)
Well, it’s a good thing I downloaded it then, because as of today, Google has Justiafied the text, so that pg. 170 has been clipped from both the preview, and the downloadable version. The part about Justice Gray having the Binney paper in his private library has been scrubbed by Google as of today. Download the Google copy (http://books.google.com/books?id=dAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22the+argument+for+the+appellee+in+that+case+a +paper+of+remarkable+ability%22&source=bl&ots=AwOxcSrnHQ&sig=PoNbC3bT5K65ddZo5qW7e1YO994&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GkAxT7ueCIr30gGk89nCBw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20argument%20for%20the%20appellee%20in%20 that%20case%20a%20paper%20of%20remarkable%20abilit y%22&f=false) and compare it to the copy available here (http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gray-bio.pdf) at my blog. They do not match. And this development has taken place recently, since I downloaded the full copy from Google Books just a few weeks ago. What a freak show, America. Raise the lights, dim the Twilight Zone theme, and let’s get down to business..."

[JDRock]

its the georgia JUDGE here that needs to be called into ?....try researching him...bwaahaha he doesnt exist! his record? missing his past? same...the closest onre can find is by changing his name back to the middle eastern origin it really is.....check it out on rense.

[Neuro]

its the georgia JUDGE here that needs to be called into ?....try researching him...bwaahaha he doesnt exist! his record? missing his past? same...the closest onre can find is by changing his name back to the middle eastern origin it really is.....check it out on rense.

The department of truth at work? Erasing evidence that the trial took place even? I wouldn't have thought this was possible as close as a year ago, now anything is possible. ANYTHING!