Posted on 01/03/2012 10:17:53 AM PST by Elderberry
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
Page 4 of 4
the = think
Trying to spread the word that it was covered on FOX...Can’t find a suitable thread or list.
(Can
t type eiter)
Check your pings .. ;)
Everything is slow here....By the time I typed and got posts posted a couple more pings show up...LOL AAAARGH
COuldn’t quite believe it on FOX, but when I read the original post here it sounds almost like he read it off of FR.
Let’s see if this one will post or double post....
Think of it as a paperwork extradition case. Those sun-bronzed surfers out there in the Pacific can and no doubt will take their own sweet time in fulfilling that request.
Step one for the HIDOH: seek relief (or at least a "clarification") from the subpoena in their own state courts.
Step 2: Hire a GA attorney to fight the subpoena on the grounds that "They already released the info, as every MSM reporter knows.
Step 3: HI releases the same "Abstract of Data on File" they gave the WH, claiming that is sufficient.
Solution: In Bill Ayer's fascinating book, "Dreams of My FAther," it is admitted or claimed that (a)that The Anointed of Allah was fathered by a citizen of the UK (or Kenya.) And (b)in this book, sort of an American "Mein Kampf," it is also claimed that the Mombasa MF was a dual citizen.
These two admissions, INMHO, are ample grounds to remove the man from the ballot. Again, IMHO, the way to flush this into the right courts is to make BHO, Jr. the PLAINTIFF. Not the DEFENDANT. The way to do that is for the GA authorities to simply go ahead and take him off the ballot. By claiming he is ineligible, they need not even count write-ins. IMHO, that would be a legitimate use of their authority under the Constitution of the State of Georgia.
Note she is waiting to the very day, the very last moment it is scheduled to fulfill the order....It won't set too well with the judge is his opinion. Orley will no doubt point out to the judge that not only did they not give her time to examine or have the material examined, but they also did not allow her the travel time she needs to appear in GA.
see # 125
“Again, IMHO, the way to flush this into the right courts is to make BHO, Jr. the PLAINTIFF. Not the DEFENDANT. The way to do that is for the GA authorities to simply go ahead and take him off the ballot. By claiming he is ineligible, they need not even count write-ins. IMHO, that would be a legitimate use of their authority under the Constitution of the State of Georgia. “
assuming we could find a SOS who’d do this....how do you like this??
OTOH putting the head of HIDOH in jail would certainly make the MSM and cause a lot of doubt in the populous.
btrl
Exactly.
BHO II was turned over to the grandparents at this point. I just do not see how they take responsibility for this child without have issues of guardianship and citizenship well defined.
BHO Sr. was probably not just there for a ‘drive-by’. He may have been legally needed. One of the methods of legally ‘anulling’ an Indonesian-recognized adoption is for the ‘original father’ to come forth and re-claim his child. If that were the case, and assuming the Grandparents wanted him to be a at least have Dual or Multi-US citizenship at the end of the process may have been to do this:
1. The parental rights of Lolo Soetoro (as adopted or step father) are terminated by BHO Sr. legally taking sole guardianship of BHO II. Indonesia recognizes the ‘reclaiming’ and terminates - legally - Lolo (and possibly SAD/S) parental responsibilities. Now, the slate is clean in Indonesia. BHO II would not be an Indonesian citizen at this point.
2. At this point BHO II would be under the sole legal guardianship of BHO Sr. and is likely legally only a UK citizen.
3. BHO Sr. is just a conduit. So the next action is to transfer guardianship to the Grandparents (or some indicate they are convinced it was a Catholic refugee function). So BHO Sr. has to hang around Hawaii till that is done.
This is all theory - admittedly. But something happened in 1971 that likely affected BHO’s guardianship and possibly citizenship. So it would be another period where his birth records and identity records would likely be obscured by court ordered sealing or just plain paperwork maze activity.
Specific dates during that period:
10/20/1971 SAD and BHO Jr. leave Indonesia on Pan Am flight 812
10/21/1971 SAD and BHO Jr arrive in Hawaii from Indonesia
12/15/1971 BHO Senior visits Hawaii for a month
1/4/1972 SAD reapplies for passport indicating she will be there indefinitely. This application includes crossed out removal of Soebarkah in the application.
1/14/1972 SAD returns to Indonesia
7/1/1972 SAD comes back to Hawaii with Maya after leaving Lolo. Date is not exact
Sources:
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/83-updated-stanley-ann
http://www.fcaea.org/aid=162.phtml
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/ot/
Again, just a theory trying to fit the data point of that time.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/academia_shrugs_obamas_citizenship_and_the_presidency.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_great_american_memory_hole.html
Very much!
That has always seemed the preferred course beginning with the 2009 Joint Session of Congress or any of the various state actions.
Of the present choices, clearly the least complicated basis for a state to claim ineligibility is where a candidate is unable to produce credible evidence of U.S. birth. All GA (or for that matter, NH) has to do is simply request a copy of the candidate’s BC as proof of the certification of eligibility sworn to it under oath!
In response, a candidate will either produce a BC that is subject to testing and perhaps verification by HI or, in lieu of producing bogus documentation, withdraw from the state’s election process. The candidate may of course, file a lawsuit.
Denying ballot access based on a foreign father is, in my opinion, much more problematic for a state. That is because, while I believe there are strong historical arguments for the two citizen parent requirement, I also believe Minor’s remarks on that subject are susceptible of more than one interpretation.
Even if our current USSC, sharply divided along political lines, reviews Minor, I believe there is room for it to claim it is not bound by whatever the decision suggests. Minor states being a “citizen” was enough for its decision (and the syllabus makes no mention of “natural born citizen”); i.e., Minor's citizenship was not an issue before the court and the various forms of citizenship was no more relevant to its holding than the color of her hair. Arguably, it remarks regarding naturhal born citizenship was a "musing" that a subsequent court could ignore.
Tellingly, Lockwood makes no mention of natural born citizen and cites Minor for its use of the word “citizen”, and not its use of “natural born citizen”, because the latter was not relevant in Lockwood anymore than it was in Minor. I have not read all of Leo Donofrio, but when he sets out his public challenge regarding the Lockwood decision, he talks in terms of “federal citizenship” not natural born citizenship.
Perhaps the greatest thing we have to fear, IMO, is that a court may create something of a blended finding, such as “two parents, one or both of whom by their actions have indicated an intent to become U.S. citizens” (crossing the border, getting a job, qualifying or a driver's license, enrolling their children in school, etc. etc.).
Please excuse the typos, in a hurry.
Dad is correct. The GA Judge certainly has the option of issuing the order. Whom had he in mind for enforcing the order? Also one ought to bear in mind that there are many dilatory legal tactics available to the authorities in Hawaii.
Usually when documents are carried across state lines a federal Marshall accompanies the representative from the state that was subpoenaed to appear. No reason that a Federal Marshall cannot accompany representative who refuses to bring material so they can explain to the judge why they are unable to produce.
(1)Federal Marshals work for Eric Holder. (2) The Marshal can attest that the subpoena was served, and even hang around to pick up the requested evidence. For many moons.
;o)
freepersup
Thank you! I have to admit, this sort of stuff takes hours and hours to do and put together in a cogent fashion. It is the occasional thanks that I (and others ) get which keeps us going. For certain, it doesn’t pay the bills, but it MUST be done.
Thank you for the pat on the back! I really do appreciate it!
~Danae
“(should be interesting)”
Now that there is an understatement. T minus 13 days and counting.
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.