 |
I reported earlier this week that Georgia State Judge Micheal Mahili refused the motion to dismiss a lawsuit that would require Barack Obama to prove he is eligible to run for the Office of President of the United States.
President Obama’s lawyers filed a motion that would keep him from presenting proof of his eligibility to be President of the United States. That motion was denied.
The article announcing this is the most-read and most-liked article in many months, but some have criticized me for it….
To those who didn’t like that I would publicize this or support the ruling, please allow me to explain why I feel this is so important.
It wouldn’t matter to me if this was Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Ralph Nader, or any other candidate. The issue to me is solely corruption in government and the need to effectively battle it.
If Obama has not been eligible to be President, this is the most significant case of dishonesty and corruption in history. If this is exposed, it may open the door to the exposure of a lot of the other corruption. The “mainstream” media could be forced to cover all of the corruption.
So, for that reason alone, I hope Obama’s father was not born in the United States, and I hope Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.
PART OF THE RULING:
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).
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).
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.
For the very first time, after citizens of this country have demanded that Obama prove he is eligible to be President under our Constitution, a judge is requiring that Obama provide proof.
It is very possible that Hawaii may now have to show, if they have it, the long form birth certificate that Obama has claimed he photocopied — the one he released in April of 2011.
The Social Security Administration may now have to release records on how and why Obama is using a Connecticut social security number.
It is possible that Obama may have to submit to questions while under oath.
If Obama refuses to submit to deposition and / or allow inspection of his documents, the ruling of this court will not only preclude Obama’s name from being on the Primary ballot in Georgia, but it would keep his party from having his name on the ballot in November. More important, it means that dishonesty and corruption in the U.S. government will be the major news worldwide.
Attorney Orly Taitz has been relentless in her efforts. She has been fined, ridiculed, maligned, and threatened. She has devoted her time, her money, and her expertise. Some says she is a loony. Well, it is Obama’s turn to prove she is wrong.
READ THE FULL COURT DOCUMENT HERE
William M. Windsor
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned in any article is invited to respond on the record. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite of my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.
Â
{jcomments on}