Judge Malihi Denied Obama's Motion to Dismiss in GA Ballot Challenge: More Orders Issued

ObamaRelease YourRecords ^ | Tuesday, January 3, 2012; 9:39 AM

[Red Steel]

Judge Malihi Denied Obama's Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge: Granted Powell's and Swensson's Motion for Separate Hearings
Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Motion to Dismiss by Obama is Denied, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge

Excerpts from Judge Michael Malihi in the Order for Obama's Motion to Dismiss:

"Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling."

"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."

"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."

Other Orders from Judge Michael Malihi are as follows;

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Motion to Take Depositions Denied, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge

Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama, Motion to Sever Granted, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge

Please visit Article II Super PAC for the complete Orders here: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

[Excellence]

Have you checked your recycle bin? Maybe you could go back to a restore point from a couple of days ago.

[little jeremiah]

Thank YOU!

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Or do a search for our .pst file and make sure the date is in the past.

[PA-RIVER]

Pity the poor bastards at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX that now have to report that whaco birthers (American Citizens) have won a decision.

Proving your an NBC should be as simple as picking your nose, and Obama can't do it!

[philman_36]

You're such a tease.
You expecting company? {;^)

[urtax$@work]

ping to LucyT & Hoosiermama

[little jeremiah]

Write a vanity “article” asking for tech help. Other people do that and seem to get help. That way more people will see it.

[Menehune56]

Who wants to bet Oh-damn-ya resigns before the shyte really hits the fan?

I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi and the other rats who directly attested to his eligibility, as well as the beltway pubbies and sycophant pressitutes who pooh-poohed this issue, will insist. They want the whole thing to just disappear down the memory hole like it never happened. Too bad Al Gore invented the internet.

[Envisioning]

For later.

[djf]

Yeah, I noticed that “abstract” thing...

The caveat on that form was amazing, basically saying “This is a true copy of a collection of information on file...”

A collection of information, probably not from the same source...
A collection of information, probably not even FROM THE SAME PEOPLE!!!

You get what you pays for, eh?

[little jeremiah]

Check Hoosier-Daddy’s comment.

[SERKIT]

Is there any history with the 11th Circuit relative to this topic? Does the complainant have "standing? Are there any O-bots on the next bench who may likely see this case?

This is an encouraging circumstance, but no one should be holding their breath for any urf-shattering upset at the White Crib. Erich "The Coward" Holder and the Just Us Department could weigh in.

[jdirt]

Article II SUPER PAC DOES NOT FUND THE LAWSUIT, IT IS JUST FOR EDUCATION. PLEASE SEND DONATIONS TO THE ATTORNEYS: HATFIELD, IRION AND TAITZ

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fwdude]

I am happy to see that a court is finally taking the issue.

Don't get too excited. We'll hit a roadblock at the "conservative-leaning" Supreme Court. Count on it.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Take it to the USSC to allow Obama to not have to show his LFBC to qualify and not have to explain why his “father” being a British Subject making Obama ineligibile doesn’t apply to “The Won”?

I’m not even sure Wasserman-Schultz would buy it.

[Triple]

I am pretty excited about this - AFAIK it is the first time the motions to dismiss have failed. (and boy were they lame.)

If there is discovery - its over. If the USSC has to decide again on NBC definition - it is a horserace, but Minor Vs. Heppersett gives the good guys the lead.

[Triple]

I am pretty excited about this - AFAIK it is the first time the motions to dismiss have failed. (and boy were they lame.)

If there is discovery - its over. If the USSC has to decide again on NBC definition - it is a horserace, but Minor Vs. Heppersett gives the good guys the lead.

(ping to David - opinion?)

[PA-RIVER]

I guess the proof doesn't have to be accepted.

Hawaii doesn't dictate what proof is good for NBC qualifications.

They can send a Teapot, a Hammer, or BC that's a pile of crap, but is that proof of NBC? If it's the PDF, definitely not.

If that PDF BC gets into a court room, and it's pulled apart and proved to be fraudulent, people are setting themselves up for legal peril.

Who on “Team Obama” is going to vouch for that cut and paste photo-shop garbage in a court room?

[PA-RIVER]

The judge could dismiss if he accepts Obamas evidence. The ruling is just stating that he has to submit evidence.

[DrDude]

Great news, I read into it that the judge here gave standing by specifically saying “The Plaintiffs are voters”. This is pretty significant. I think this needs to go viral, if possible. Ibelieve the more exposure this gets the less chance of this Judge disappearing or pulling a Vince Foster impersonation, Happy Day here at FR