"Standing" Repairing the Breach: Plaintiffs vs Obama in Eligibility CASE...whats next?

The establishment media are not reporting this. Help make this news go viral!
Living in the Great State of Georgia, many have emailed me asking for more details on what took place yesterday as it seems very little information is being made PUBLIC. I have spent the morning piecing together an account of Yesterday's Hearing, as well as praying on where this could take us a Citizens of America United for Justice. There is an ACT that took place yesterday reminiscent of David and Goliath.

Something extraordinary and historic happened yesterday in my State of Georgia.

On January 26, 2012, an administrative law judge in Atlanta, Georgia, conducted a hearing into whether a sitting President of the United States of America who’s seeking re-election should be allowed to have his name be placed on the electoral ballot of the state of Georgia this November.

In early January 2012, Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi of the Administrative Court in Georgia, ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss four eligibility lawsuits is denied. The judge also denied a motion filed by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, for Obama to not appear at the first hearing yesterday. Mere hours before yesterdays hearing, Obama's attorney Jablonski tried a desperate ploy to avoid the hearingby sending a letter to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brain Kemp, arguing that the trial be taken away from Judge Malihi. Kemp denied Jablonski’s appeal.

So, how was No Show Obama allowed to walk around a free man after snubbing the State court by not attending yesterdays hearing after both the Judge and Secretary of State denied motions to not be in attendance?

In the previous year, the adamant refusal to verify and investigate Obama’s eligibility a grand conspiracy in all appearance — by the Democratic and Republican parties, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Army, the Social Security Administration and, of course, the media has been like sneezing in the wind.Beginning in 2008, a succession of attorneys and citizens brought lawsuit after lawsuit before state courts, challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President. In each case, Obama’s hired guns — at a reported cost of $2 million in attorney fees — filed motions to dismiss. And in case after case, the presiding judge agreed with the defendant, Obama, and dismissed the lawsuits on the grounds that the plaintiffs all lacked “standing.”

In law, “standing” refers to the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. Although Obama’s eligibility pertains to nothing less than the integrity of the United States Constitution, and although the eligibility plaintiffs include Alan Keyes (a 2008 presidential candidate), retired and active U.S. military officers, and “ordinary” U.S. citizens, judge after judge nevertheless dismissed the lawsuits on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no “standing."

Obama and his attorney Jablonski's middle finger approach to abiding to the courts mandate bears witness to his Elitist ABOVE We The "ordinary" People of the great State of Georgia attitude. Virtue is best seen in ACTION not theory! Yet, who showed up? VIRTUE! At long last, one judge breaking forth from peers "standing" in the gap in Honor ALLOWING evidence to be presented, and "judging" BASED on "weighing" the EVIDENCE not "silencing" the case.

Therefore, yesterday the hearing would go as planned, beginning at 9:00 am, EST at the Fulton County Superior Court. At 9:03 am, a court clerk came out and summoned the four attorneys to the judge’s chamber. They remained secluded for almost half an hour. At around 9:25 am, the four attorneys returned to their seats in the courtroom. Shortly after, Judge Michael Malihi came into the courtroom and began the hearing.

In The State of Georgia a "No Show" in a hearing becomes "by default" a WIN and this is why the attorneys were summoned to the judge’s chamber . Judge Malihi was prepared to enter a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs because neither the defendant, Barack Obama, nor his lawyer Michael Jablonski even so much as bothered grace the courtroom with their presense. Imagine that! It's not like they hadn't tried to NOT ATTEND so its obvious the contempt for the law by their actions.

Yet, being wiser than the ole serpent, the attorneys for the plaintiffs persuaded the judge to conduct the hearing any way because they wanted to present their arguments so that those arguments would be entered into the court’s records. That was smart of them. Given the fact that, even before the hearing began, Judge Malihi already was prepared to rule against the defense, I think it’s safe to assume that he will rule in the plaintiffs’ favor in the end.


The following are from TWO WITNESSES on the scene at Hearing:

First account from Dean Haskins and Second Account from Carl Swensson

Update: Obama's Georgia Ballot Hearing: Judge Wanted To Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama

As we are trying to get a quick lunch, and then do some interviews, this is just a very brief synopsis of what happened. Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. At that point, Irion estimated he would need 20 minutes, Hatfield estimated he would need 30 minutes, and Taitz estimated she would need 2 hours.

Van Irion and Mark Hatfield made their arguments, and left. Taitz then presented her argument, calling several witnesses, until the judge asked her to make her closing statement. As her closing statement began, the judge asked if she was testifying, and, in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand to testify. The judge finally asked her just to make her closing statement, which she did.
We believe that the default judgment automatically translates into the judge's recommendation to the Sec. Of State being that Obama should not appear on the ballot in Georgia. Back to work . . . more to come!

UPDATE: From Plaintiff, in one of the Georgia challenges, Carl Swensson: To all my friends in battle,

The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.

Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment. - Carl

In conclusion of this "account" of what took place in a Courtroom in The State of Georgia on January 26, 2012, I want to touch on the "repairing the breach" and "standing". As LEGALLY defined if your recall, "standing" refers the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.Dr. Orly Taitz is one of the valiant attorneys leading the charge. But who are all the cast in this "standing" Declaration?

A judge in Georgia has done what all previous judges refused to. Michael Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge of the Administrative Court in Georgia, just ruled in four eligibility cases that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. This means that Obama will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office!

The four lawsuits are:
■David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, Laurie Roth vs. Barack Obama (Taitz is the counsel representing the plaintiffs David Farrar et al.)
■David P. Welden vs. Barack Obama (Counsel for the plaintiff is another valiant attorney Van R. Irion.)
■Carl Swensson vs. Barack Obama (Counsel for the plaintiff is J. Mark Hatfield.)
■Kevin Richard Powell vs. Barack Obama (Counsel for the plaintiff is J. Mark Hatfield)Representing the defendant, Barack Obama, in all four cases is high-powered attorney Michael Jablonski, who is also the General Counsel for the Democratic Party of Georgia.

This is the ruling of Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi:
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.

The most important reasons for Judge Malihi’s ruling are Nos. 6-8:
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 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.

Which leads the judge to issue his decision:

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge

Let Judge Malihi know you support and are praying for him. Here’s his contact info:

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi
Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings
230 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 850
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Email of Judge Malihi’s case management assistant, Valerie Ruff: vruff@osah.ga.gov
Tel: (404) 651-7595
Fax: (404) 818-3751

When we look at this great Nation and upon its founding, I can still hear it ringing out in grievances brought against the King during The Declaration of Independence...when valiant men and women "standing" declaring as a People no longer shall we be called Virginians nor Georgians ...We are AMERICANS. So this move in Georgia is not For GEORGIA, but FOR AMERICA. It "involves" alot MORE THAN 'just' Obama's eligibility. It is "standing" and "repairing the breach" on an initial level.

IN THIS CASE YESTERDAY:
1. ANY American citizen, NATIVE BORN especially, should have “Standing” to bring suit for verification of eligibility to hold office, and doubly especially that of the President of the United States~!
2. The “Birthers” are hereby vindicated in their pursuit, if somewhat belatedly, no matter whether the issue goes “pro” or “con” ~!
3. Should the imposter be found in conflict of the Constitutional Requirements, ALL the Executive Orders will be invalid, as will any legislation passed by congress and signed into law by his hand,,
4. LTC Terry Lakin will be vindicated and should be restored his rank, with back pay and privileges
5. Motions for continuance should be denied as irrelevant, based on prior discovery and trial motions already accomplished in other venues.

If we The People of The United States of America could UNITE as AMERICANS and put aside "petty" Divisions...we could RESTORE THIS NATION. We are MORE than white or black (skin color ties), rich or poor (monetary ties), Democrat or Republican (political ties), Hindu or Muslim (non-Christian ties) NOR  Baptist or Catholic (Christian ties).  Separation causes a "breach in the body" of Christ. Every denomination is guilty of causing this breach. Every American is guilty of living this breach. For more on this visit on this subject:  http://musingsandramblingsoftee.blogspot.com/2012/01/let-us-united-under-god-put-white-back.html

THE TIME IS NOW 2012
"I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast My name, and hast not denied My faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was slain among you where satan dwelleth." Revelation 2:13

Many churches hold fast to the name of Jesus and have not denied their faith in Him. Nevertheless, satan's seat is in their midst. Satan's gates have prevailed, his power of separation has come into their midst, causing a great breach in Christ's body.

God's true church must stand against these divisions and separations by not allowing satan to get a foothold in their assemblies. The true church must remain faithful to God's Word, teaching the assembly the need to change and repent, and walk into an overcoming life through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is an on-going work in each believer's life to prepare them for God's Kingdom.

The prophet Isaiah recorded:

"Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching His vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." Isaiah 5:1-2

God revealed His plan for His assembly to Isaiah. He called the assembly His vineyard.
". . . a vineyard in a very fruitful hill. . ."

God planted His vineyard in a fruitful hill. The hill respresents the high place in God.
". . . He fenced it . . ."

God build a Spiritual hedge about His body.
". . . He gathered out the stones. . ."
The stones are the things that offend

". . . He planted it with the choicest vines . . ."

God planted His vineyard with His chosen and elect.
". . . He built a tower in it. . ."
The word tower means "an elevated stage or pulpit"

God supplied a place where His people could be taught.

He also. . . ". . . made a winepress. . ."

God made a winepress in the midst of the assembly. The winepress is where the grapes are brought and placed in vats. The grapes are then crushed to where no grape retains any identity, becoming ONE. Only the grapes who have gone through the winepress will be fit for the King's table.

God desires for His assembly to bring forth His plan and His purpose for the church. He looked that His assembly should bring forth grapes, instead it has brought forth. . . wild grapes. . ." Isaiah 5:2. When we think of wild grapes, we picture a small, bitter grape unable to produce much fruit, and mostly seed. This is not what the phrase wild grapes means. The phrase wild grapes means "stinking, worthless fruit". This is how God views the fruit the organized, religious system of today is producing.

The fruit God desires His choicest vines to produce is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, lowliness, righteousness, and patience. Instead His body has produced the stinking, worthless fruit of division, separation, selfishness, and worldliness.

As Jesus stated:

"Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:6-7
Jesus said of His assemblies who are bringing forth stinking, worthless, rotten fruit ". . . in vain do they worship me . . ."

The gates of hell have prevailed against these assemblies. The hedge has been broken down that God placed around His body. Because of this satan has come in like a flood, and has his seat in their very midst.
The All-wise Solomon wrote:
". . . whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him." Ecclesiastes 10:8

The church of today wonders why it has no power and cannot feel the presence of God. It is because they have forgot that light and darkness cannot dwell together.

The prophet Ezekiel proclaimed:
"Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord." Ezekiel 13:5

The Bible tells us our battle is not physical, but spiritual. The hedge God has put around His vineyard is a Spiritual hedge, the Holy Spirit hedge. God's Holy Spirit hedge has been broken down and talked down until the gates of hell have prevailed against God's assemblies.

Ezekiel states...
". . . you have not gone up into the gaps to make up the hedge . . ."

God's true church must take on the responsibility of going into the gaps to make up the hedge. God has already hedged His assembly. He gives His leadership the responsibility, power, and authority in the Holy Spirit to protect His hedge from being broken through. But many leaders in the church today are allowing this hedge to fall down. Many leaders have stood back and watched division and separation enter into their midst through this great breach in God's hedge.

We are in the battle in the day of the Lord. The assemblies have not gone up into the gap, nor repaired the breach in the body of Christ, nor made up the Spiritual hedge to ward off the attacks of satan. Instead many leaders in today's church have come into agreement with satan. This they have deemed to be the easy way. Because of this, their worship before God is vain. This apathy and selfishness is a stink in the nostrils of God. Many in God's leadership have indeed become wild grapes in the sight of God.

Isaiah continued his proclamation of God's vineyard:

"For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His pleasant plant: and He looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." Isaiah 5:7

Not only God's leadership, but the whole house of Israel have allowed God's vineyard to be broken. The word Israel means "princes of God". A prince is the son of the King.

The House of Israel is God's house made up of His sons (no gender).

An Psalmist wrote of these last days:
"This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord". Psalm 102:18

God is looking for judgment upon sin to come forth from the tower (the pulpit) which He has set in the midst of His people (the assembly):FOR THESE ARE THE DAYS OF VENGENCE! Instead, God is seeing oppression. He watches as "the denominations" (religion) continue to bring His people under their control by teaching them their precepts and doctrines which cannot produce life. He watches as "the Democrats and the Republicans" (politics)  continue to bring His People under their divided control with speeches on "rights"  which only lead to bondage.  He watches as  "The Federal Reserve System" (financial) led His People to poverty instead of wealth. Satan's seat is secure in their midst and the breach is ever widening.

If The Congress won't do anything about The Federal Reserve, I believe the NEXT STEP in "standing" is for an "ordinary" citizen to "initiate the case" and then the long line of Foreclosed home-owners, the inflation WE ALL are "experiencing" is EVIDENCE of "theft by deception and fraud" in this Federal Reserve Instrument of OPRESSION. We need to "stand" FOR CHRIST, FOR AMERICA, FOR FREEDOM, FOR OUR CHILDREN's FUTURE.

Imagine the retro-effect if found unconstitutional, and fraudulent, to take a CITIZENS money and have it sent "elsewhere" is STEALING. The Law Thou Shall not Steal applies. As a CITIZEN of The United States, one is "protected" under the Constitution. One Nation under God! For Liberty and Justice for ALL!


For those who wish to SEE for themselves the Court order and READ it for themselves:

OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY
JUDY, THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE
ROTH,
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CEPlaintiffs,
: 1215136-60-MALIHI
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Orly Taitz
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
DAVID P. WELDEN,
Plaintiff, : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1215137-60-MALIHI
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
CARL SWENSSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
KEVIN RICHARD POWELL,
Counsel for Plaintiff: Van R. Ilion
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
: Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1216218-60-MALIHI
: Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield
Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
Plaintiff, : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
: 1216823-60-MALIHI
v.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant.
Page 1 of 4
: Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield
• Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
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