Judge Agrees to Hear Birther Lawsuit!

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
'Birther' attorney Orly Taitz returns: Georgia judge to hear arguments on Obama’s eligibility in presidential election
By ALAN RIQUELMY - ariquelmy@ledger-enquirer.com


“Birther” attorney Orly Taitz, a national leader among those who claim President Barack Obama isn’t an American citizen, is hailing a Tuesday decision by a Georgia judge as a victory in her movement.
Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi in the Office of State Administrative Hearings denied a motion by Obama asking to dismiss the complaint that seeks to keep his name off the state ballot during the March presidential primary. The judge’s decision now sets the stage for a Jan. 26 hearing on the issue in Fulton County.
Obama is not required to attend the hearing, a court official said.
Initially filed in November by Taitz on behalf of a Georgia voter, the complaint argues that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and is ineligible for the presidency.
“He does not satisfy the ‘natural born citizen’ constitutional requirement for President to be on the ballot due to his foreign citizenship and allegiance to three other nations,” the documents state.
Contacted Wednesday morning, Taitz called the decision a “reversal of fortune.”
“It’s not the end of the road, but it’s a step in the right direction,” Taitz added.
On her blog, Taitz lauded the judge’s ruling, claiming she could now depose Obama.
“I can now depose Obama and everybody else (i)nvolved without any impediment,” the California attorney posted on her website.
She also noted that the victory came in Georgia, where she has suffered numerous setbacks in her attempts to prove the president was not born in the United States.
Taitz has represented two soldiers in U.S. District Court in Columbus who sought to avoid deployment by arguing Obama wasn’t the commander-in-chief because he wasn’t eligible to be president. Federal Judge Clay Land warned Taitz against filing a frivolous suit, then fined her $20,000 after he denied the second claim.
“This is particularly sweet, as it is happening in GA, where judge Clay D. Land maligned me so badly and attacked me with $20,000 of sanctions in order to silence me, to stop me from challenging Obama,” Taitz wrote.
Taitz is involved in several complaints across the country involving Obama’s citizenship. She intends to fly to Hawaii this week for a hearing on whether she can see the president’s birth certificate.
Taitz said she has complaints in New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. She intends to file a ballot complaint in California.
Attempts to reach Obama’s Atlanta attorney Michael Jablonski Wednesday were unsuccessful.
The Office of State Administrative Hearings handles disputes between the public and state agencies. For example, if the state Department of Revenue wants to revoke a business owner’s alcohol license, the owner could appeal to the Office of State Administrative Hearings. It also handles ballot disputes.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2012/01/05/1881044/taitz-returns-georgia-judge-to.html


Usually they just summarily throw these suits out of court. This time they agreed to hear it.

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
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Order-Denying-Ds-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
 

mikeybot

SPANAKOPITA!!!
Jul 25, 2005
19,294
3,592
623
philly
#4
Birther' attorney Orly Taitz returns: Georgia judge to hear arguments on Obama’s eligibility in presidential election
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,568
8,735
693
Loveland, CO
#5
Cue sad "Hulk walking away" music

Orly Taitz loses birther case to an empty table

Orly Taitz represented one of four plaintiffs challenging President Obama's eligibility for placement on the Democratic ballot in Georgia. The President and his counsel were subpoenaed to appear in court to defend against these challenges, but the President's attorney issued a nice letter to the judge stating that the Court had no business or jurisdiction even hearing the case and therefore the defense would not be in attendance.

So Taitz and her fellow attorneys presented their best arguments without challenge from the defense, and requested a summary judgment on the merits.

And the Court's judgment: the plaintiffs have no case and no credible evidence, and there is no law to support their claims. Judgment for the defendant, represented only by an empty table, on the merits. Or in this case, utter lack thereof.

.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...es-birther-case-to-an-empty-table?via=siderec