Tag Archives: January 26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

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

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

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

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

http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/

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

Temporarily publishing at www.gulagbound.com

CPT Pamela Barnett, State Department illegally destroyed obama’s mother’s passport records, Andrea Shea King internet radio show, January 26, 2011, 10 PM ET

CPT Pamela Barnett,  State Department illegally destroyed obama’s mother’s passport records, Andrea Shea King internet radio show, January 26, 2011, 10 PM ET

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

From CPT Pamela Barnett January 26, 2011.

“CPT Pamela Barnett to be on Andrea Shea King internet radio show tonight to discuss the cover-up and how the State Department illegally destroyed obama’a mother’s passport recdords. Barnett starts at 10p Eastern tonight.”

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow

“Here is the appeal to DOS for Obama’s mother’s passport and consular records.  Many hours of research of Department of State and National Archive policies, procedures and history strongly suggests that the federal government agency illegally and intentionally destroyed Obama’s mothers 1965 passport application and possible prior applications in an attempt to cover up Obama’s birth story and whether he is a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47558338/Evidence-of-State-Department-cover-up-of-Obama-s-birth-story

http://unlawfulpresident.com/

Philip J Berg press release, January 26, 2009, Obama not eligible, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, Berg has 3 cases, Berg will prove Obama ineligible, Berg vs. Obama, Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, GLOBE Magazine, February 2, 2009 issue

From Philp J Berg, January 26, 2009 Press release:

01/26/09: PRESS RELEASE – New Issue of GLOBE Magazine [Feb. 2nd] Highlights
Philip J. Berg, Esq. Efforts to Expose Obama not being “qualified” to be President.
Also, Berg states U.S. Supreme Court denied Injunction request but Berg has three [3] cases still open and Berg states he will prove Obama “ineligible” to be President

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/26/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama announced today that the new issue of GLOBE Magazine [2/2/09 issue] highlights his efforts to expose Obama not being “constitutionally qualified” and therefore, Obama should be removed from office.

Berg also stated that the U.S. Supreme Court denied his request for an Injunction from the Conference that was held on January 16, 2009. However, the case that was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, Berg vs. Obama is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where Berg just filed a Brief on 1/20/09. Berg said I had bypassed the Third Circuit hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear our case on an expedited basis because of the significance of the case.

The two [2] other cases are in Federal Court and I will advise you shortly about the status of each.

Berg said, “This is the 5th time GLOBE Magazine has highlighted the question of Obama’s lack of ‘constitutional qualifications’ to be President. The new story about Obama is the center spread and two [2] other pages. More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the constitutional ‘qualifications’ and that this is the biggest ‘Hoax’ perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years.”

Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the thousands and thousands that have died defending our Constitution with the legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President.”

Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09

Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
Response to Hollister Complaint due 1/26/09 by Soetoro/Obama and Biden

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire           

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                                                     
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell (610) 662-3005

philjberg@obamacrimes.com    

 

Governor Rod Blagojevich Impeachment trial, Chicago IL, January 26, 2009, Live audio, Listen to Impeachment trial, Patrick Fitzgerald criminal complaint, Chicago corruption, Obama senate seat, Obama and blagojevich ties

The impeachment trial of Governor Rod Blagojevich began
today, January 26, 2009, without Blagojevich being present.

Listen to Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

Chicago Tribune article on Impeachment

Article by Chicago lawyer, Gerald D. Skoning on Chicago
corruption:

“Illinois needs a corruption-avoidance program
By Gerald D. Skoning
January 26, 2009″

“Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s campaign fund recently announced expenditures
totaling more than $1.3 million despite the fact that he’s not running
for anything other than his political life and possibly jail. The
recent disbursements from Blagojevich’s campaign war chest include
$705,000 to Winston & Strawn, $500,000 to his former criminal defense
lawyer Ed Genson and another $100,000 for criminal defense co-counsel
Sheldon Sorosky. At this rate, the governor’s campaign fund, which
swelled to $2.7 million in 2008, could potentially be emptied by legal
expenses.

Political campaign funding in Illinois is a scandalous mess. Antiquated
laws allow politicians to virtually use their campaign coffers as
unregulated slush funds.

When a politician raises campaign funds, those dollars should only be
used for that campaign for that office—print and broadcast media
advertising, retaining political advisers and campaign staff, phone
banks to get out the vote and Internet gurus to mass-produce blast
e-mails, and so on.”

Read more here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0126fundjan26,0,7043294.story

LIGHTFOOT, GAIL, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE, January 26, 2009, US Supreme Court, Stay denied, Chief Justice, John Roberts, Dr. Orly Taitz

** Update Below **

Dr. Orly Taitz’ Application for stay in Lightfoot Vs Bowen
has been denied by the US Supreme Court:
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009
CERTIORARI — SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

08A524
LIGHTFOOT, GAIL, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to The Chief Justice
and referred to the Court is denied.

 

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/012609zor.pdf

Thanks to Zach for the heads up.

** UPDATE from DR. Orly Taitz **

For immediate press release
01.26.09.
Dear fellow Americans and Patriots,
as you probably know, in my case Lightfoot v Bowen I filed a petition for emergency stay and asked it to be treated as a writ of certiorari based on Bush v Gore 2000 precedent. The Supreme Court has logged this petition as an application for stay pending filing a writ of certiorari. Since they denied the emergency petition today, it gives me an opportunity to file immediately the actual Writ of Certiorari and it will be done within a few days.
However, a number of things have transpired lately.
First, an exparte private closed door meeting between 8 out of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court (Justice Samuel Alito was not present) with Mr. Barry Soetoro-Barack Hussein Obama. I will file a motion to the Chief Jastice to compel the records of this private meeting, that was held only a few days before my case was supposed to be heard, where the plaintiffs state that Mr. Soetoro-Obama is illegitimate for presidency due to the fact that his father was a foreign subject and there is no evidence that Mr. Obama was really born in Hawaii, since the state of Hawaii statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian certification of live birth and such certification can be obtained based on an affidavit of one relative only. In spite of 32 legal actions filed around the country, Mr. Soetoro-Obama refused to provide his original birth certificate that is sealed in Hawaii, no hospital in Hawaii could find any records of Mr. Obama ever being born there and affidavits were given by a number of parties in Kenya, stating that he was born in Kenya. We believe that Mr. Obama has spent over $800,000 on numerous attorneys to keep his original birth certificate sealed, because the original vault birth certificate does not provide any corroborating evidence from any hospital about him being born there.
Additionally, Mr. Obama has immigrated to Indonesia as a child with his mother and step-father Lolo Soetoro and his school records from Indonesia show his legal name to be Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia. Due to the fact that Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Mr. Soetoro -Obama’s parents had to relinquish his US citizenship in order to obtain his Indonesian Citizenship. There is ample evidence that Mr. Soetoro-Obama has travelled on his Indonesian passport up to the time he became US Senator, whereby he reaffirmed his Indonesian citizenship as an adult.
The swearing of Mr. Obama is null and void due to the fact that he was sworn in on a name that is not legally his name and he is a foreign subject from birth and now and never qualified as a Natural Born US Citizen
On Wednesday, January the 21st, when the Supreme Court reopened for business after inauguration, somebody deleted from the external docket all information about my case. Millions of people around the country and around the world watched that docket. A number of concerned parties have called the Supreme Court and got no explanation. Other cases were on the docket. Finally, information about my case was re-entered on the docket. I will be demanding from the Chief Justice John Roberts an immediate full investigation, as to how the information about a case of National and World importance, dealing with Mr Soetoro- Obama’s illegitimacy for Presidency, disappeared from the docket of the Supreme Court. Incidentally an article about me and the cases I am handling, has disappeared from the Wikipedia. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the Congressional and Senatorial Judicial committees for full investigation and hearing as well as FBI and US attorney’s offices.
I would ask all of the citizens that observed this disappearing and reappearing of information on the docket of SCOTUS to write affidavits to that extend. Please go to the nearest UPS store. They usually have notary public on the premises. Have your signature notarised and have the affidavit scanned and e-mailed to me.
Watergate investigation started with a small hotel braking. Obamagate Congressional and Senatorial investigation will start with this breaking into the computer system of the Supreme Court of the United States and illegal deletion of all the information about my case from the external public docket.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
drorly.blogspot.com
Read more here:
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/urgent-need-affidavits-for-motion-to.html