Make This The Year of Denial - REMOVE OBAMA 2012 (via the Courts)

[updated 01/06/2012]

 


 The answer to overcoming the Dictator to be, legally and peacefully, is by advancement and legitimization through the Courts. 

Unlike the previous cases of representation, Georgia's Election Law requires upon challenge that Obama prove his claim upon the Presidency.  Without a US Citizen Father, and without legitimate birth documents to submit into Court Record, this case allows the merits to be heard on legal standing where it follows the US Constitution
 "No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

and Georgia's Election Law in effect, mirrors or appears to mirror  the same requirement by the US Supreme Court as stated by the Court in Bute v. Illinois 333 US 640 @ 653:

 "The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States,or the prohibition of power to the States ,is upon those making the claim."

The Presidency is an Office and Position where anyone who legally aspires to be elected to the Office or occupies the Office, must by means of Constitutional Language, conform to proving they possess a Natural Born Citizen qualification or be expected by the Constitution (in its language) to be removed from Office. 

After more than 3 years, a case where standing has now been put forth as present by a plaintiff v. Obama in writing by a Judge has been obtained.  There hasn't been dismissal on merits of a case that Obama isn't Constitutional, it has always been an issue of having legal standing.  In Georgia, MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge,  has granted that standing exists.  A Legal standing by Plaintiffs challenging Obama that will finally allow the issue to move forward in a Court of Law (where it should have been back in 2008).

 http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama-Motion-to-Dismiss-by-Obama-is-Denied-GeorgiaBallotAccessChallenge.pdf


 OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF GEORGIA

 DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY

JUDY, THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE

ROTH,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK OBAMA,

Defendant

 Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI

 Counsel for Plaintiffs: Orly Taitz

 Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski

[ Et AL. -- other attached cases omitted, available at above link]

....

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

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

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 1

I. Discussion

1.  The Georgia Election Code (the "Code") mandates that "[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

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

3. The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that "[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." O.C.G.A. § 21-

2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political 1 Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied, in the interest of efficiency, the Court finds it unnecessary to wait for the Plaintiffs' responses before denying the motion.

Page 2 of 4

party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama's name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential candidate's qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

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

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

6. Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that "every candidate for federal and state office" must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.  O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word "candidate" is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference 

Page 3 of 4

primary "shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added).  Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

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

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

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

Page 4 of 4 

 

In this case, the attorney representing Barack Hussein Obama argued unsuccessfully that no one has the right to challenge the Democratic National Committee (DNC)  from disqualifying or vetting a candidate they put forth, and virtually stipulated to  a legal fact of a public and private conscious knowledge that the same candidate is NOT Constitutionally qualified to run for office, arguing as if Obama is  ABOVE THE LAW, and that Obama is above question or challenge.  Based on what?  The First Amendment of the very Constitution that Obama and his lawyer seeks to deny anyone who opposes Obama.  

The ff. is the Scribd copy of the argument that the Judge. MICHAEL M. MALIHI, denied.

Farrar et. al., v. Obama et. al., - Motion to Dismiss - 12/6/2011What the attorney for Barack Obama argued for was a de facto and de jure "selective amnesia of the Law".

    Again, in regards to those who occupy or would occupy the Presidency of the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that:

                'The burden of establishing a delegation of power
             to the United States,
             or the prohibition of power to the States,
             is upon those making the claim.'    
                   333 U.S. 640 (1948) @653  Bute v. Illinois


Who is it that must establish that proof of being able to delegate power or to claim power to prohibit power of the States on behalf of the Federal Government?  The putative President.  Not those who challenge his credentials, but those who claim the privilege of being President must be able to have legal provability that they are Constitutionally qualified when challenged.  The burden of proof is upon Obama and his lawyers to show in a Court of Law that Obama measures up to the US Constitution's definition of qualification.  He has NEVER done so in Court.  NOT EVEN ONCE.

On the End-notes of pages 8,9,10, the attorney for Obama lists dozens of Federal and State cases that have been dismissed when challenging Obama's citizenship.  Not one was dismissed for the challenge of  getting their facts about Obama wrong:  instead, , they were all dismissed on the particular or in direct relation to the Plaintiff(s) suing Obama having a lack of Article III personal injury "standing" to sue.  One problem:  Article III standing as it regards the qualification of whether one is or is not fit to be in the Office of President, is subservient to the US Constitution.  If it does not conform to and support US Constitutional Intent, it does NOT apply.   


The putative President needs to only one time submit his credentials into the Court Record against a challenge. For someone who is supposed to be vetted for the Presidency, it is an easy thing to prove.

1) US Soil or US Sovereignty Hospital Records, -- Obama failed to provide.
 
2) Documented eyewitnesses to the Birth which includes the mother and one or more others present (usually a physician who delivered the Baby),  -- Obama failed to provide
 
3) A clear knowledge that both his parents were US Citizens at the time of his birth,
 
4) That he has no foreign nationalities at birth, -- Obama failed to provide
 
5) That from birth to age 21 he was exclusively a United States Citizen and assumed no foreign nationalities as his primary citizenship (there was no formal denouncement and no formal naturalization to a foreign power) -- Obama failed to provide. 
 

We might also wish to include a demand that  he has secondary identity documentation such as his own valid Social Security Number.    --  Obama not only fails to provide...but as of 2010, he still used a Identity Theft Stolen Connecticut issued Social Security Number attached to a person with a birthday in 1890 as his Tax Identification Number!  Obama's Identity Fraud is as easily seen as simply seeing how he failed to pass the E-Verify upon the Social Security Number he used on his 2009 IRS Tax Forms and signed by his own hand under penalty of perjury!
Ha!
 http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/09/obama-2010-tax-filing-uses-identity.html

 
What matters in all of this, is that Obama cannot and will not stipulates to a subpoena served by the Court (even if the records were served and viewed exclusively by the Court -- in camera), and has spent well above 2.5 million of his political monies, plus whatever the tax-payers were charged to defend his illegal occupation of the Presidency.   Why would Obama fear a confidential Court Examination IN CHAMBERS between the Plaintiff and Defendant's Attorney's to see the identity records claimed by Obama, along with a few select experts...UNLESS it is an INDISPUTABLE and UNDENIABLE FACT THAT OBAMA IS A FRAUD AND USURPER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE?    What is the fear of allowing an examination of subpoenaed Barack Hussein Obama II related School and Financially related records from Kindergarten - College to see if they correctly identify and list or presume him as a US citizen, and confirm or disclose any discrepancy of whether or not any student financial loans, grants, awards ever listed him as a foreign national...UNLESS THEY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY IDENTIFY HIM AS CLAIMING A FOREIGN NATIONAL STATUS IN THOSE RECORDS FOR MONETARY BENEFITS OR EXEMPTIONS?  

Fact NOT in dispute:  In every instance, the various legal attorneys for Obama REFUSED to provide the Court with any 333 U.S. 640 (1948( @ 653 legally required proof that the putative President, i.e. the Usurper Obama, meets the Constitutional Criteria of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.  Far from it.  They ran, they slandered, they quibbled, they shuffled, they shifted the focus of the Court to distraction and any loophole they could think of to justify a benign and sympathetic Court to dismiss on the flimsiest of excuses.    And anyone who has a public responsibility to proclaim the Truth and facts of Law and who  covers this up -- be they a Public Office Holder, any Professionally Paid media, any Constitutional Attorney -- that means ANYONE who dares cover this illegal occupation of the Presidency up and tries to divert or suppress the issue,  should be viewed as being guilty of complicity to commit and further TREASON against the United States of America, its Constitution, and the people of the Republic thereof.
 

 Meanwhile, on January 3, 2012 -  As the State Primary approaches, but before the Iowa Caucuses occurred, 3 New Hampshire State Representatives challenge Obama as NOT being a United States Natural Born Citizen.  Serving an affidavit of a prior meet with the New Hampshire Attorney General (NH AG) in 2009 upon the same NH AG’s office ,  in which their concerns were asked by the NHAG at that time to be pursued by a Federal Venue. 

And if I may:  

Please go to attorney Orly Taitz's website 

 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

and please make a contribution to Orly's legal efforts against Obama as soon as you can, even if only 10 or 25 or 50 dollars (more if you are able). 

Please help spearhead that effort which will help us procure or retain Liberty through the Courts by Orly, a "naturalized citizen" who was required to learn and respect the US Constitution in order to become one of us, and is actually doing what the ignorant, foolish, lazy, or corrupt of those who dare call themselves Constitutional Attorneys refuse to do...and defend the US Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" clause  by bringing court action against and suing its VIOLATOR -in - Chief, Barack Hussein Obama II.   Thank you very kindly. 

Choose Ye This Day   by Brianroy

Let there be words shed, not blood.

Let there be Peace spread, not violence.

Let there be Justice served, not corruption's crud.

Let there be my voice and yours 

sounding forth loudly and intelligently together to keep us all free, 

not held back by fear or hesitation in silence.  

We have been give a sacred trust from the past.

We have been given a righteous Constitution and Supreme Laws to last.

We have been give a choice to act now to remain free.

Choose you this day,

to either accept yielding to enemies of freedom who we know by experience beforehand will behave like savages, when good people pretend evil does not exist;

or choose to RISE UP in peaceful unison,

to ensure the sunshine and freedom of  our nation's, yours and mine's, Liberty?

I choose me this day.  

Make mine Liberty.

Make my song FREEDOM.

And if I should fall,

even as the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church,

may thousands more BELIEVE  the same as I,

and take my place.

In Christ Jesus I stand.

May GOD arise,

and redeem us our Nation, its people, its Creation, through all its Land. 

Amen.