Tags

, , , , , ,

ALERT! Attorney Orly Taitz will be with us tonight with more details.  We’re live at 9p ET on The ANDREA SHEA KING SHOW.

Join us!

‘Farrar Case Motion to
Dismiss by Defendant: DENIED!’

A Georgia Judge has denied Obama’s attempt to suppress discovery in the challenge to his eligibility. Read the denial of Obama’s Motion to Dismiss here.

As one of the indefatigable patriots working on the challenge said: “This would seem to indicate that the case can proceed. Let the Discovery games begin. It might be too soon to have visions of Obama in an orange jumpsuit, with the tropical scenery of Guantanomo in the background, but we can hope and work toward that goal.”

Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2012


ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.”

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 1

I. Discussion 1. 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).

2. 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).

3. The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that “[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . 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.” O.C.G.A. § 21- 2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political

1 Because Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied, in the interest of efficiency, the Court finds it unnecessary to wait for the Plaintiffs’ responses before denying the motion.

Page 2 of 4

 party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama’s name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4. In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party’s nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5. Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6. Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word “candidate” is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference Page 3 of 4

 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.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7. Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8. Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

II. Decision Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.

MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

*** Meanwhile, in New Hampshire today ***

New Hampshire State Capitol Building, Concord, NH

Eight Republican New Hampshire State representatives, three newspapers, including the Monitor and one local TV station showed up for today’s press conference announcing the challenge to the Constitutionally ineligible usurper Obama’s name being placed on the 2012 NH ballot.

According to a published report, the NH State Reps “stood almost alone among a handful American officials nationwide and called out the situation and perpetrators for what they are, including the obvious usrpation of Obama and the enabling by their NH officials in helping to allow it to happen.”

Earlier on Tuesday, a signed affidavit was served by the Representatives and Mark Rosetti to employees of the Secretary of State, since SoS officials were not available.

The Concord Monitor interviewed several people about the Obama Ballot Challenge (http://ObamaBallotChallenge.com), which is a resource to promote, facilitate and report on ballot challenges, and the Article 2 PAC (http://art2superpac./com), established to educate the American Public and officials about Constitutional eligibility requirements and supporting various legal actions to help enforce it.

The Boston “Glob” reports on the challenge to Obama’s eligibility on New Hampshire 2012 ballot.  (We discussed this at some length on last night radio program.)

Boston “Glob”– “fair and balanced report”?  You be the judge.

NH lawmakers question Obama ballot status

CONCORD, N.H.—A small group of New Hampshire lawmakers and others want the attorney general to investigate whether President Barack Obama deserves to be on the presidential primary ballot.

State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, a Colebook Republican, said they asked the attorney general Tuesday to investigate, but have gotten no response. Rappaport said the issue is whether Obama is a natural-born citizen whose parents both were American citizens.

The White House released the president’s detailed Hawaii birth certificate saying his father was born in Kenya and his mother was born in Kansas.

The U.S. Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be a natural-born U.S. citizen or born abroad to parents who are both U.S. citizens; at least 35 years old; and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

The state Ballot Law Commission rejected an effort to take Obama’s name off the ballot because of questions about his citizenship.

Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said it’s another example of how “crazy town” has taken over the Statehouse.