Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
In before the derisive contra-birthers.
That clerk’s behavior sounds an awful lot like that of Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Danny Bickel...
Let me guess - did the clerk wait a week without saying anything to Irion (about any problems with the filing) because the papers had to be tested for anthrax?
Here we go again. The same suspicious behavior, the same crappy rulings. Somebody needs to monitor the communications of the clerks and judges in question - IMMEDIATELY.
Yeah, gotta hate it when those folks who have been right every single time show up and harsh the mellow.
I didn’t say nuthin’.
The irony of a judge who apparently accepted as probative a non-certified internet image of a (forged) birth certificate... refusing to certify the record of the court as required by law so another judge could determine whether Obama and his attorney were guilty of contempt of court.
This is now 2 different kinds of motions that Malihi just ignored: Hatfield’s motion for Malihi to determine who had the burden of proof, and all the attorneys’ motions for Malihi to certify the record so another judge could consider contempt of court charges.
Lawlessness on open display. These people are making a mockery out of the whole system. A big ol’ middle finger to the whole rest of the country and the rule of law. Just like Obama and his attorney raised the middle finger to us all.
the law does not give a clerk the right to make a legal determination of what to file and what not to file. That is the courts duty. However, if he does question you, ask him these three questions;
(1) to show in your states code what his job is. Point out to him the law (it’s the same in every state or close enough for government work); if he still does not record your documents, then
(2) demand a copy of his surety bond and
(3) the name of his insurance carrier for that bond
You are quite right! The burden of proof fiasco was VERY important and Malihi completely ignored it, knowing it would bury Obama. This judge’s actions have smelled to high heaven even though he actually began the cases honestly.
There is a conspiracy in this country to protect Obama.
Higher ups are frightened.
Most of us will not live long enough to see the whole truth come out.
Yes, and if they can corrupt NBC to mean “citizen”, then they’ll have the positive reinforcement to finally redefine that pesky 2nd amendment they hate so much.
Then the Bill of Rights, then the Constitution.
Heil Hussein!
I hope I live long enough to finally hear the truth about this. I truly believe they are afraid of an all out race war. And with the half being the have-not’s and the other half the have’s . . . I say go ahead and bring it on and get it over with so we can finally move on and ahead.
That will be helpful information for anybody working with a ballot challenge.
Were you following when all that happened with Danny Bickel in the Supreme Court’s treatment of Donofrio v Wells? When Danny Bickel was able to get away with everything he did, Donofrio’s conclusion was that the Supreme Court justices themselves were compromised.
The VERY SAME DAY that SCOTUS refused to hear Donofrio’s case, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an unprecedented invitation to Obama for an ex parte meeting at the Supreme Court before the inauguration. People will tell you that this is a standard courtesy visit, but I have documentation that this is the first time that the COURT ever initiated that meeting, and this is the only time where such a meeting took place when cases about the election were pending.
The conference to decide whether SCOTUS would hear Donofrio’s case was on a Friday and the results were not released to the public until the following Monday. Roberts issued his invitation on Friday so that the public knew of that invitation at the very same time that SCOTUS was conferring about taking Donofrio’s case. The timing was blatant.
Then Roberts biffed the legal oath of office so that Obama never said the correct oath on Jan 20, 2009. They re-did the oath in private, but though it would have been just as easy to videotape as to audiotape, Roberts was never seen on video giving the correct oath to Obama.
On the last day of 2011 Roberts once again broke precedent by including in his year-end report comments about the ethics of the Supreme Court - saying he trusted the justices to know when to recuse themselves (See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-31/supreme-court-recusal-policy/52307886/1 ). This came after Kagan and Sotomayor had been asked to recuse themselves from a conference to decide whether to hear an eligibility case in which THEIR VERY POSITIONS AS JUSTICES WAS AT STAKE. Roberts was very conspicuously saying that he had no problem with individual justices deciding cases where their very job stood or fell with the defendant.
I believe Donofrio was right; the Supreme Court itself is compromised. There are plenty of indicators of that.
And retired military generals intervened in the case of Lt Col Terry Lakin, telling him to drop the eligibility issue because the judicial system is compromised and cannot be trusted to give Constitutional decisions. These men - including Paul Vallely - said that CIA operatives had been to Hawaii in search of any birth records for Obama and there simply aren’t any records for him. If these guys are privy to what the CIA and/or other intelligence groups are doing and the information they have, and they say the judicial system is compromised.... I have a tendency to believe them, especially given the blatant outward signs that even I can see.
Factor in the threats that were made to the media on the eligibility issue in October of 2008 and again after the election (right before Roberts made his unprecedented invitation to Obama the same day the SCOTUS conferred over Donofrio’s case), and it suggests to me that maybe Roberts was also threatened.
And now we see the same kinds of unlawful behavior in Georgia, with both Malihi and with the clerk of the superior court that would hear the appeal.
This is a pattern, people. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME.
I should have said that Roberts’ statement of confidence in the justices knowing when to recuse themselves came after Kagan and Sotomayor had been asked to recuse themselves from a case in which their very jobs were at stake - AND THEY REFUSED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES EVEN WHEN FACED WITH THE ULTIMATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. And Roberts had no problem with that.
If he had no problem with judges insisting on deciding cases where they have the penultimate conflict of interest, then he is willing to throw ALL ETHICS out the door, which is proof that he is as badly compromised as a judge can possibly be.
And making that publicly clear in a bells-and-whistles treatment of what is normally a boring end-of-year report is as close to parading in public with your dirty underwear hanging out as I can imagine. Either he was told he had to do that by people who wanted to use his “conservative” credibility (as Obama’s close confidant Cass Sunstein proposed should be done just when the eligibility issue was surfacing - see http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ ) , or else he did it hoping everybody would notice his dirty underwear. A red flag similar to the unprecedented invitation the very day of Donofrio’s conference, aimed at letting the public know he was operating under duress.
Should be pretty easy to pinpoint the DAY that Malihi went to lawlessness. Law enforcement should get a warrant to check his communications for the day or 2 preceding that day.
Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday
Read it. It’s a good one by Attorney Hatfield.
Thanx for the pingie
CORRECTION/RETRACTION:
I’m trying to find where I read about the CIA looking for Obama’s BC in Hawaii and so far I can’t find it. What I find is Vallely saying that ex-CIA people all agree that the long-form Obama has posted is a forgery and also Vallely saying that Obama’s birth certificate has never been found in Hawaii. (for instance, at http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/311433/ ).
I must have accidentally convoluted those 2 statements to come up with Vallely saying that CIA agents actually looked for the document in Hawaii. But that’s not what was actually said, so I retract what I said. It was a mistake. My apologies.
One question I like people to answer is:
Lets say Osama Bin Laden ( or just pick any madman sycopath ) had a child with an American women, the child was born in Florida ( or pick any US state ), making the child a US citizen by birth. Should this child one day be legally eligble to run for the Office of the President of the United States?
The answers people give are rather interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.