Georgia’s Obama Ballot Challenge; Let’s Crow About It! UPDATED! Obama Subpoened! (Open Thread)

©Bridgette @WTPOTUS 2012

Obama’s Ballot Challenge Makes Media Headlines!

FOX News Reports on Obama’s Ballot Challenge in 2012!

Bret Baier FOX News

In Friday’s newscast, Bret Baier reported on the Farrar v Barack Obama  lawsuit that challenges having Obama’s name on Georgia’s presidential primary ballot.   On December 15, 2011,  President Barack Obama, Defendant, moved for dismissal of  the Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office.   In the last couple  of days, we got great news that the Motion to Sever by the Obama Administration in Georgia’s  Obama Ballot Challenge Lawsuit  was denied by Judge Michael M. Malihi. The important paragraphs  were the following.

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.

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 3rd day of January, 2012.


We are thrilled to see the word DENIED in a lawsuit challenged by the Obama team!  Say it again, Denied, Denied, Denied.  It seems to trip so easily off your lips.   Louder now for the Obots:  DENIED, DENIED, DENIED!

As part of this same lawsuit, Hawaii’s DOH was Issued a Subpoena For Obama’s Original Birth Certificate and the 1961 Microfiche RollLoretta Fuddy was commanded to appear in Atlanta on January 16 – 18, 2012.  She is to produce the following:

Original typewritten 1961 birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, II, issued 8.08.1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 1961 until now, as well as the microfiche roll for August 1961, containing above document.

This week’s news can only get better and it has!  

This sentence was attributed to the Birthers, but that word doesn’t matter in this instance.  Bret said, He [Obama] is Not a Natural Born Citizen” on national TV!    Yes, the issue of NBC hit prime time!  Also attributed to the infamous Birthers was that the birth certificate is believed to be a FAKE.  His voice inflections were telling.

Indeed, this was a two-fer night!  In fact, we should have a Birther’s  “Coming Out” Parteee!  For all those who want the truth, but have been afraid of the Left’s ridicule.  The Alinsky tables can be turned, turned, turned.

Will we hear apologies from the likes of the adamant deniers such as O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Megan Kelly, and Glenn Beck?   They all did such great investigative work on the issue, didn’t they.  They had crack researchers, yes,  the best in the business,  we were told.  How about the liars from the Left like Anderson Cooper at CNN?   How will they face their audiences and tell them we really didn’t investigate, we invented the information we presented?  Will some of our Congressmen and Congresswomen finally get some guts to stand for our Constitution and our nation of laws?

Will  Judge Malihi be the one that puts our nation back on an even keel?   Our prayers are with the judge that he remain stalwart, steadfast, and honorable.  We pray that he does not cave to bribes, threats , or intimidation by the Obama thugs.  He has our whole nation in his hands!

The following broadcast was transcribed from You Tube in case it is suddenly scrubbed.  Thank you, Bret Baier and FOX!  


Bret Baier’s –

Fresh Pickings from the Grapevine.

Friday, January 6, 2012

“A state judge in Georgia has DENIED a motion by the Obama
Administration to dismiss a complaint challenging the pResident’s eligibility to be on the ballot there.

Attorney Orly Taitz filed the complaint back in November, [2010] on behalf of a Georgia resident contending President Obama is  NOT  a Natural Born Citizen and, therefore, should NOT be on the March presidential primary in Georgia.

You will remember that last year the White House released  the pResident’s  long form birth certificate. However, Taitz, along with many others in the so-called “Birther Movement” is  still not satisfied.  Some in that movement call it a FAKE, others say that the real issue is that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

A hearing has now been set for January 26th.  The pResident’s lawyer in Atlanta says that he is optimistic that the judge will decide in the pResident’s favor.

Transcribed by Bridgette


Famous Last Words that will go down in history along with Obama!

The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.

~Barack Obama

See the You Tube Before it Disappears!

Fox News’ Bret Baier:

Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Against Obama Gets Hearing



Hear Ye, Hear Ye…


The Ballot Challenge posted the new Subpoena that is issued to Barack Obama.  He is commanded to appear in Court and to be sworn in as a Witness.  He is to produce the documents on the following list.

Any and all certified birth records, certified long form birth certificate, certified school/university registration records, certified immigration /naturalization records, certified passport records and redacted certified SS-5 applications under the names of Barack (Barry) Soetoro, Barack (Barry) Soebarkah, Barack (Barry Obama and any and all combinations of thereof and any other names used.

The Court date, time and location are January 26, at 9:00 a.m. in the Administrative Court, state of Georgia,  Fulton County Justice Center Building, Atlanta Georgia.

Honorable Michael Malihi presiding.

345 responses to “Georgia’s Obama Ballot Challenge; Let’s Crow About It! UPDATED! Obama Subpoened! (Open Thread)

  1. Some interesting comments / research re; by Freepers –

    Atlanta Admin Court 1/20/2012 Judge Malihi

    Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 10:57:39 AM

    #57 ElkGroveDan (as far as I’ve gotten so far, but a great comment!)

    if he ignores the subpoena, and is summarily ruled against, and still simply ignores the ruling… then what?

    What he does is irrelevant. The plaintiffs are suing to keep him off the Georgia ballot. If they win, then the State of Georgia may not print his name on ballots. No doubt he’s going to lose Georgia anyway, but this will become a national story. Even his most avid supporters who believe his fable, will ask, “Why stay off the ballot? Why not just provide the documentation?” That’s when the facade will begin to crumble.;page=1

    475 comments so far!

  2. Scheduling conflicts as the excuse?

    Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court Over Eligibility Hearing
    by Ulsterman on January 22, 2012

    This past week saw Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi rule that President Barack Obama is to appear in court this Thursday regarding a hearing that refutes Obama’s eligibility to run for president. It appears the Judge’s order will be completely ignored by the administration.

    What, if any repercussions will face the president are unknown. Presently, it appears his administration has little fear of reprisal as the mainstream media continues to ignore the case. The White House has indicated the president will be campaigning in Las Vegas and Denver next Thursday. It will be interesting to see what Judge Malihi does following Barack Obama’s violation of a legally issued subpoena.

    • He can run, but maybe he can’t hide for much longer. Looks like he’s gonna be campaigning as far away as he possibly can next week. I think he should send in ole Joe the Binabler Biden to do his campaigning for him and get on Down To Georgia. Just reminded of that song all of a sudden. “The Devil Went Down to Georgia,looking for some souls to Steal” He better rosin up his Bo! He,he,ha,ha..

  3. H/T Ray – Leo is getting involved in the Georgia cases. Putting this comment here as well so it isn’t lost.

    AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.
    [UPDATED: 1:23 PM – SCRIBD download for Amicus Brief.]
    Jan. 23

    This morning, I filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases. The brief complies with all Rules and procedures of the Administrative Court. The brief is 54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages. The Rules of Court require attachment to the brief of all legal authorities, other than those issued by the federal government, or the State of Georgia. There’s some very esoteric law attached thereto.

    I seriously urge everyone to familiarize themselves with Lord Coke’s Report from Calvin’s Case, as well as Chancellor Ellesmere’s argument, also in Calvin’s Case, for this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law that has been completely misunderstood in this country for too long now. Calvin’s Case is universally recognized as the common law precedent relating to jus soli, but it is so much more fascinating than you can imagine. And it will forever revolutionize understanding of the words “natural-born”.

    This book contains all of the relevant arguments and reports. But the original text of Lord Coke’s Report is the proper starting point. (This document is also in the appendix to my brief.) And here’s another source with slightly modernized English and extras.

    You may download the AMICUS BRIEF here.

    Click to access georgia-brief-merged-final-redacted.pdf

    Leo Donofrio, Esq.

    • What is an Amicus Brief?

      An amicus brief is a document which is filed in a court by someone who is not directly related to the case under consideration.

      The most classic example of an amicus brief is a document filed by an advocacy group such as the American Civil Liberties Union. The additional information which is found in such a document can be useful for the judge evaluating the case, and it becomes part of the official case record. Many nations allow people or entities to file such documents with their courts.

      The tradition of accepting amicus briefs comes from a larger concept, the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.” A friend of the court may be interested in a case for various reasons, although he or she is not directly involved. For example, a court might be preparing to try a case related to online file sharing, an issue of great concern to many people. An amicus brief might be filed to discuss the larger ramifications of potential case outcomes, since these ramifications might not be brought up by the prosecution or defense during the course of a trial.

  4. Anyone know where the Democratic website is to respond to “complaints”? Complaints..funny word to use when they need to respond to questions regarding NBC or ballot challenges. Oh, I see they are referring to the legal term. Oh heck, I was going to complain. I wonder when O’Reilly will chime in.

    Ga. Lawsuit Attempting to Keep Obama Off Ballot
    Complaint: Obama Not a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen

    Updated: Monday, 23 Jan 2012, 5:40 PM EST
    By PAUL YATES/myfoxatlanta [Paul a bot not in disguise!]

    ATLANTA – Lawsuits in Georgia are trying to keep President Barack Obama off the election ballot by claiming he is not a natural-born citizen. [Ah ha TRUTH!]

    Late last week, an administrative judge ruled the president should appear in a court hearing in Atlanta. [TRUE again.]

    Computer repair shop owner Carl Swensson, a Republican activists, is one of the people arguing that President Obama’s name should be removed from the Georgia ballot this year. “He is either eligible or not, that’s what this judge has to determine. If you want to call it frivolous, you can call it what you will,” said Swensson. He contends the president is not a natural-born U.S. Citizen because his father was from Kenya. “It’s very, very important and the reason for that being important is that the founders wanted to preclude the possibility of us having a president with divided loyalties,” aid Swensson.

    His case and others are to be heard this week by an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Michael Malihi has refused to block a subpoena from another plaintiff requiring the president to appear in court in Atlanta. In an order, Malihi said of the president, “Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority.”

    The state Democratic Party has produced a web site response to the complaints. [Need a URL to see what they have to say in their new “fight the real American patriots” site! You think they are getting lots of phone calls, emails and questions?]

    Many lawsuits have been filed across the country regarding the president’s citizenship status, so far without success. [Citizenship, really?]

    The Atlanta lawyer representing President Obama could not be reached for comment on Monday. The ballot challenges are to be heard in court on Thursday. [He is busy trying to rewrite another Motion to Quash and cover his donkey @ss.]

  5. No schedule change for the Usurper? He is too busy trying to be president. Thursday, h’se making an appearance in Las Vegas and Denver? Does appearance mean they get to see his face and open their pockets and give him some change? Contempt and in your face and mine if he doesn’t show up or his attorney doesn’t get a release from the court.

    Obama Ordered To Appear Before Atlanta Judge
    by Keith Koffler on January 21, 2012, 11:39 am Snip

    The judge set the hearing for this Thursday after denying on Friday a motion by Obama’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to personally show up.

    Obama, however, will be nowhere near Atlanta on Thursday. According to the White House, he will be out West promoting the agenda he plans to lay out in Tuesday’s State of the Union address. Obama Thursday plans to make appearances in Las Vegas and Denver areas before traveling on to Detroit to spend the night.

    • 573 “likes” for that story AND 177 comments so far. That’s a good blog, btw. I keep forgetting to check it more often.

  6. Georgia on Obama’s Mind?
    January 23, 2012

    As reported here on American Thinker, “the ‘birthers’ went down to Georgia, lookin’ for an election to spoil”…and spoil it they may.

    The story began last November, when Georgia citizen David Welden filed a formal challenge over Obama’s qualifications to appear on Georgia’s 2012 presidential ballot.

    Although the mainstream media pejoratively label those who question Obama’s eligibility as conspiratorial “birthers” and defines “birtherism” as belief in a Kenyan birthplace, Welden stipulates otherwise:

    The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.

    Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).

    Attorney Irion filed a thorough and brilliant opposition to Obama’s motion to dismiss Welden’s challenge, and on January 3, Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings denied all three of the motions to dismiss in one order.

    Opposition Motion by Irion

    Click to access Welden-GA-Opp.-Mtn.-Dismiss-1.4.pdf

  7. I of all people would love a successful ballot challenge to be the ‘thing’ that exposes once and for all, Barack Obama is not who he would have us believe he is; and not just because 3 1/2 years ago, I came up with this idea in the first place. (You can check the blogs…) But this is not that ballot challenge.

    The President will not appear at the administrative law hearing in GA on Thursday; and if ALJ Malihi issues a ruling on the issue Mr. Farrar has raised (through his attorney, Ms. Taitz); it likely will be an agreement that SoS Kemp rightly refused to remove his name from the D Presidential primary ballot.


  8. If the judge finds and can present in his language for a remedy,that Georgia’s state administrative procedures cannot entirely solve this problem,because the ballot law procedures under Georgia statutes do not require that requesting proof of a candidates eligibility as part of their procedural duties . He could recommend a higher court stipulating this could be taken up at the legislative branch of the state. I doubt this will happen at this hearing,but there is room for this judge to recognize this. Often times even though this is where procedural flaws are noted for further scrutiny,but someone would need alot of time, money to take it up in a higher court.

  9. One of the first responsibilities of a Secretary of State department is the responsibility to protect it’s citizens, so I feel it may be their duty to check a presidential candidates credentials in each state separately from any other body politic.
    Here is a little tidbit from a part of the Secretary of States administrative duties. One might find this an interesting avenue to do some thorough research into. Notice the date of this!

    Authentications Division
    This division provides authentication services on documents that will be used in foreign countries. One type of authentication is an “apostille,” which is used when families are adopting a child in another country. The document is used in countries that participated in the 1961 Hague Convention. If the country did not participate in the convention, documents are authenticated or certified by the secretary of state.
    Now this Authentications division is a major division of the department of Seretary of State office. What do you this could have anything to do with hmm? Check out which countries participated at the hague in 1961and how

    Read more: The Role of the North Carolina Secretary of State |

  10. An attorney for a Georgia voter questioning President Barack Obama’s eligibility for the March 6 primary said the president probably won’t attend a hearing on the issue Thursday, even though a subpoena compelling his appearance stands.

    Van R. Irion, who represents plaintiff David Welden, acknowledged Monday that Obama likely will avoid the trial-like proceeding before Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings Deputy Chief Judge Michael M. Malihi.

    “I fully expect Mr. Jablonski to refile on behalf of the president a renewed motion to quash with some citations, and I expect that would probably be granted,” said Irion.

    • Someone on Free Republic accurately pointed out that Bill Clinton had no choice but to roll up his sleeve for a DNA test. So much for potuses being immune from subpoenas “just because” they’re special.

  11. Uploaded to WTP on 8/21/2010. I downloaded it on 8/17/2010

    • TY. I didn’t have time before cooking dinner to find that for everybody. I knew we had it somewhere.

    • why would the issue date and expiration date need to be blurred out?

      • Why, indeed? Why ask why? They’re hiding something important or they just like to cause controversy and mess with people’s heads. Yet, we’re supposed to now believe that Obama is NOT a follower of Alinsky and that there’s no portrait of Alinsky in OUR White House.

    • It looks like a 4 in the passport with his face on it, and the one above I can see it as a 4 or a 6. The right side of the 4 in 04 is heavier and that distinguishes it from the 6 in 1961. I didn’t notate whether I took this from the video or if it was put online somewhere.. It says WH in the upper right corner, so it could be it was a snapshot and on the WH site.

      • plus every word is capitalized except for August and the g appears stunted.

        I never got the point of why they released it. so he’s American. it has nothing to do with his eligibility status. the Russians had a major problem with his passport.

    • Now they want to play musical courtrooms. This has to be a tactic initiated by Jablonski whether he takes credit for it or not. Regardless, Thursday’s hearing WILL occur. Fulton County is a DEM stronghold. Make sure everybody sees this ASAP.
      In my humble opinion, it would appear that this kind of tactic is all they have in their arsenal. Hoping that people won’t or can’t show up because they don’t know where to go.

      I wondered what they’d do since they aren’t now filing any motions.

      I’ll need some folks to stand at the other locations to make sure everyone knows where they need to go.

    • There was a message a day or two ago from the PAC. They had requested a different courtroom for additional room for the filming of the courtroom. I wonder if this is what occurred that Carl didn’t know about. The film crew requested a larger room. I will look for the information. It is a public hearing, so a larger room would give those who can attend a better chance of seating.

  12. Georgia Democrat Party Says Republicans Carrying Out “Political Tricks” Against Obama

    (Jan. 24, 2012) — The Georgia Democrat Party is asking for donations to mount an offensive against the challenges to Obama’s constitutional eligibility which are scheduled to be heard on Thursday in Atlanta. The Chairman of the party calls the challenges “frivolous lawsuits.” [Frivolous..but please donate!]

    However, two plaintiffs represented by Atty. Orly Taitz, Cody Robert Judy and Leah Lax, are contenders for the Democrat Party’s nomination for President.

    Today The Post & Email contacted Georgia Governor Nathan Deal; U.S. Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, and all 13 U.S. congressmen to request statements on the upcoming hearing. Several media representatives stated that their respective congressmen were busy preparing for tonight’s State of the Union address. One media contact stated that she had “never heard of” the eligibility challenge scheduled for Thursday. [Send emails to your Reps and Senators so they do know what is going on!]

    Also today, three challenges to Obama’s eligibility were heard in the state of Illinois. Other challenges to Obama’s eligibility have been filed in Alabama, New Hampshire, California, New Mexico, and many other states during the respective designated objection periods.

  13. It looks like they aren’t done in Alabama!

    Response to Motion to Dismiss Alabama Ballot Challenge

    GeorgeM at 13 February

    From Tommie Thompson:

    This is a copy of my response to motion to dismiss in my Alabama case. It would hope others will use this or parts of it in their cases:


    Comes now the Plaintiff, Tommy Thompson. The defense for Mark Kennedy [Chairman of the AL Democratic Party] is requesting the dismissal of this case under 17-16- 44 of the Code of Alabama (1975) and Rule 12(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. I contend that 17-16-44 Code of Alabama was not intended to be used in this particular situation.

    In fact, in a recent letter from the office of Secretary of State, Beth Chapman, her letter states “Alabama law gives the Alabama Courts the authority to issue injunctions”. This was in direct reference to these cases challenging Barack Obama’s placement on the Alabama State ballot.

    1. Plaintiff seeks for the defendant to provide proof of his eligibility to be placed on the Alabama State ballot as a candidate for the office of President of the United States. All candidates must meet the requirement for the office they seek, that includes Mr. Obama.

    The mere fact that he is now President and was elected in 2008 only assumes” that he is a qualified citizen for the office of President of the United States. We contend that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” as required for the office of President. If the public had been made aware of his ineligibility, he would not have been elected, nor placed on the ballot.

    According to a 1948 Supreme Court opinion, every Federal office holder bears the burden of proof as to her or his eligibility to hold office. If there are doubts concerning a presidential or vice presidential candidate’s “natural born citizen” status, the candidate is obligated to resolve those doubts before taking office.

    Now that Obama’s [natural born] citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States … is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not
    simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence. (Vieira)

    If a presidential or vice presidential candidate’s “natural born citizen” status is in doubt, the candidate has a responsibility to ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving the doubt. Until such judgment is rendered, the candidate cannot legally swear to his/her eligibility (ref Stephen Tonchen Primer)

    2. Any and all registered voters in the State of Alabama have standing to challenge the eligibility of any candidate.

    3. Even though this case is very similar to Mr. Hendershot’s case in Birmingham Alabama, this case was filed prior to that case going to court. The case in Birmingham Civil Court was dismissed with no reason given to Mr. Hendershot by Judge Lee other than a biased comment made to Mr. Hendershot which I would rather not repeat here. The merits of that case and all other cases of similarity have NEVER examined the merits. In addition, no case anywhere has EVER determined that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible for the office of President.

    4. Plaintiff agrees to waive his request for the production of a physical copy of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate due to the fact that we know it cannot possibly exist and the fact that it would be no factor in determining Obama’s natural born citizenship status since Mr. Obama has already admitted to the public that he was indeed a British citizen as well as an American citizen at birth. (Fight the By this acknowledgement alone, Mr. Obama never has and never can be a “natural born citizen”.

    5. I find the defense’s assertion that this is a frivolous case to be an insult to all Americans who believe in and stand by the Constitution. This case involves most likely the biggest Constitutional crisis in our history. This is not a “Political” case. This is a “Constitutional” case.

    6. In addition, this court may find cause to “jurisdiction” in the rule of “Misprision of Felony”. The Democratic Party of Alabama is well aware that their candidate Mr. Obama, was a “dual citizen” or “foreigner” at birth and therefore not a natural born citizen. Surely the Democratic Party of Alabama knows this and has known this since the 2008 election but yet have failed to do anything about it.

    “Misprision of felony” is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.

    Respectfully submitted,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s