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

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

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

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

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

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 6

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen


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

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

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

Circumstantial Evidence defined:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Parts 1 – 5 of this series we know:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore:

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

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

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

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

Guilty!

About these ads

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

  1. Mr. Jablonski’s last paragraph in the letter he wrote to Secretary of State, Brain Kemp, of Georgia this afternoon asking that he stop the court hearing tomorrow concerning Obama.

    Mr. Jablonski’s last paragraph reads
    ” We await your taking the requested action, and as so, we will, of course, SUSPEND further participation in these proceedings, including the HEARING scheduled for January 26″.

    Read Jablonski’s letter at : orleytaitzesquire.com

    So Jablonski thinks he has thrown the ball back to the SOS in this matter….

    WE SHALL SEE TOMORROW MORNING.
    :

  2. RMINNC………………………
    Do you know which political faith Mr. Kemp is?

  3. CW………………
    In reading your editorial I think you have provided the reason why the complaint from the Chicago attornies never went anywhere. Because he did not accept any matching funds. Therefore there was allegedly NO PERCEIVED crime. Yet they KNEW that MILLIONS were coming from overseas an was bing laundered into Soetoro’s small contributions account. They randomly took names from telephone directories and assigned the name to each alleged $200.00 contribution. This is how Soetoro got around the law. One of his Pakistani friends managed the account for him.

  4. I really wish I could find these two attorneys. They had all of the evidence and had Soetoro cold.

  5. Old Salt…..I’m not sure, but He may be a demcRAT

  6. Excuse me Old Salt….Kemp is a REPUBLICAN

  7. Philo-Publius

    Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp

    http://www.kempmeansbusiness.com/bio.php

  8. I think Judge Malaki should sanction Mr. Jablonski $20,000 per hour for every hour he delays the Obama hearing tomorrow……

    Turn about is fair play in the legal game

  9. Philo-Publius

    Sen Brian Kemp, Republican Candidate for GA Secretary of State

  10. Kemp seems like a serious chap when it comes to elections…

    As Georgia’s Chief Elections Administrator, Secretary Kemp implemented numerous e-government solutions for voters and established his state as a national model for election security. The My Voter Page or “MVP” voter education website allows voters to view their sample ballot, find their early voting locations and times, find their Election Day polling location, verify their registration status and much more. Georgia’s military and overseas voters can also use MVP to download and print their absentee ballot.

    Secretary Kemp achieved significant victories for both protection of election security and states rights when he filed suit against the U.S. Department of Justice to obtain preclearance of Georgia’s verification system for new voter registration applicants, which includes citizenship. Georgia can now verify that voter registration applicants are who they say they are, and that they are U.S. citizens.

    Secretary Kemp also implemented the Stop Voter Fraud website so citizens can report questionable election-related activity online or by calling the Secretary of State’s Voter Fraud Hotline. Additionally, the agency’s Investigations Division increased its partnerships with state and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

    Finally, Secretary Kemp established the Secretary of State’s Election Advisory Council, comprised of experienced election officials and leaders from across the state. The Council is tasked with reviewing the Georgia Election Code and State Election Board Rules, and making recommendations that improve and strengthen Georgia’s election laws and procedures.

  11. Philo-Publius

    Last posting is in moderation. It was a link to YouTube:
    Sen Brian Kemp, Republican Candidate for GA Secretary of State

  12. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    rminnc | January 25, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    BREAKING NEWS:

    Orley Taitz is reporting on her website (orleytaitzesquire.com) that OBAMA’s attorney Mr. JABLONSKI in a letter to BRAIN KEMP, secretary of State for the state of Georgia to take the case due to be heard tomorrow morning away from Judge Maliki’s authority.

    Jablonski also says in this rubbish letter that he is awaiting the SOS’s action and that HE WILL NOT BE ATTENDING THE HEARING TOMORROW PENDING THE SOS’s ACTION.
    ______________________________________________

    This will only cause more people to get more curious. The more they stall, the MORE suspicious the people will become. The TRUTH shall win out.

  13. Philo-Publius

    Obama Speaks… “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

  14. “Obama claims that his father was a British citizen and that therefore he, Obama II, was born with dual citizenship, raising questions about dual allegiance and whether or not a dual citizen is a “natural born Citizen.” Some attorneys and scholars have stated that the citizenship of the parents or the father is equally important to, or perhaps more important than, the physical birthplace of the candidate.

    Editor’s Note: A search for Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website in search of his claim of dual citizenship at birth now leads to AttackWatch.com.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/25/obama-attorney-suspends-participation-in-january-26-georgia-ballot-hearing/

  15. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    Go here tomorrow at 9AM Eastern Standard Time for a live coverage of the Georgia hearing –

    http://art2superpac.com/

  16. Mr. Bill……….

    It should cause some serious CONTEMPT OF COURT charges….

    If you or I refused to attend a court scheduled by a Judge, do you think we would get away with it by writing a rubbish letter to the Judges next higher saying that you will not be attending the scheduled court case until you hear from the judge’s boss?

    HOW STUPID IS MR. JABLONSKI ANYWAY? I HOPE THE JUDGE THROWS THE BOOK AT HIM !

  17. The basis for the complaint is that SoS Brian Kemp failed to validate qualifications and prevent BHO’s name from appearing on the presidential preference ballot for the Democratic primary. The complaints regard Mr. Kemp’s actions. How is it that Mr Kemp would be the one to void the hearing? Kind of like appealing to Gov Blago to void the court case convened to try Gov Blago! If this is all Jablonski has got, he is in deep trouble! Seems like malpractice to me.

  18. Mr. Jablonski’s last paragraph reads
    ” We await your taking the requested action, and as so, we will, of course, SUSPEND further participation in these proceedings, including the HEARING scheduled for January 26″.

    =======================================
    Isn’t such “action” something for a later date AFTER this judge has made his suggestion? What ruling authority does the SOS have over the judge for this current hearing esp. when there is no discovery in hand to make ANY judgement as yet??? Some new type of a Catch 22? Hope not.

  19. OK………..So Mr. Lardass Jablonski has stated he will not attend the hearing tomorrow morning….

    So my question for all the legal eagles is:
    WILL THE HEARING GO ON WITHOUT MR. JABLONSKI?

    Or does Mr. Jablonski control the action by his refusal to attend? If so, it now appears we have a “tail wagging the dog” type situation!

  20. case to no where. whats this like the 100 one that will be delayed, thrown out, dismissed,. etc etc

  21. Citizen Wells….a continued thanks for the excellent research and articles you have posted. I never bothered to see the hype with the matching funds stories in the beginning. Now, thanks to you, its making sense. Great job in connecting all the dots for me.

  22. MUST SEE OUTSTANDING VIDEO!!

    NDAA Is A Hoax: You Can’t Legalize Tyranny

    ~ Please listen carefully to ALL of Alex Jones’s outstanding words in this video!!! ~

    Excerpt:

    “President Obama quietly waited weeks to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation on New Year’s Eve after publicly threatening to veto the bill that, among other things, authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens.

    Obama’s signing statement tries to reassure observers that he wouldn’t use the “law” to detain citizens, but that is an illusion; his signing statement is meaningless, and the establishment occupying Washington have pulled a hoax on The People in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to enslave them.

    But you can’t legalize tyranny. One of the nation’s most well known legal precedents, Marbury vs. Madison, set in 1803, makes clear that any “law” that is “repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.”

    The blatant unconstitutional powers enacted in the legislature and executive branch is backfiring, however. This crowning act of tyranny is awakening people to the true intentions of Big Government in its takeover. The NDAA is so openly in violation of the American way, that Obama had to play lip-service to it in his signing statement language, even as he gave it the power of law.

    Critics in the ACLU and Human Rights centers have abandoned their comfort zones and attacked the president from the left for crossing the Rubicon on rights, as they rightly should.

    Now is the time for more to join that call; for Americans of all stripes to speak out against so-called “laws” that enable blatant political targeting of dissidents and declare a war against the citizens of this country. Make no mistake, if we sit idly by and let this precedent become accepted– like the Patriot Act, with the appearance of law– more and more unconstitutional legislation will obviously take hold.”

  23. Thanks HF.

  24. Once again, GA election statutes.
    Not suggestions.

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

    O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2011)

    § 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications

    (a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (3) Made upon unlawful procedures;

    (4) Affected by other error of law;

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

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

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

  25. Pat 1789 | January 25, 2012 at 7:57 am | http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-enters-motion-to-strike-and-dismiss-illinois-ballot-challenge
    —————————————————————————–
    I find it quite strange that few comment on the fact that Obama’s attorney’s enetered his BC-JPEG into evidence in an illinois ballot case but refuse to show up in court in GA.

    Also no comments on this blog concerning this case.

    Maybe the Illinois case is a set up to get the JPEG on record and the Plaintiff will fade away.

  26. From Kemps Bio, seems he is not afraid to tangle with the DOJ.
    Not good for Jabo

    “Secretary Kemp achieved significant victories for both protection of election security and states rights when he filed
    suit against the U.S. Department of Justice to obtain preclearance of Georgia’s verification system for new voter registration
    applicants, which includes citizenship. Georgia can now verify that voter registration applicants are who they
    say they are, and that they are U.S. citizens.”

  27. (I brought over this answer to rminnc from the last thread.)
    .
    jbjd | January 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm |

    rminnc | January 25, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

    Can the judge have a hearing without both parties being represented?
    *********************************************************************************
    President Obama is not a party to the administrative hearing. Obviously, if he was a party to these proceedings, he would risk an adverse ruling by failing to appear (although the burden remains on Mr. Farrar to establish, SoS Kemp erred in refusing to remove Obama’s name from the GA ballot). And that points to the Respondent in this case: the Office of the SoS.

    Mr. Obama is Mr. Farrar’s witness. He issued a subpoena for Mr. Obama to appear, with documents, hoping this would help to establish he – Farrar – was right; Obama’s name should not be on the ballot.

    I explained all of this on my blog.

    http://jbjd.org/2012/01/24/witness-for-orlys-persecution/

    (I will answer additional questions from this thread, momentarily.)

  28. Philo-Publius | January 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    Obama Speaks… “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”
    ******************************
    Well, he certainly speaks from experience!

  29. (I will answer additional questions from this thread, momentarily.)

    Are you aware Obamao’s JPEG was filed in the Illinois ( Jackson) ballot case?

    Have you no comment?

  30. O’Reilly: Obama “Genuinely Wants To Do Good For Americans”

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/oreilly-obama-genuinely-wants-to-do-good-for-americans/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=1d1ecfcf31-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

    ****************************
    With such willful ignorance on the part of people like O’Reilly, whom I heard say the above last night on his program, the masses will continue to be deceived. He has a big following, and many don’t listen or read anything else.

  31. Can someone please tell me who runs ObamaBallotChallenge? I only ask because 1) the ballot challenges were my idea and, if done right, that is, with a full knowledge of the laws of the state and, the administrative and procedural process involved, could still work in certain states; 2) having been done wrong (especially in NH) these challenges further erode the credibility of anyone charging there’s a problem with Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for office; and 3) I cannot find my “jbjd” anywhere on that site, including the blog list, which includes many of the same discredited pundits and practitioners who through their self-serving incompetence have prolongued this mess for more than 3 years.

    If I didn’t know better; I would think that some people here, on this blog, are asking me what to do next so that they can go back to the ‘group’ and do what I advise; without crediting my work.

    From now on, if you have questions specifically related to my work, ask them on my blog.

  32. “There is no limit to the good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
    General of the Army, George C. Marshall. Originator of what became known as the Marshall Plan that resurrected Western Europe after WWII.

  33. Philo-Publius

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

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

  34. I read that Jablonski’s letter was slapped down by the SOS trying to throw in the monkey wrench on the GA Trial!

  35. …at your own peril.

    Wow!

  36. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2837796/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

    Read the letter sent by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, to GA SOS, Brian P. Kemp.

    It makes me livid! He is wrong on many points, and has resorted to smears against the plaintiff’s attorney and also the judge himself.

    The O people must be truly running scared. Something is going to have to “give” here sooner or later. This is war, folks.

  37. 8:41 pm …

    “Can someone please tell me who runs ObamaBallotChallenge?”
    ============
    Contact:

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/contact

    Director Pamela Barnett

    Communications, George Miller

    Marketing, Gary Wilmott

  38. Bill G | January 25, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
    …at your own peril.

    Wow!
    ****************
    Thanks for that link, Bill G. Your post is great ! The SOS has got a lot of spunk, especially when you read what Jablonski wrote to him. It looks to me like the attorney is using Alinsky tactics against O’s opponents.

  39. Philo-Publius, I’m apologize – It was YOUR post linking to the SOS’s response. I was just saying “amen” to Bill G.’s exclamation.

  40. correction – s/b “I apologize”.
    Philo-Publius, to know that the SOS is going to stand strong is SO gratifying. Have you read the letter from Jablonski to the SOS? Unbelievable, in my opinion.

  41. jbjd……

    Apparently your legal advice is not valid or it is flawed.

    I have just read where the Secretary of State for Georgia has just butt- slapped Mr. Jablonski reference his refusal to “suspend participation” in tomorrow’s hearing…..

    He also stated Mr. Joblonski’s refusal to attend was “at his own peril”. That is sending a very strong message wouldn’t you agree?

    From this language, I do not get the impression that the Secretary of State is on trial tomorrow….. but, there is no doubt in my mind Mr. Barack Hussain Obama is.

    However, thank you for your misinformation.

  42. Cabby…..

    To coin an obama phrase, I do believe tomorrow will be the day….
    “we have all been waiting for”.

    and just think, the principal subject, Mr. Obama is about as far from the action as he can get, without showing his invalid passport!

    Praise the Lord.(and pass the ammunition).

  43. Our brave(less) leader…..talk is cheap…why don’t the ONE come and defend yourself.

  44. I sure would love to be privy to the communications that this is generating between the WH, GA, and where-ever-the-hell our fearless leader is tonight….

    Maybe Mr. Obama could send his wifey, Muchelllll down to Georgia to defend her husband…thats an idea…she apparently knows everything about her husband and his illegal activities, even the DOWN LOW Club stuff.

  45. RMinNC,

    If I’m not mistaken, one of the Plaintiff’s (don’t remember which one) had made multiple efforts with the GA SoS Kemp requesting the information he used on the 2008 ballot to certify Obama. SoS Kemp failed to respond to the requests, hence this challenge landed in the Court.

    What Obama’s Attorney is not mentioning in his letter, is that there are more than just Dr. Orly’s hearing on the same day, there are 2 others as well.

    Although he conventionally only mentions Orly. It will certainly be an interesting day tomorrow.

  46. Rminnc 9:22 pm
    Cabby…..

    To coin an obama phrase, I do believe tomorrow will be the day….
    “we have all been waiting for”.
    ****************************************
    My encouragement level just soared this evening after reading 1) Atty Jablonski’s impudent letter to the SOS, and 2) the SOS’s response putting J straight. The ONE will continue to go on his merry way, because that seems to be his modus operandi – just ignore and the “problem” will go away. Hopefully this is the beginning of real exposure of the fraud.
    (I will have to get up earlier tomorrow because of the 2 hr. time difference.
    Actually I should go to bed earlier but am a night owl.)

  47. SOME VERY INFORMATIVE COMMENTS:

    “winnybar says:
    Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM

    Stanley Anne Dunham, alleged Obama mother, was born November 29, 1942. As her birth state Kansas has a school attendance cutoff date of August 31 she is high school Class of 1961. The claimed Obama birthdate August 8, 1961 has a conception time in November 1960. However, Stanley Anne was in a Washington state high school during November 1960. Thus any Obama document with August 8, 1961 as birthdate is a phoney.

    Apparently Obama operatives have grabbed the identity of a Hawaii citizen. That is Identity Theft on a Grand Scale.”

    * * * *

    “ksdb says:

    Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM

    How odd that Obama would fight a standard administrative procedure in verifying his alleged eligibility to be on the ballot in Georgia. Also, doesn’t his attorney understand that a birth certificate is considered self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence?? Of course, this means that a physical copy of the alleged document has to actually be entered into the court, not a jpg or a layered PDF that was posted on a website.

    Is Obama unable to prove he is Constitutionally eligible for office?? Is that why he’s having his counsel compose a lengthy motion to quash, along with its personal attack on the attorney requesting very routine and standard forms of proof??”

    * * * *

    “Zeb” says

    Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 9:07 AM

    ” . . . until the documents being sought are produced for the court?”

    There are no authentic legal documents to produce for “Obama.” My FOIA/ORR to the SOS only returned irrelevant memos; but nothing pertaining to Obama’s legal qualifications. This is fraud on the part of the DNC for listing an legally unqualified candidate for placement on the ballot and false swearing on the part of the SOS for actually issuing the ballot with Obama listed. In Georgia the SOS is required to verify the constitutional qualifications of the candidate and the statutory state laws for the election and the ballot must be obeyed by all candidates who must show that they are legally qualified or legally disqualified, and constitutionally qualified and constitutionally eligible, or constitutionally disqualified and constitutionally ineligible to be put on a ballot to be a temporary federal employee, subject to the ballot and election laws of the states.”

    * * * *

    “Rule of Law says:
    Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 2:05 AM

    Check Georgia’s Election law, it is pretty clear. If you are a federal candidate and your name is submitted for the Office of the President (A FEDERAL office) the SOS can challenge you on your claims. No documents means he cannot be vetted or certified by the SOS or Elections officers.

    I’d say his name is off until he produces the documents or the GA SOS takes personal responsibility for the placement of a usurper on the ballot.”

    * * * *

  48. Nobody is on trial tomorrow. Nobody was ever on trial tomorrow. The use of the words “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” are not used in the technical sense but in a manner to which people have become accustomed.

    THIS IS ONLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING; THE ALJ IS ONLY ENABLED, BY LAW, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SoS WERE FOLLOWED.

    In the last article I posted on my blog, I wrote:

    I am not privy to what chain of events preceded this hearing or, to the documents previously presented to the Secretary; I have no idea how this case reached the administrative hearing level. But, obviously, Farrar must have failed to persuade Kemp to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in that state’s 2012 Democratic Presidential primary. Farrar disagreed with that decision. Under GA law, this led to the administrative hearing. Orly subpoenaed Obama to appear at the hearing in order to provide testimonial evidence which would support her client’s claim that by refusing to do as asked, that is, to remove Obama’s name from the primary ballot; the SoS had broken the law.

    Thus, I only assumed the SoS had refused a request to remove the name. Now, I see that, the SoS, utilizing the other means of case reference provided in the law (that is, besides allowing the Petitioner (Farrar) to ‘appeal’ an adverse administrative decision) ‘certified Petitioner’s challenge directly to the ALJ. In other words, Kemp never ruled adverse to Farrar and so, is not a party to Farrar’s challenge.

    Kemp is not the least bit upset with Obama, as discerned from his letter. He is merely reminding him, the ALJ only had Farrar’s information on which to issue his findings. (No matter; the burden is still on Farrar to establish, Obama should not be on the ballot. And, as I have been saying for years, establishing he is ineligible based on evidence available in the public record, is impossible.)

    If you spent more time reading the law and less time on persona attacks; maybe, just maybe, you would understand what I have been saying all along.

  49. State of Nevada also allows court cases to be filed, much like GA. Someone should jump on NV, only in this case any registered voter can file a case. Look at it closely !! Another opportunity lies there.
    But I believe it has to be soon

  50. Obama is in Arizona, think he will make it to Georgia tomorrow ?

    NOT LIKELY.

  51. Yes Cabby………there is a Santa Clause!

    And tomorrow will come, the sun will shine, the birds will sing, and hopefully Mr. Obama will get his butt slapped tomorrow….

    I shouldn’t say that…he would probably like it !

    Goodnight ALL…see you at the game toimorrow ! Sharply at 9am. EST

    Tonight though, I will have visions of sugar plum dreams. Thank you Mr Secretary of State Kemp.

  52. Thank you again jbjd..your comments are noted.

    Im not the legal expert you claim to be….. but , “at your own peril” is pretty strong stuff to me……doesn’t sound like the SOS is inviting Mr. Jablonski to tea (no pun intended).

    Have a good evening.

  53. Dear Citizen Wells and patriots,
    Thank you for keeping me informed. Your knowledge and expertise is greatly appreciated. I learn from you even when the infighting is distracting to the message. We all know there have been lies, fraud, coverups, and threats. Tonight we have hope in our hearts and I fervently pray that tomorrow will bring some discovery. I pray that Judge Malahi and SOS Kemp will live up to the principles and honor in their oaths of office. St. Michael the archangel defend us in our battle against evil.

  54. jbjd:

    But, obviously, Farrar must have failed to persuade Kemp to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in that state’s 2012 Democratic Presidential primary. Farrar disagreed with that decision. Under GA law, this led to the administrative hearing.
    =====================================

    Or perhaps Kemp wished things to go through an administrative hearing first in order to establish grounds rather than have anything look other than objective in the highly politicized atmosphere. That would establish some kind of foundation for any decision made ultimately by the SOS in order not to have things seen as resting solely upon his shoulders and responsibility or opinion.

    If this is “only” an administrative hearing it can still be the place where questions are raised and heard publicly and even perhaps exposing the naked emperor to the public. It will be a place of challenge to any obfuscation of what can be presented by the plaintiffs as objectively questioned by the govt’s own sites for verification. There are possibilities for exposure and then later the SOS cannot deny such questions remaining unanswered convincingly.

  55. CW, am in moderation at 10:20. Seems some rhyme and reason to some but not to others! So, once again, help and thanks.

  56. Pat 1789 | January 25, 2012 at 7:57 am | http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-enters-motion-to-strike-and-dismiss-illinois-ballot-challenge
    —————————————————————————————–

    OBAMAO’s JPEG filed in Illinois ballot case, But not GA ?

    Let’s see if Jablo produces a copy tomorrow.

  57. jbjd | January 25, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    (No matter; the burden is still on Farrar to establish, Obama should not be on the ballot. And, as I have been saying for years, establishing he is ineligible based on evidence available in the public record, is impossible.)
    *************************
    Having read some of your work, I understand the basis for your statement, “establishing he is ineligible based on evidence available in the public record, is impossible”; however, a number of us do not agree with that, notwithstanding your legal stature. I don’t intend to get into an open disagreement with you, because you have done a vast amount of commendable work directed at keeping Obama off of the ballot at the state level.

    There is enough in the public domain to disqualify him based on his own words, i.e., his father was a Kenyan. Very sound legal minds have various opinions about that, but there is good basis on that alone in the judgment of a number of constitutional attorneys to disqualify him from holding the presidency. I and a number of other folks agree with that.
    I’ll just leave it there.

  58. Cabby – AZ, very reasonably articulated. Thanks.

  59. http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-put-in-his-place-eligibility-hearing-is-on-for-thursday

    Great website and informative. Hats off to them.

    SOS Kemp says he is not a party to the hearings tomorrow, only the referring agency. Hmmmmm…..

  60. Has anyone checked out the 2012 OFA website to see if they are still disabling the fraud check on credit card donations? Anyone tried it out? They so flagrantly got away with it last time so I suspect it”s likely they’ll try it again.

  61. Love this part of the SoS’s response to Jablonski:

    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.

  62. @ Marie | January 25, 2012 at 10:32 pm |

    There are a lot of OFA donors here, they should be able to tell you.

  63. Pure speculation

    First order of business, sidebar with Judge. Attorney Jablonski withdraws and asks Judge for continuance to next week for his client to assign a new attorney.

  64. “Secretary Kemp achieved significant victories for both protection of election security and states rights when he filed
    suit against the U.S. Department of Justice to obtain preclearance of Georgia’s verification system for new voter registration
    applicants, which includes citizenship. Georgia can now verify that voter registration applicants are who they
    say they are, and that they are U.S. citizens.”

    Note to WH / OFA – HQ, may want to fly in Bob Bauer tomorrow. This ain’t going well for you.

    Bring Lawyers guns and money.

  65. Bill G | January 25, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    Cabby – AZ, very reasonably articulated. Thanks.
    ***********************
    You’re welcome. It is a very touchy subject, and I mean no harm.

  66. Bill G | January 25, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    Pure speculation

    First order of business, sidebar with Judge. Attorney Jablonski withdraws and asks Judge for continuance to next week for his client to assign a new attorney.
    **********************
    We can’t be surprised at anything, imho. You may be right on, because postponement is the name of the game in legal proceedings today.

  67. RMINNC………………….
    Is Brian Kemp related to Senator Jack Kemp? Brian looks a little like Jack.

  68. If you think the LIBS are in panic now just wait and watch what they do if Newt is nominated,and then watch them panic once again should he be elected as the POTUS. They will be squealing loudly like rats as they commit mass suicide. There will be thousands of splashes as they jump overboard from their rapidly sinking ship.

  69. Perhaps now he will claim that his biological father was a US Citizen and that this ID theft was initiated by others, a more likely scenario than the incredible narrative constructed by Ayres in ‘Dreams’. Take a peak at Terrible Truth for some thought provoking information.

  70. As I watched Gabby Giffords walk up to speaker Boehner’s chair I saw that she is still seriously impaired. I do not possess the level of vocabulary I would need to adequately describe the magnitude of the HATRED, and ANGER that I feel towards the COWARDLY BASTARD who shot Giffords. If I had my way he would suffer an extremely painful, and very slow death. He has taken her expected life away from her, and should be put to death, or permanently domiciled in a home for the CRIMINALLY INSANE for the rest of his life.

  71. oldsalt79 | January 26, 2012 at 12:21 am |

    I concur, Old Salt.

  72. Jbjd,

    I read what you wrote and agree that, technically speaking, you are once again correct. Their is no criminal prosecution, only an administrative hearing. However, the question is not just the process of the SoS, but the eventual outcome and evidence supporting that decision. Further, it will also have to be reviewed within the historical context of the person appearing on a previous Georgia ballot and evidence for that event. I am basically pointing out that evidence for the past and current placement of Obama on the ballot by the SoS will have to be available for all to review. I, although poorly educated in law, cannot see this scenario not unfolding. Therefore, discovery will be achieved. The Judges decision on the information concerning the SoS process, will be dependent on that discovery and the Judges interpretation of the meaning of NBC and Georgia statutes.

    Like you, I have doubts Obama will survive discovery. We must also consider that the Obama information is correct and verifiable. Subsequent outcome will depend upon the judges opinion of the meaning of NBC.

    Honestly, the most likely outcome is Obama not being on the Georgia ballot, and the liberals claiming racism. The second most likely event is darkness descending upon the judge and/or family if he does not cooperate.

  73. Pat 1789 | January 25, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    @ Marie | January 25, 2012 at 10:32 pm |

    There are a lot of OFA donors here, they should be able to tell you.
    —————————————————————————————-
    OFA donors here? As in Citizen Wells blog? Who? There are many different perspectives here, but no one that I can see supports Obama..

  74. Bill G | January 25, 2012 at 8:46 pm |

    “There is no limit to the good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
    General of the Army, George C. Marshall. Originator of what became known as the Marshall Plan that resurrected Western Europe after WWII.
    ***********************************************************************************
    (Cite, please?)
    On the other hand, if you steal a perfectly good idea without any grasp of what it means; and proceed as if you do, only because you want to claim it as your own then, you will not only likely fail in its execution but also spoil that idea for everyone else who could have used it with success.

  75. Pingback: Obama & the Birthers « Katz Porch

  76. Pingback: Obama attorneys unholy alliance, Obama and his attorneys subvert Constitution and justice, Obama protected from lawsuits and corruption prosecution | Citizen WElls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s