Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

“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 do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

I have reported on the Obama eligibility hearings in the Alabama and Vermont Supreme Courts. The reason that I have not written about an eligibility hearing in the Florida Supreme Court is because one has not been scheduled there yet.

Why?

Good question.

The answer appears to be some combination of corruption bias and incompetence.

Here are some crucial points of law and fact. More details will be forthcoming.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events through the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

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

All state officials take an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

In Florida they take the following oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

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

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

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

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

AMENDMENT X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Many of the Secretaries of State or other election officials claim to have only a “ministerial” duty in the elections.

In the recent Vermont Supreme Court hearing with appellant H. Brooke Paige, state attorney Todd Doloz stated that the VT Secretary of State has only a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

The US Constitution makes this clear.

The Secretary of State swears an oath to the Constitution.

Florida law explicitly states the requirements for the eligibility of the president.

The attorney for Vermont, in his obfuscation efforts, raised the spectre of each Secretary of State or chief election official proactively verifying the eligibility of each candidate.

No reasonable person is requesting that.

However, there is a clear distinction between that and knowingly, after being alerted of a candidate’s eligibility deficiency, taking no action, ignoring a clear mandate from the US Constitution and allowing a candidate to remain on the ballot potentially disenfranchising thousands if not millions of voters.

This is what should have taken place in FL and all of the states:

Once alerted or challenged on a potential deficiency in eligibility of a candidate, the Secretary of State or other election official should investigate.

In the case of Obama and his natural born citizen status, if there is confusion about the definition, the state attorney general should be queried and if there is still confusion, a court ruling requested.

Passing the buck is dereliction of duty.

In Florida, the situation is much worse.

Not only did the FL Secretary of State fail in their constitutional duty, subsequent court hearings have been delayed and failed in their judicial duties.

Why has the judicial system failed the citizens in Florida?

More details to come.

Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not natural born citizen

Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not 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 does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“Vattel was quoted by US Supreme Court Justice Livingston in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 8 CRANCH 253 253 (1814)”…Citizen Wells

On May 5, 2013 Citizen Wells reported on the Obama eligibility challenge appealed in the Vermont Supreme Court by H. Brooke Paige.

From the Burlington Free Press April 23, 2013.

“President Barack Obama may be the “de facto” president of the United States, but that doesn’t mean he was elected legally, a former Republican U.S. Senate hopeful told the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

H. Brooke Paige, appearing without a lawyer before the state’s highest court, said Obama does not meet what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant when they decreed that a person holding the presidency must be a “natural born citizen.””

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/vermont-supreme-court-obama-eligibility-case-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-due-to-foreign-father-h-brooke-paige-vattel-law-of-nations-cited/

On May 7, 2013 Citizen Wells provided analysis of and audio from the VT Supreme Court hearing.

“Standing is a non issue in this case and they damn well know it!

In fact, at least one justice questioned this.

There are at least 3 reasons why H. Brooke Paige has standing.

1. Vermont election statutes clearly give him standing as a voter. Mr. Paige complied with the protocol.

2. Ruling from a lower court, the Superior Court.

3. The Tenth Amendment. If their argument is that the state does not have the power to challenge, then any citizen does.”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/vermont-supreme-court-appeal-on-obama-natural-born-citizen-status-h-brooke-paige-standing-attorney-todd-daloz-flawed-arguments-standing-non-issue-constitution-and-duties-ignored/

On May 7, 2013 Mr. Paige placed the following comment at Citizen Wells.

Dear “Citizen WEIIs”

Thank You for your interest and support! I am well aware of the apparent shortcomings of my “oral argument”. Trust me it is difficult to be on- your “game” with the clock ticking. Oral Argument is really a misnomer as this is actually a “Q and A” affording the Justices the opportunity to seek further information after their through review of the briefs, appendixes( of documents and legal authorities) and the docket of the lower court “the printed case”. It is/was impossible to summarize the 225 years of history and source documents that support my litigation in the 15 minutes afforded each party.

I believe, based upon the Justices’ enquiry, that they had a solid grasp of the six underlying issues that arose as this case proceeded. In addition to the original issue of the candidate(s) constitutional qualification (natural born Citizen[ship]), the following procedural issues arose as the case evolved: 1 – Standing (of the plaintiff), 2 – Jurisdiction (of the Superior Court), 3 – Venue (of the Washington County Court), 4- Political Question, 5 – Mootness. All six issues were thoroughly explored and answered in the Appellants’ Principle and Reply Briefs (over 30,000 words in length – combined) prepared with the expert assistance of Mario Apuzzo, Esq..

As I expressed in my opening statement before the Court, I have proceeded “pro se” out of necessity after an exhaustive search for a qualified Vermont attorney – it was only after every competent member of the Vermont Bar had declined to accept my “engagement” because they did not believe they had the “expertise or resources” to properly prosecute
the case. Regardless of what is ( or has been) said elsewhere, Mario is the patron saint of this “pro se” litigant. Since I first contacted him last June, he has selflessly done everything I required to assist me in properly constructing and presenting my case and I truly believe we have presented evidence, history and law sufficient to allow the Vermont Justices to find favorably as to all six issues.

The Justices treated me and my action with both respect and the attention this important issue deserved . I salute them for having the insight and wisdom to accept the appeal from the lower Court and for allowing it to be presented before the full Court (as opposed to declining to hear the appeal or relegating it to the “rocket docket” !)

Sincerely,
H. Brooke Paige
Appellant/Plaintiff, pro se.”

I responded.

“Mr. Paige.
I am in no way criticizing you.
In fact I admire you for your attempts.
It is my job to ask questions and seek the truth.
If I can be of help, let me know.
Wells”

On May 16 2013, after several email exchanges, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Mr. Paige. It was clear from the onset that he has a solid command of facts regarding the history and laws defining Natural Born Citizen.

Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the  entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.

From the emails and the phone conversation, Mr Paige stated that he was awaiting decisions from the VT Supreme Court.

“The Vermont Supreme Court is still contemplating their decision on the
issues = there are six: 1. Standing (of the Plaintiff/Appellant) 2.
Jurisdiction (of the VT Superior Court) 3. Venue (of the Washington County
Superior Court in Statewide and national elections) 4. Political Question,
5. Mootness AND 6. the definition of the Constitutional Presidential
Qualification idiom “natural born Citizen”.”
“If I am successful, in all probability the results (especially “nbC” will
be appealed by the Vermont Attorney General or, more probably, another
state seeking to have the issues resolved by SCOTUS = as the incongruity
of the qualification among the states would be considered untenable.

Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.

If the Court finds against me on the “nbC” issue alone I will appeal to
SCOTUS. If I fail in the other issues, it will be necessity to proceed to
Federal Court first to resolve “due process” violation issues. (I am sure
that you are aware that the “nbC” issue can only be advanced from the
Vermont Court directly to SCOTUS – as Federal Courts are prohibited from
hearing the qualification issue as their involvement would violate the
Constitutional precept of separation of powers).”

“it is important to understand that issues 1-5 have never been
litigated since they were inserted in Vermont Title 17 (the Election Code)
as to a statewide or national election, therefore aside from the “nbC”
issue that is your primary concern – all elements are important to those
following my action within the political, legislative and judicial spheres
here in Vermont.”

Here is link to an excellent article from George Miller presented at Obama Ballot Challenge on May 15, 2013. It contains much of the same dialogue that I had with Mr.Paige as well as many legal documents.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/newsboy-challenges-illegal-white-house-usurper-obama-via-vermont-supreme-court

Sean Hannity Ted Cruz interview, Presidential hopefuls, Hannity questions Cruz Canadian birth, Carl Cameron Cruz not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Sean Hannity Ted Cruz interview, Presidential hopefuls, Hannity questions Cruz Canadian birth, Carl Cameron Cruz not eligible, Obama not 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

“There is zero authentic evidence that Obama was US born and strong circumstantial evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.”…Citizen Wells

“But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible.”…Carl Cameron Fox News

Sean Hannity on Fox News recently interviewed Texas Senator Tom Cruz about a possible presidential run in 2016. Hannity brings up the fact that Cruz was born in Canada and may not be eligible.

Carl Cameron on Fox News recently  commented about presidential hopefuls and in regard to Ted Cruz made the following statrement:

“But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible.”

Thank you Carl Cameron. Now if we can only get you to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

Sean Hannity, et al. There are multiple sources that explain why Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible for the presidency. The US Constitution with it’s grandfather clause is one. However, we have a recent ruling from the FEC that makes it crystal clear that Cruz is ineligible.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf
) and the text of the Order may be found here (
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf
).”

“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-fec-ruling-october-1-2012-presidential-election-campaign-fund-act-natural-born-citizen-requirement-not-repealed-by-5th-14th-amendments/

Also, remember, John McCain was a citizen with 2 US citizen parents, but he was challenged because of his birth location.

Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008, which Barack Obama signed, states:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

Sean Hannity, perhaps you can be a little more forceful and accurate when interviewing presidential hopefuls.

Thanks to commenter GORDO.

Obama ballot challenge in Georgia, GA Judge Michael Malihi orders president to appear at hearing, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, CBS Atlanta

Obama ballot challenge in Georgia, GA Judge Michael Malihi orders president to appear at hearing, Obama not Natural Born Citizen, CBS Atlanta

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

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

From CBS Atlanta January 20, 2012.

“Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing”

“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

 

Thanks to commenter Pat1789

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

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

From the Post & Email January 1, 2012.

“New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3″

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
“On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.

The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:

Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.

Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.

Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.

Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”

Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.

“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/01/new-hampshire-house-of-representatives-members-to-hold-press-conference-on-obamas-eligibility-on-january-3/

Thanks to commenter Imuha.

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“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 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

Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.

Some information on Attorney Michael Jablonski.

“Michael Jablonski represents select clients in matters related to politics: campaigns with contract problems; candidates facing ethics charges; political consultants charged with trademark and copyright violations; media buyers and candidates confused by the FCC’s lowest unit charge rules; businesses with campaign contribution problems; citizens using the Georgia Open Records Act or the Federal Freedom of Information Act; and others that have been caught in the mire of campaign finance and ethics law.”

Read more:

http://taarradhin.net/

Looks like Obama has picked the right attorney.

From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

Two segments from Mr. Jablonski’s motion.

“The Democratic Party of Georgia determines names to include on its Presidential Preference Primary ballot at its sole discretion. O.C.G.A. 21 -2-193. A state political party “enjoys a constitutionally protected freedom which includes the right to identify the people who constitute this association to those people only.”
“Furthermore, the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, as it has been by every judicial body ever to have considered it.”

My response.

The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.

From the motion filed December 16, 2011 by attorney  Michael Jablonski.

“President Obama asks for dismissal of this attempt to deprive the Democratic Party of Georgia of its statutory right to name candidates to the Presidential Preference Party held to apportion Gerogia’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention. No provision of Georgia law authorizes a challenge to a political party’s identification of names it wishes its members to consider in a preference primary for purposes of apportioning delegates to its National Convention.The Democratic Party of Georgia properly identified Barack Obama as a candidate to whom National Convention delegates will be pledged based upon votes in the preference poll. Georgia law does not authorize the Secretary of State to exercise any discretion or oversight over the actions of a political party participating in a preference primary. Indeed, any review by the Secretary of State would interfere with associational rights of the Democratic Party guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
“The Time Limit for filing any challenge under O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (if it appplies) specifies a two week period after qualifying in which a challenge can be filed.”
“The Secretary of State’s involvement in the Presidential Preference Primary process, other than conducting balloting, is limited to receiving names submitted by political parties for inclusion in the preference primary, publishing the submitted names on a website, and including the names on the ballot.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-193. The Presidential Preference Primary statute does not empower the Secretary of State to review submissions of names by political parties.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 does not apply to the Presidential Preference Primary because the preference primary is not an election”
“Nothing in the context of O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 “clearly requires” applicability to the preference primary.”

From the Georgia Election Statutes.

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193  (2011)

§ 21-2-193.  List of names of candidates to appear on ballot; publication of list
   On a date set by the Secretary of State, but not later than 60 days preceding the date on which a presidential preference primary is to be held, 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. Such lists shall be published on the website of the Secretary of State during the fourth week immediately preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-200  (2011)

§ 21-2-200.  Applicability of general primary provisions; form of ballot
   A presidential preference primary shall be conducted, insofar as practicable, pursuant to this chapter respecting general primaries, except as otherwise provided in this article. In setting up the form of the ballot, the Secretary of State shall provide for designating the name of the candidate to whom a candidate for delegate or delegate alternate is pledged, if any.”

“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.”

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 5.  PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191  (2011)

§ 21-2-191.  Parties entitled to hold primaries; dates; decision to elect delegates to presidential nominating convention in primary; qualifying periods for candidates for delegate
   As provided in this article, a presidential preference primary shall be held in 2012 and every four years thereafter for each political party or body which has cast for its candidates for President and Vice President in the last presidential election more than 20 percent of the total vote cast for President and Vice President in this state, so that the electors may express their preference for one person to be the candidate for nomination by such person’s party or body for the office of President of the United States; provided, however, that no elector shall vote in the primary of more than one political party or body in the same presidential preference primary. Such primary shall be held in each year in which a presidential election is to be conducted on a date selected by the Secretary of State which shall not be later than the second Tuesday in June in such year. The Secretary of State shall select such date no later than December 1 of the year immediately preceding such primary. A state political party or body may by rule choose to elect any portion of its delegates to that party’s or body’s presidential nominating convention in the primary; and, if a state political party or body chooses to elect any portion of its delegates, such state political party or body shall establish the qualifying period for those candidates for delegate and delegate alternate positions which are to be elected in the primary and for any party officials to be elected in the primary and shall also establish the date on which state and county party executive committees shall certify to the Secretary of State or the superintendent, as the case may be, the names of any such candidates who are to be elected in the primary; provided, however, that such dates shall not be later than 60 days preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521  (2011)

§ 21-2-521.  Primaries and elections which are subject to contest; persons who may bring contest
   The nomination of any person who is declared nominated at a primary as a candidate for any federal, state, county, or municipal office; the election of any person who is declared elected to any such office (except when otherwise prescribed by the federal Constitution or the Constitution of Georgia); the eligibility of any person declared eligible to seek any such nomination or office in a run-off primary or election; or the approval or disapproval of any question submitted to electors at an election may be contested by any person who was a candidate at such primary or election for such nomination or office, or by any aggrieved elector who was entitled to vote for such person or for or against such question.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522  (2011)

§ 21-2-522.  Grounds for contest
   A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of the following grounds:

   (1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;

   (3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the result; or

   (5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.”

David Farrar filing:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-first.html

Attorney Michael Jablonski filing

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/obamas-private-attorney-files-motion-to.html

Supreme Court rejects Hollister appeal, Obama eligibility, Obama not natural born citizen

Supreme Court rejects Hollister appeal, Obama eligibility, Obama not natural born citizen

“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

***  Update Below ***

From CNN March 7, 2011.

“The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a so-called “birther” advocate to examine whether President Barack Obama was actually born in the United States.

By questioning whether Obama was born in the country, birthers continue to question whether he meets the constitutional standard of eligibility for the presidency. Several birther petitions have been rejected by the courts.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/07/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-from-birther-advocate/

This was an amazingingly objective report from CNN.

*** Update March 7, 2011 3:15 PM ET ***

At the time of posting this article, at approx. 11:15 AM today, the entire article was presented above. The link now yields the following:

“The Supreme Court has again rejected an appeal from a “birther” proponent questioning the citizenship of President Barack Obama.

The justices Monday turned aside without comment a request for a rehearing of various claims, after dismissing the original appeal in late January.

The long-shot petition by Gregory Hollister had called on Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to withdraw from considering the constitutional claims, contending a conflict of interest by the president’s two high court appointees.

Lower federal claims had dismissed Hollister’s claims.

The justices had also dismissed earlier, unrelated lawsuits from individuals questioning Obama’s citizenship. State birth certificate records show he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. His mother is a native of Kansas; his father was born in Kenya.

Among the claims of various “birther” movement organizers are that the president was born in Kenya or Indonesia; that his birth certificate is a forgery; and that he had dual American-British citizenship at birth because of his father’s Kenyan heritage and therefore is not a “natural born” citizen, as is required to be eligible for president under the U.S. Constitution.

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

The grass-roots legal issue has gained little legal or political footing, but continues to persist in the courts.

The Obama administration did not file, and the high court did not demand, a formal government response to this latest legal claim from Hollister, who said in his appeal he is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel.

The high court will often insist the Justice Department weigh in with its views on a particular constitutional issue, or when a top government official or agency is being sued, a strong sign the justices would be seriously considering accepting the appeal.

Obama and his staff produced copies of his birth certificate when he was running for president in 2008, and have previously dismissed questions over his citizenship.

The respondent in the case was labeled as “Barry Soetoro,” the name Hollister said Obama used when he was a child living in Indonesia with his family. The case is Hollister v. Soetoro (10-678).

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll in July found that 71% of Americans believed Obama definitely or probably was born in the United States, while 27% said he definitely or probably was not. The sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The largest support for the idea he was definitely or probably not born in the United States was among Republicans, at 41%, compared with Independents, at 29%, and Democrats, at 15%. The sampling error for that breakdown was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.”

Obama AZ 2008 certification signature, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama must resign or be arrested

Obama AZ 2008 certification signature, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama must resign or be arrested

“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

We now know for a fact that Obama has no birth certificate in Hawaii and is not a natural born citizen of the US. Obama must resign immediately or be arrested. Reprinted from Citizen Wells December 7, 2008. The day that goes down in infamy.

I just received this from MoniQue of the moniquemonicat blog:

“This is MoniQue from moniquemonicat blog.  I sent requests to 50+ Secretary of State offices through the Public Records Act (PRA) requesting Obama’s original filing papers for each state and some other docs too.

Attached is one I just got back from THE SOS IN ARIZONA.

A NOTARIZED AND SIGNED BY OBAMA SWEARING AND CERTIFYING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.  HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THIS DOCUMENT TESTIFYING HE IS “A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN.”

I think this document is important because it is HIS word [which I believe to be a lie] that he is a natural born us citizen.  He says “i do solemnly swear he is a natural u.s. born citizen”

So this would be one document to urge others to request from the SOS Public Records Act (not the Freedome of Information Act (FOIA) because the FOIA is FEDERAL so that is why a lot of the SOS would not provide this stuff when I first submitted my requests to them. 

EITHER WAY, CAN YOU PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR SITE?”

“I got other documents back but thought this one says it all AND IN HIS OWN HAND is pretty significant. Really shows the audacity of lying.”

MoniQue

http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/

Obama not president, Obama must resign or be arrested, No hawaii birth certificate, Obama not natural born citizen

Obama not president, Obama must resign or be arrested, No hawaii birth certificate, Obama not natural born citizen

“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 the Post & Email.

“There is no “President Obama””

“If Obama is a usurper, will we ever see justice served and adequate punishment carried out?
The Obama “Presidency” is nonexistent. The media refers to Barack Obama as “President Obama.”  I have said it many times in the past and will reiterate it now:

Barack Obama has never been the President of the United States of America.  Under the U.S. Constitution, one has to be a “natural born Citizen,” which means born in the U.S., of parents, both of whom are American Citizens, in order to become President of the United States.

Given the facts and circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth, Obama had only one American citizen parent. Obama’s father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British citizen. There is some talk that Obama may actually be the son of Malcolm X. Who really knows who Barack Obama is and if that is his real name?  His entire past has been purposely obfuscated.

Obama just fired his “transparency Czar.” I suppose that he will be looking for an “Obfuscation czar.” After all, Obama paid his lawyers to help him “evade” the constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas laughingly told the U.S. Congress that the Supreme Court was also “evading that issue.” John Paul Jones, American Revolutionary Naval Hero, once referred to England as a “country of illegitimate corruption.” Has the United States arrived at that same juncture?

Obama is a criminal, a radical Islamist supremacist. Two hundred and thirty four years after declaring independence from Britain, a British-born citizen rules the U.S. This is the second Brit to do so. The other was Chester A. Arthur. Arthur had his staff salute the British flag. Obama waved the Red Chinese flag over the South Lawn of the White House in 2009.

Obama has a very dark side.  He is a quisling, a traitor to the United States of America. I am of the opinion that he should be arrested and tried and if convicted, executed by firing squad (See 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec. 2381).”

“The adage “O, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive” is appropos here. Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and many others in the same cabal have failed to take said adage seriously. This writer is a co-charging party in an International Criminal Court investigation of the Kenyan Election violence. I have submitted numerous documents to the ICC regarding Obama’s activities.

Obama’s name will go down in infamy in the history books. The names “Benedict Arnold” and “Barack Obama” are synonymous.  The terms “traitor” and “quisling” will have, as an addition, the term “obama.” “You are an ‘Obama’” will be heard to describe one who has betrayed his duty to America.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17/there-is-no-president-obama/

Thanks to commenter Robert Laity for the reminder.

Fox News protects Obama, Fox will not cover birth certificate or Obama eligibility issues, Obama not natural born citizen

Fox News protects Obama, Fox will not cover birth certificate or Obama eligibility issues, Obama not natural born citizen

“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

Affidavit: “A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law.”

Fox News, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and others have done their best to avoid covering Obama’s eligibility issues and when they have covered anything to do with it they have done so in a biased, protect Obama manner. There have been several significant news items about Obama’s eligibility recently.

Last year, Tim Adams, a Hawaii Elections Clerk in 2008, came out with the following statements.

On January 20, 2011, Tim Adams signed an affidavit attesting to the fact that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii in 2008.

“1. I was employed at the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division from May 2008 through September 2008.

2. My position at the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division was Senior Elections Clerk.

3. My responsibilities were to oversee the activities of the Absentee Ballot Office.

4. During the course of my employment, I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.

5. Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.

6. Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division further told me on multiple occasions that Hawaii State government officials had made inquires about Sen. Obama’s birth records to officials at Queens Medical Center and Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu and that neither hospital had any record of Senator Obama having been born there, even though Governor Abercrombie is now asserting and various Hawaii government officials continue to assert Barack Obama, Jr. was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center on Aug.4 ,1961.

7. During the course of my employment, I came to understand that for political reasons, various officials in the govemment of Hawaii, including then-Governor Linda Lingle and various officials of the Hawaii Department of Health, including Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, were making representations that Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, even though no govemment official in Hawaii could find a long-form birth certificate for Senator Obama that had been issued by a Hawaii hospital at the time of his birth.

8. During the course of my employment, I was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Senator Obama’s Hawaii birth records, even though it was common knowledge among my fellow employees that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama.”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401#ixzz1C4eE2swz

I could find no reference to the Tim Adams affidavit on Fox News or TheBlaze.com. Instead this article was presented, in what appears to be another unfair and unbalanced attempt by Fox to discredit challengers of Obama’s eligibility.

From Fox News January 26, 2011.

“A celebrity journalist now claims he misspoke when he said last week that Hawaii’s governor told him he was unable to find President Barack Obama’s original birth certificate after a search of state and hospital archives.

Mike Evans told FoxNews.com on Wednesday he was remorseful and embarrassed that he appeared to have given the impression that he had discussed the search for Obama’s birth certificate with Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

Evans, who says he has been a close friend of Abercrombie since the 1980s, appeared on Minnesota’s KQRS radio last week and said he’d been told by the governor himself that Obama’s birth certificate was nowhere to be found. Evans told KQRS on Jan. 20:

“Yesterday, talking to Neil’s office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his powers as governor ….. there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii.  Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii.”

But that’s no longer Evans’ story.

“Only this I can you tell you is 100 percent fact: that Neil never told me there was no birth certificate,” Evans told Fox News. “I never talked to him.”

Last week’s radio interview was part of Evans’ syndicated five-minute feature, “On the Road with Mike Evans,” which is broadcast on 34 stations across the country each morning.

On the morning of Jan. 20, Evans says he accidentally told one of those radio stations — KQRS — that he’d spoken directly with Gov. Abercrombie about the Obama birth certificate.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/celebrity-journalist-says-he-never-talked-hawaii-governor-obama-birth/

What are Fox News’ motives for not covering the real eligibility issues surrounding Obama and, in fact, protecting Obama?

• A CYA move to protect their “reputation” since they helped him get in office?
• To not be the “bad guy”?
• Keep him in office to make more money by covering his disastrous regime?
• Controlled by foreign interests such as Arabs?

We need a real news organization in this country!