Realcent.org

It looks like things are just starting to get interesting. Finally! A Georgia judge denies Obama's motion to quash a subpoena, forcing him to appear in GA court next Thursday, January 26 and produce several documents that would indicate whether or not he is qualified to be placed on the Georgia state ballot for the November election. Now we all know about the hundreds of lawsuits regarding the eligibility issue that have been simply denied, based on the 'no standing' argument. This one could stick, however. Dr. Orly Taitz is the lawyer representing a Georgia citizen. Go, Orly! Of course, I'm not going to get too excited, as we all know a zillion things could happen before, during and after the court date. I'm sure the Obots and the corrupt folks at the highest levels will do something that will wreak havoc etc, in order to postpone this. Still, I believe it's only the third or fourth time in history where a sitting president was actually ordered to appear in court.

Full credibility must be given to Orly Taitz, who has been pursuing this scoundrel for over three years. To see a copy of the motion, go to her website (www.orlytaitzesq.com) and scroll down.

Here are some links, followed by her response at the bottom:

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/1656767 ... at-hearing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... tional_pop

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2012/01/ ... ident.html


Her response:

It has been 3 years of 24/7/365 fight. I was defamed, viciously maligned by so many Obots (Obama bots), pro-Obama media thugs, by a few corrupt officials and judges. Recently even people, who claimed to be on my side turned sides and viciously defamed me and attacked me. Among them were Arlen Williams, Dean Haskins, owner of a blog Birther Summit, Bob Nelson-owner of a blog Birther Report or ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Helen Tansey -owner of a blog art2superpac and even attorneys, who should’ve had some professional ethics. Attorneys Gary Kreep and Philip Berg filed insane pleadings, saying that I tried to hire a hit man to kill Lisa Liberi, legal assistant of attorney Berg and kidnap children of a web master Lisa Ostella. It has been 3 years of total nightmare, these people were like a pack of wild dogs attacking me and coming up with each and every accusation in the book. Now I am vindicated. My legal action is with merit. We are going to trial on January 26, 2012. I issued subpoenas. Barack Obama through his attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to quash my subpoena and all the other subpoenas. I was attacked yet again in this motion. Judge Malihi just issued an order. Motion to quash my subpoena was denied. Barack Obama, President of the United States will have to appear in court on January 26 and comply with my subpoena and produce all the documents, that I demanded. Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irion’s case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations. Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfield’s complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third. My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his mother’s passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name.

I wanted to thank people who helped me along the way with donations, who did not stick a knife in my back, like the ones mentioned before. I am asking my supporters to donate to this work, as I am paying for airfare and hotel of witnesses and a number of other expenses. Also, if you are a CA Republican please, download my nomination for the US Senate and sign and circulate it.

Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate2 or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting President is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the President and a number of high ranking individuals.
I feel extremely proud to be a part of this historic moment. I guess an American dream is still alive, as this subpoena was issued by an immigrant, who was raised in a communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and came here with one suitcase with a couple of dresses, who had to study English, to study law at night, while working as a dentist and raising a family with 3 children. Only in America is this possible.

Humbly,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Motion to Quash Subpoenas
X
InboxX
Reply |Michael Jablonski michael.jablonski@comcast.net to Kim, me, Kip
show details Jan 18 (2 days ago)
Attached you will find a motion to quash subpoenas on behalf of President Obama. The motion is directed at subpoenas directed to the President and all of the other subpoenas being sent on behalf of the plaintiff in the Farrar case. Thank you.
Michael Jablonski
michael.jablonski@comcast.net
Motion to Quash subpoenas v4.docx


Motion to quash subpoenas served on Obama by Taitz
Motion to quash subpoenas by Barack Obama
Opposition to motion to quash subpoena
Order on Motion to quash subpoena by attorney Taitz

What is all this jive about?

I don't see them getting anywhere with the birth certificate. Obama has provided what appears to be a valid certificate and the State of Hawaii seems to support its legitamacy. Fair or not, the burden of proof appears to fall to the plaintiffs. Unless they can provide some very compelling evidence, the case (though possibly embarrassing to Obama) looks like it will be a non-event.

Having said that I would like to hear an explanation of Obama's social security which supposedly has him being born in Connecticut. I believe the first three digits in a person's SS# indicates their place of birth. I've obverved that people with lower numbers indicate birth in the East, for example 022, and people with higher numbers, like 945, indicate birth on the West coast and Hawaii. I've heard that Obama didn't apply for a SS# until he was in college. This could be an explanation for his odd number.

Finally I've heard that Obama applied to college as a "foreign student" suggesting that he knew that he was foreign born. I don't think this is necessarily true. Lets say that Obama is an American citizen, but he sees a social or financial benefit to applying as a foreign student. He has a foreign sounding name and a father who is a foreign national, so he figures (rightly) that he can get away with it. The school neglects to do a proper background check and he does. To me this scenario fits perfectly with the arrogant assurance that Obama has exhibited thoughout his life.

Thanks for posting this HPMBTT!!!

The most compelling element of this case and the two others just like it is Georgia state law. Mister Obama's legal team seem to be unprepared for this one. Mister Obama must adhere to Georgia state law if he is going to be on the Georgia ballot.

I really had a good belly laugh when I read the part about Obama was too busy "being presidential" to obey the rule of law. LMAO!! Emperor O is so busy with mutli-million dollar vacations, golf games, basketball games, Wednesday night White House parties, social fund raisers, political fund raisers, and who knows what else.... I don't know how he has time to actually fulfill the duties of POTUS!

I was going to do the same thing, but the Republican leadership in my state apparently wants him on the ballot. Go figure.

There will be lots of "emergency" motions filed on the case before it's finally over. Orly states there is no other controlling authority Emperor O's attys can cite to stop the process under Georgia state law.

Keep your powder dry.

theo wrote: I believe the first three digits in a person's SS# indicates their place of birth..

I must correct this statement.
The 1st 3 digits denote the place of issuance of the card.

Judge to have a fatal heart attack in 5, 4, 3, 2.........

theo wrote:I don't see them getting anywhere with the birth certificate. Obama has provided what appears to be a valid certificate and the State of Hawaii seems to support its legitamacy. Fair or not, the burden of proof appears to fall to the plaintiffs. Unless they can provide some very compelling evidence, the case (though possibly embarrassing to Obama) looks like it will be a non-event.

The one I saw online is an obvious forgery. If you blow up the pdf image enough so it pixelates and examine the lines making up various words, you will see that it has some lines that run from light gray to dark gray and back to light gray (original data), and some are pure black with white pixals right next to them, indicating the line is due to a pdf editing program, making the document a counterfeit. It /might/ have true info on it and someone is playing games, but it is not a legally acceptable document. Anyone claiming the cert I saw was a true copy of the original is committing perjory.

I had to "restore" some documents back a few years ago due to too many trips through the copier, and that's exactly the way mine turned out.

If a case does actually get before a judge to determine the facts of the alleged birth certificate, here are the high points that will cause Obama's impeachment:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did President Obama fake his birth certificate? Here are just some of the facts that raise doubts about the authenticity of the Obama’s birth certificate:

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya , East Africa “.

This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate.”

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “.
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
<<<<<<<<<<

Those three simple reasons are what will impeach Obama.

IdahoCopper wrote:If a case does actually get before a judge to determine the facts of the alleged birth certificate, here are the high points that will cause Obama's impeachment:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did President Obama fake his birth certificate? Here are just some of the facts that raise doubts about the authenticity of the Obama’s birth certificate:

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya , East Africa “.

This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate.”

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital “.
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
<<<<<<<<<<

Those three simple reasons are what will impeach Obama.

I honestly hope you are right. But to play devil's advocate:

1. The most recent long form Certificate of Live Birth has his father's race as "African" but I can't find anything listed for Obama. I'm curious as to whether other Hawaiian documents used the term "negro" or "african" to refer to an individual of African decent.

2. According to Wikipedia it was called the "Kenya colony" from 1920 to 1963. Even though the certificate is a little imprecise, the name "Kenya" was not unheard of in 1961.

3. The document below (unless its a forgory) seems to be saying that the Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital got its name in 1958.
It is in the middle of the second page.
http://www.sacredhealing.com/triadoptio ... Hawaii.pdf

All,

IMPORTANT UPDATE (evening of Jan 23, 2012)
THIS POST IS ESPECIALLY FOR NEW FOLKS THAT ARE NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING. PAY ATTENTION AND READ CAREFULLY, AS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS CONFIRM WHAT SEVERAL OF US HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG: THAT THE PERSON CURRENTLY HOLDING THE OFFICE OF POTUS IS INDEED 100% NOT LEGALLY HOLDING THE OFFICE (with clear LEGAL history going back to the year 1608). This person (I can't even say the name, as the whole thing has always disgusted me) has never been a natural-born citizen (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of US Constitution), because his immigrant father was never ever a U.S. citizen and was pretty much only here in the USA to attend college.

Excellent NJ attorney Leo Donofrio, who I have also been following for almost four years, submitted a detailed 217 page Amicus Brief (Friend of the Court) today (January 23) to the GA court, which is intentionally not filed on behalf of a particular party. In other words, the court may use it as additional information etc. Also remember that three (3) cases will be heard (not just Orly Taitz's case).

To put it bluntly, I wanted to make this very clear: Attorney Leo ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT. Not only does he nail the Supreme Court case of Minor vs Happersett (1874) to the wall, but he also clearly states several other instances and examples, including:

-Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case (1898)
-President Chester Arthur (who was also not a natural-born citizen; the public never knew about it until 2008; he is the only other case)
-Lord Coke from Calvin's Case, England, year 1608 (considered to be the holy grail for Natural-Born citizenship)
-The inclusion of the 1790 Naturalization act, followed by the important update in 1795, which explicitly included the important Natural-Born citizen clause (the framers of the Constitution put this in there, as a way of insuring that any future President of the USA would only have allegiance toward the newly formed country USA)
-The law of Nations (Vattel)
-many other important quotes from others, including a few new findings!

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO EDUCATE YOURSELF:
1. Carefully read the first 55 pages of the entire brief at the link below (it will take you at least one hour). If you don't have time, then proceed to a,b,c below.
a. read pages 25-31 on Minor vs. Happersett (1874), which sets precedent.
b. read page 55 (on-immigrant F-1 report. This is his father regarding attending Univ. of Hawaii)
c. read page 52 (Leo's conclusion)

Brief here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMIC ... ility-Case
Leo's website (best single site on the net on this important legal issue): http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Yes, I know there is tons of other stuff too (wrong SSN number, birth certificate is a forgery etc), but this (should) put the issue to rest, as this is a legal issue, not a conspiracy theory. So whether or not he was actually born in Hawaii, we will never truly know..but it doesn't matter anyway.

The only question is, how much corruption is in the system and will the judge deliver and not be swayed, regardless of threats? Realistically, this will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court (although it shouldn't have to, since Supreme Court precedent was already set in Minor vs. Happersett).

All eyes will be watching to see what happens in Georgia on January 26. If he doesn't produce all his paperwork that everyone wants to see, the judge should automatically rule in favor of all of the plaintiffs; if this happens, other states will quickly follow and the truth will be heard around the world. This could get ugly very quickly, due to the uneducated people who voted for this person, so...hang in there, keep a low profile and keep your powder dry!

Didn't read the whole thing (yet), but skimmed the overview. An excellent logical presentation of argument. Makes sense to me.

Bully for Donofrio! I used to follow his site everyday. Then he announced he had given up on the Natural Born Citizen issue. Yes, he is one of the best when it comes to this issue. Now, the question is: Will what our legal system has evolved into allow justice to be served for 'We the People'??

All we want to know is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Why is that so hard?

read pages 25-31 on Minor vs. Happersett (1874), which sets precedent.

I have a few questions.

1. Are there any later SCOTUS decisions which broaden the definition of a natural born citizen? Any such decision would void Minor v Happersett in the same way that Brown v Board of Education voided Plessy v Ferguson.

2. If there no such SCOTUS decision and it is really that simple then why weren't we discussing this four years ago! Its embarrassing to have been spinning our wheels over the "birther" issue while missing something this clear cut.

Roger that.

theo wrote:read pages 25-31 on Minor vs. Happersett (1874), which sets precedent.

I have a few questions.

1. Are there any later SCOTUS decisions which broaden the definition of a natural born citizen? Any such decision would void Minor v Happersett in the same way that Brown v Board of Education voided Plessy v Ferguson.

2. If there no such SCOTUS decision and it is really that simple then why weren't we discussing this four years ago! Its embarrassing to have been spinning our wheels over the "birther" issue while missing something this clear cut.

No, there is no other SCOTUS decision where the definition of a natural-born citizen is clearly defined and/or discussed. In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898), this only refers to the 14th Amendment, with regards to being a regular citizen. For more specific info on Wong Kim Ark, read pages 29-30 of the Brief.

Theo, to answer your question, those of us that indeed knew about this HAVE been pushing this all along. It's just that the public was intentionally swayed in the direction of the stupid Birth Certificate issue, which to me, will always be a conspiracy theory (we will never truly know where he was born, even though there is substantial evidence that it was in Kenya; I personally believe it is Kenya). Even on the usurper's website (Fight the Smears, I think?), he clearly indicated that his father was born in Kenya, which was a British Commonwealth nation at the time and subject to the laws of Britain. The main stream media has refused to even mention this critical point; they have always only briefly mentioned the birthplace issue.

Finally, just for fun for the inquisitive types like me, here is some additional info for anyone to chew on:

- John Jay (1st ever Chief Justice) is credited with being the first person to suggest that any future President be a natural-born citizen (letter written to George Washington in 1787) - page 24. Also, a copy of the actual 1787 handwritten letter to Washington is on page 164 of 209 (use the up/down arrows on left bottom of screen)
- Charles Evans Hughes - 1916 presidential candidate, but never a natural-born citizen, as argued by Breckenridge Long. Pages 189-198; use up/down arrows on left bottom of screen . Fortunately, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency.

theo wrote:read pages 25-31 on Minor vs. Happersett (1874), which sets precedent.

I have a few questions.

1. Are there any later SCOTUS decisions which broaden the definition of a natural born citizen? Any such decision would void Minor v Happersett in the same way that Brown v Board of Education voided Plessy v Ferguson.

2. If there no such SCOTUS decision and it is really that simple then why weren't we discussing this four years ago! Its embarrassing to have been spinning our wheels over the "birther" issue while missing something this clear cut.

Theo, the first law suit challenging Obama's status as a natural born citizen was filed before Mr. O got the nomination. It was filed by Atty. Phil Berg, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter. There have been lawsuits filed before the election; after the election, but before the Electoral College vote; after the Electoral College vote, but before the Inauguration; and after the Inauguration. The Judicial Branch of our government refuses to deal with this. They say it falls under "The Political Question Doctrine" and thus is out of their hands.

The judicial system is broken in this country. AND the MSM wants Mr. O in office so badly, they look the other way instead of dealing head on with this travesty.

There are at least two lawyers who are regulars on this blog.... What say they?

I put my money on he doesn't show, and this case is never heard.

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:

theo wrote:read pages 25-31 on Minor vs. Happersett (1874), which sets precedent.

I have a few questions.

1. Are there any later SCOTUS decisions which broaden the definition of a natural born citizen? Any such decision would void Minor v Happersett in the same way that Brown v Board of Education voided Plessy v Ferguson.

2. If there no such SCOTUS decision and it is really that simple then why weren't we discussing this four years ago! Its embarrassing to have been spinning our wheels over the "birther" issue while missing something this clear cut.

Theo, the first law suit challenging Obama's status as a natural born citizen was filed before Mr. O got the nomination. It was filed by Atty. Phil Berg, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter. There have been lawsuits filed before the election; after the election, but before the Electoral College vote; after the Electoral College vote, but before the Inauguration; and after the Inauguration. The Judicial Branch of our government refuses to deal with this. They say it falls under "The Political Question Doctrine" and thus is out of their hands.

The judicial system is broken in this country. AND the MSM wants Mr. O in office so badly, they look the other way instead of dealing head on with this travesty.

There are at least two lawyers who are regulars on this blog.... What say they?

I remember Berg being interviewed on more than one occasion back then and he seemed totally focused on validity of the birth certificate. I didn't hear anything about Minor vs. Happersett (1874), until about a year ago. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered something so clear cut had I heard it back in 08. Also if the "Happersett standard" is so clearly the law of the land why have all 50 states moved away from using it to demonstrate eligibility??? You would think that at least one state out of 50 (Utah or Alaska?) would have publicly raised this issue.

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:

theo wrote: ... The Judicial Branch of our government refuses to deal with this. They say it falls under "The Political Question Doctrine" and thus is out of their hands.

The only thing I heard was that citizens lacked standing to challenge Zero's qualifications.

First I've ever heard of "Political Question Doctrine". Can't see it as a political question. It is a question of what the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court has laid claim to all Constitutional questions.

I had typed a nice, detailed response to Mossy's comment and then I hit the wrong button on my keyboard. "Poof!" It was all gone. Folks, I have a lot of business on my mind right now, and the toast is burning on the grill. I will defer to the OP's author for any other authorities.

Cheers!

Heh. Isn't that just dandy when that happens?

I remember Berg being interviewed on more than one occasion back then and he seemed totally focused on validity of the birth certificate. I didn't hear anything about Minor vs. Happersett (1874), until about a year ago. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered something so clear cut had I heard it back in 08. Also if the "Happersett standard" is so clearly the law of the land why have all 50 states moved away from using it to demonstrate eligibility??? You would think that at least one state out of 50 (Utah or Alaska?) would have publicly raised this issue.[/quote]


Ah, yes, the ultimate question. With no ultimate answer, unfortunately. The U.S. Supreme Court really is the one who needs to address this directly. However, there are no eligibility lawsuits (before or after the inauguration) that have ever been properly heard on their merits. To date, there have been 300-500 lawsuits of various degrees, with almost all of them at local/state levels. Practically all of them were denied, based on the idiotic conclusions of 'no jurisdiction' or of 'no standing' (aka the particular plaintiff wasn't personally affected, which is basically B.S.). Other cases were simply dismissed with no real reasons behind the dismissal. Even excellent NJ attorney Leo Donofrio had one of the best single legal cases out there, but it never got anywhere, not to mention the fact that he was at least partially threatened by the powers that be. In addition, even U.S. District Judge William Alsup heard an argument that John McCain wasn't a natural-born citizen, since he was technically born in an army base in Panama; the judge declared he was a natural-born citizen; BUT nobody ever vetted Zero (that's what I call him) and nobody ever declared Zero was a natural-born citizen in any court of law.

Again, to make it very clear here...the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear any eligibility case to date.

There have been a couple of military members that have filed lawsuits. After all, they must take an oath to the Constitution and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic (Zero is a domestic enemy). Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin comes to mind. Sadly, they ruled against him, had him court-martialed and he is now wrongly sitting in Leavenworth prison.

During the live C-SPAN session in Congress right before the inauguration when all the states had to declare their electoral votes count (for McCain or Zero), Dick Cheney never directly asked the audience if there was any objection, as required in the Constitution. There was a person who raised their hand in the audience; when that happened, Pelosi interrupted Cheney and immediately jumped up and quickly clapped her hands loudly, so as to incourage everyone to clap (which they did) and drown out the person objecting. As far as I'm concerned, all of them are corrupt and should be tried at the highest level. I remember watching the live session and couldn't believe it; my heart sank at that exact moment and I knew then that the country was doomed.

Video of Electoral Vote Count here; go to 27:13 to see Pelosi stand up and clap, forcing everyone else to clap as well and drown out the person raising their hand. Also, you will see a man with his hand raised shortly after that. Please note that the video is edited, because when I saw it live in Jan 2009, there was a full TV screen of both Cheney and Pelosi. In this version, she is only seen partly on the right side. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4

Food for thought: here is previous presidential candidate Alan Keyes (incidentally, he is Black), in a short interview right after the 2008 election. Listen carefully to what he says. It is harsh and honest, as he states that Zero usurped the office. Alan Keyes' website is http://www.loyaltoliberty.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmujttc0oJc

Moving forward to present day. The States DO have jurisdiction and proper say, as to whether or not a candidate may be placed on their own state ballot. Specifically, each Secretary of State is also supposed to certify that they vetted/verified each candidate as to their eligibility of the Office of President and Vice-President. Obviously, this did not happen in 2008, whether due to ignorance or bribery etc. I imagine that 2012 will be no different; the Secretary of each state will say nothing and list Zero as the democratic candidate, unless there is a huge outburst by the American people.

What has changed between 2008 and 2012? Many millions of Americans have become more aware of the usurper since then, not to mention the huge volume of corruption and Zero not showing any of his documents; many have written their Congressmen. But will it be enough to get a judge to act, per the Constitution? Only time will tell. In the end, I believe that eventually, the truth shall prevail.

HPMBTT wrote:During the live C-SPAN session in Congress right before the inauguration when all the states had to declare their electoral votes count (for McCain or Zero), Dick Cheney never directly asked the audience if there was any objection, as required in the Constitution. There was a person who raised their hand in the audience; when that happened, Pelosi interrupted Cheney and immediately jumped up and quickly clapped her hands loudly, so as to incourage everyone to clap (which they did) and drown out the person objecting. As far as I'm concerned, all of them are corrupt and should be tried at the highest level. I remember watching the live session and couldn't believe it; my heart sank at that exact moment and I knew then that the country was doomed.

That is very sad. On the bright side; the law suits haven't abated despite all the rejections. My previous frustrations aside the Georgia decision will be interesting to watch. Its already getting some press attention. If Obama somehow gets thrown off the the Georgia state ballot it may cause some other states to take this more seriously.

The court hearings are just hours away. Here is to hoping we finally get the truth. Emperor O still considers himself above the people. His lawyer tried to stop the hearing by doing an "end around" to the Ga. Sec. of State. Why not be a man about it? Man up Emperor O! Stop hiding behind legal trickery.

GA Sec of State tells Obama, no crying to mommy, man up or tough luck. Sweet!



Letter to Obama from Sec of State Kemp

VIA REGULAR MAIL & EMAIL

Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
michael.jablonski@comcast.com

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:

I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will “suspend” participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this
matter.

Sincerely,
Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State


EDIT: In Jablonski's letter to GA Sec.of State Kemp, he cites recent court cases and quotes the Constitution. IF Jablonski chooses to not participate today and rather sue GA. to have Emperor O placed on the ballot..... they still have to go through the discovery process!!! Hahhahahahaha!!! The re-election of BHO is a political question and he still has to go through the vetting process for 2012! Brilliant!

Here is a blow by blow by someone at the hearing in Georgia today:

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

.