Tweet
Complicity: Candidate Removed For Ineligibility; Obama Ineligibility Litigants Set Record Straight
Birther Report
6/11/2015
Excerpts:
Complicity: Candidate Removed For Ineligibility; Obama Ineligibility Litigants Set Record Straight
Pixel Patriot | Birther Report
The decision this week by Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp; to remove a candidate from the Georgia ballot for being ineligible is a stunning contradiction to his refusal to exercise that same power three years ago, when the decision would have immediately led to a national crisis. Secretary Kemp upheld the decision of Judge Michael Malihi who found:
Yet these same government officials turned a blind eye to the Rule of Law in 2012 and allowed the acting President of the United States to evade this same judicial oversight governing eligibility for ballot access.
Because Barack Obama is not an Article II natural-born Citizen, the controversy surrounding his ineligibility to serve as President of the United States was a nationwide scandal that forced him to constantly address the issue. With Obama never vetted for the 2008 Presidential elections, citizens concerned about the Constitutional safeguard in Article II Sect. I Clause V sought compliance for the 2012 elections as their right under Georgia Law and as their civic responsibility to defend the Constitution against a usurper.
Initially, Judge Malihi’s Order on Motion to Quash Subpoenas held out hope for the cause of justice affirming the Defendant failed to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend:
…and it was GAME ON!
Georgia statutory election law allowed the ballot challenges to move forward and on the eve of the trial, Barack Obama’s legal counsel sent an email directly to Secretary Kemp complaining about the way the legal proceedings were unfolding which in and of itself violated established court procedures and was a flagrant “Hail Mary” attempt to influence the court’s demand that he be present for the trial.
Secretary Kemp responded with this shout heard round the world:
Barack Obama then ignored a lawful subpoena and disobeyed Judge Malihi’s court order to attend the hearing on January 26th, 2012.
Plaintiffs sought to take depositions pursuant to the following Georgia statutes: O.C.G.A. §§50-13-41(a)(2) and 50-13-13(a)(6); OSAH Rules 616-1-2-.15 and 616-1-2-.20
Plaintiffs sought the proper placement of the burden of proof pursuant to OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.07
Plaintiffs sought evidence of Barack Obama’s eligibility through a notice to produce pursuant to OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.19 including:
Article II SuperPAC streamed the proceedings of this historic trial live for the entire world to witness, while the total blackout on reporting of Obama’s ineligibility by the major U.S. news media continued. And let history record justice could not prevail against Judge Malihi’s numerous flawed decisions:
...............................................
Though the Georgia ballot challenges were appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, they were never ruled on. In what appears to be an admission of a predisposition on the High Court, here is the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT of the Congressional subcommittee hearing in 2010 with recorded testimony by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declaring the Court is “evading” the requirements of Presidential eligibility; however jovially insinuating they were giving the Congressman “another option.”
Defender of the Truth
© Pixel Patriot 2015
(All rights reserved.)
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06...moved-for.html
Birther Report
6/11/2015
Excerpts:
Complicity: Candidate Removed For Ineligibility; Obama Ineligibility Litigants Set Record Straight
Pixel Patriot | Birther Report
The decision this week by Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp; to remove a candidate from the Georgia ballot for being ineligible is a stunning contradiction to his refusal to exercise that same power three years ago, when the decision would have immediately led to a national crisis. Secretary Kemp upheld the decision of Judge Michael Malihi who found:
“the respondent’s failure to produce competent evidence… was dispositive in concluding he does not meet constitutional and statutory qualifications.”
Yet these same government officials turned a blind eye to the Rule of Law in 2012 and allowed the acting President of the United States to evade this same judicial oversight governing eligibility for ballot access.
Because Barack Obama is not an Article II natural-born Citizen, the controversy surrounding his ineligibility to serve as President of the United States was a nationwide scandal that forced him to constantly address the issue. With Obama never vetted for the 2008 Presidential elections, citizens concerned about the Constitutional safeguard in Article II Sect. I Clause V sought compliance for the 2012 elections as their right under Georgia Law and as their civic responsibility to defend the Constitution against a usurper.
Initially, Judge Malihi’s Order on Motion to Quash Subpoenas held out hope for the cause of justice affirming the Defendant failed to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend:
Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5). Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616- 1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
…and it was GAME ON!
Georgia statutory election law allowed the ballot challenges to move forward and on the eve of the trial, Barack Obama’s legal counsel sent an email directly to Secretary Kemp complaining about the way the legal proceedings were unfolding which in and of itself violated established court procedures and was a flagrant “Hail Mary” attempt to influence the court’s demand that he be present for the trial.
Secretary Kemp responded with this shout heard round the world:
“if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril”
Barack Obama then ignored a lawful subpoena and disobeyed Judge Malihi’s court order to attend the hearing on January 26th, 2012.
Plaintiffs sought to take depositions pursuant to the following Georgia statutes: O.C.G.A. §§50-13-41(a)(2) and 50-13-13(a)(6); OSAH Rules 616-1-2-.15 and 616-1-2-.20
Plaintiffs sought the proper placement of the burden of proof pursuant to OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.07
Plaintiffs sought evidence of Barack Obama’s eligibility through a notice to produce pursuant to OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.19 including:
(a) One (1) of the two (2) original certified copies of Defendant Barack Obama's ("long form") Certificate of Live Birth as referenced in the four (4) pages of Exhibit "A" attached;
(b) All medical, religious, administrative, or other records of or relating to Defendant Barack Obama's birth;
(c) Any and all United States Passports, passport applications, and passport-related records for Defendant Barack Obama;
(d) Any and all passports, passport applications, and passport related records for Defendant Barack Obama from any country, nation, or sovereignty;
(e) Any and all college and university admission information, both undergraduate and postgraduate, for Defendant Barack Obama, including, but not limited to, admission applications; letters of recommendation; school transcripts;" financial aid applications; scholarship applications; and any and all correspondence awarding admission, financial aid, scholarships, or the like;
(f) Any and all applications and accompanying materials submitted by or for Defendant Barack Obama to the State Bar of Illinois, the State Supreme Court of Illinois, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and any other similar entity regulating the admission to the practice of law;
(g) Any and all other documents, materials, and papers having any relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship, denizenship, and national origin of Defendant Barack Obama;
(h) Any and all documents, materials, and papers having any relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship, denizenship, and national origin of Defendant's father, Barack Obama, Sr.
(i) All correspondence between Defendant Barack Obama and any other person, firm, political party, or entity discussing Defendant's status vel non as a natural born Citizen pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
Defendant will note that the preceding items are requested hereby, whether they pertain to Defendant under his name Barack Ohama or any other name, including but not limited to Barack Hussein Ohama II; Barry Soetoro; Barry Soebarkah; Barry Ohama, or the like.
Herein fail not under penalty of law.
(b) All medical, religious, administrative, or other records of or relating to Defendant Barack Obama's birth;
(c) Any and all United States Passports, passport applications, and passport-related records for Defendant Barack Obama;
(d) Any and all passports, passport applications, and passport related records for Defendant Barack Obama from any country, nation, or sovereignty;
(e) Any and all college and university admission information, both undergraduate and postgraduate, for Defendant Barack Obama, including, but not limited to, admission applications; letters of recommendation; school transcripts;" financial aid applications; scholarship applications; and any and all correspondence awarding admission, financial aid, scholarships, or the like;
(f) Any and all applications and accompanying materials submitted by or for Defendant Barack Obama to the State Bar of Illinois, the State Supreme Court of Illinois, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and any other similar entity regulating the admission to the practice of law;
(g) Any and all other documents, materials, and papers having any relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship, denizenship, and national origin of Defendant Barack Obama;
(h) Any and all documents, materials, and papers having any relation to the subject of the birthplace, citizenship, denizenship, and national origin of Defendant's father, Barack Obama, Sr.
(i) All correspondence between Defendant Barack Obama and any other person, firm, political party, or entity discussing Defendant's status vel non as a natural born Citizen pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
Defendant will note that the preceding items are requested hereby, whether they pertain to Defendant under his name Barack Ohama or any other name, including but not limited to Barack Hussein Ohama II; Barry Soetoro; Barry Soebarkah; Barry Ohama, or the like.
Herein fail not under penalty of law.
Article II SuperPAC streamed the proceedings of this historic trial live for the entire world to witness, while the total blackout on reporting of Obama’s ineligibility by the major U.S. news media continued. And let history record justice could not prevail against Judge Malihi’s numerous flawed decisions:
1) Malihi ordered certain Plaintiffs cases severed, and then issued a single “Decision”
2) Erroneous and unsubstantiated “facts”:
a. that Defendant Obama was born in the United States
b. that Defendant Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of the Defendant’s birth
In the Powell case, the Plaintiff did not enter evidence of Obama’s birth certificate or evidence of Obama’s mother’s citizenship at the time of his birth. With the Defendant absent the trial and not entering evidence or testimony on his own behalf, any subsequent finding of material fact in the Defendant’s favor was wholly flawed and unsubstantiated.
3) Failed to make a Determination on the Proper Placement of the Burden of Proof
4) Plaintiff’s challenge should have been sustained by Default, due to Defendant’s failure to appear as acknowledged by Judge Malihi in-chambers, yet entered an order fully favorable to a recalcitrant Defendant
5) Malihi’s adoption of non-binding dicta from Indiana Court of Appeals, ruling that a person’s birth in the United States automatically confers the status of “natural-born Citizen” pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution is unfounded; is an incorrect statement of the applicable law; and is contrary to the binding ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (1875). Minor is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase “natural-born Citizen” refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens. Because Defendant Obama’s father was not a United States citizen at the time of Defendant’s birth, Defendant does not meet the Article II “natural-born Citizen” requirement for the Presidency, and Judge Malihi committed fundamental error in finding otherwise.
6) Failure to rule on Plaintiff’s citation for contempt filed against Defendant for knowing, intentional and deliberate failure to comply with Plaintiff’s Notice to Produce. OSAH Rule 616-1-2.22 makes certification to the court MANDATORY when another party disobeys or resists any lawful order or process, neglects to produce after having been ordered to do so any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed.
2) Erroneous and unsubstantiated “facts”:
a. that Defendant Obama was born in the United States
b. that Defendant Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of the Defendant’s birth
In the Powell case, the Plaintiff did not enter evidence of Obama’s birth certificate or evidence of Obama’s mother’s citizenship at the time of his birth. With the Defendant absent the trial and not entering evidence or testimony on his own behalf, any subsequent finding of material fact in the Defendant’s favor was wholly flawed and unsubstantiated.
3) Failed to make a Determination on the Proper Placement of the Burden of Proof
4) Plaintiff’s challenge should have been sustained by Default, due to Defendant’s failure to appear as acknowledged by Judge Malihi in-chambers, yet entered an order fully favorable to a recalcitrant Defendant
5) Malihi’s adoption of non-binding dicta from Indiana Court of Appeals, ruling that a person’s birth in the United States automatically confers the status of “natural-born Citizen” pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution is unfounded; is an incorrect statement of the applicable law; and is contrary to the binding ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (1875). Minor is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase “natural-born Citizen” refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens. Because Defendant Obama’s father was not a United States citizen at the time of Defendant’s birth, Defendant does not meet the Article II “natural-born Citizen” requirement for the Presidency, and Judge Malihi committed fundamental error in finding otherwise.
6) Failure to rule on Plaintiff’s citation for contempt filed against Defendant for knowing, intentional and deliberate failure to comply with Plaintiff’s Notice to Produce. OSAH Rule 616-1-2.22 makes certification to the court MANDATORY when another party disobeys or resists any lawful order or process, neglects to produce after having been ordered to do so any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed.
...............................................
Though the Georgia ballot challenges were appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, they were never ruled on. In what appears to be an admission of a predisposition on the High Court, here is the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT of the Congressional subcommittee hearing in 2010 with recorded testimony by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declaring the Court is “evading” the requirements of Presidential eligibility; however jovially insinuating they were giving the Congressman “another option.”
Defender of the Truth
© Pixel Patriot 2015
(All rights reserved.)
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06...moved-for.html