Does the rule of law still stand in the peach state?
by Sharon Rondeau
The Post and Mail Attorney Orly Taitz has posted on her website an order from Judge Michael Malihi denying the request of an attorney representing Barack Hussein Obama to dismiss three ballot challenges filed respectively by Taitz, Atty. Van Irion, and Atty. J. Mark Hatfield on behalf of Georgia registered voters and others. Taitz represents four presidential candidates and a Georgia voter, David Farra; Irion represents David Welden, a Georgia voter; and Hatfield represents Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, both Georgia voters.
The Post & Email published an article on January 2, 2012 regarding Taitz’s ballot challenge in Georgia as well as in other states.
Also on January 2, 2012, The Post & Email spoke with Atty. Van Irion, who described his ballot challenge on behalf of David Welden. Irion had stated that a hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2012, and we have contacted him to inquire as to whether or not that hearing will take place given today’s order from Judge Malihi.
In his order , Malihi wrote, inpart: The Georgia Election Code (“the Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).
The Post & Email had published another Georgia voter’s petition asking that a special grand jury be convened to investigate the non-response of Secretary of State Brian Kemp to the voter’s previous FOIA request and formal letter inquiring as to the information Kemp relied upon in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot. The voter cited the same statute as Malihi in contending that registered voters have a right to challenge candidates’ qualifications for any office. The voter, Millard Blanchard, claimed that Kemp had broken the law by failing to remove Obama’s name from the 2012 presidential ballot.
Judge Malihi appeared to support Blanchard’s claim in his decision:
Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
A former secretary of state, Karen Handel, utilized the law when she disqualified someone from his candidacy for local office.
Of the new development, Taitz stated on her website, “I still can’t believe this…Judge Malihi, Deputy Chief judge of the Administrative court in GA, ruled, that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. He will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office…Now judge Malihi is sending a message: ‘nobody is above the law.’”
Questions have swirled since 2008 regarding Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office of president. While he claims a birth in Hawaii, many experts deemed the long-form birth certificate issued on April 27, 2011 a forgery. Obama also claims having been born to a foreign father who never held U.S. citizenship, thereby raising the issue of whether or not he meets the criterion of “natural born Citizen” as stated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Post & Email is aware of at least one researcher who has stated that Obama falsified his entire background and that he was actually born in New York City to two U.S.-citizen parents but sent to live in Indonesia as a toddler. Trowbridge has asked Obama to “step forth in integrity.”
Today in Concord, NH, several state legislators held a press conference to inform the public about what they believe could have been election fraud committed in 2008 by Barack Hussein Obama if he was not constitutionally eligible to seek the office of president. They have also objected to the denial by the New Hampshire Supreme Court to review a decision by the state Ballot Law Commission to include Obama’s name on the ballot for the 2012 election. The Commission as well as the Secretary of State’s office claimed they were not responsible for vetting candidates, but in both 2011 and 2008, the Assistant Secretary of State had disqualified one candidate, respectively, for failing to meet constitutional eligibility requirements for the presidency.
In 2010, a candidate for U.S. Congress from Texas was disqualified by the Secretary of State for apparently having a party affiliation as he was planning to run as an Independent. A challenges to Obama’s eligibility has also been filed in New York, and a website with national scope has been established to assist voters to do so in each of the 50 states.
© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
