The request was submitted by Liberty Legal Foundation, one of the group’s that has challenged Obama’s candidacy in the state, based on a lack of information about his eligibility for the position.
“We … filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction with the Georgia Supreme Court. Since it’s too late to have Obama’s name removed from the primary ballots, we’re asking the Supreme Court to prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the Democratic presidential primary election,” said Van Irion, founder of the foundation.
“Typically it takes about a week … to certify an election. The results of an election are not official until he certifies. So, if the Supreme Court grants our motion the results of Obama’s Georgia primary election will be on hold pending the outcome of our lawsuit,” he reported.
The move comes just after a Superior Court in Atlanta unsurprisingly dismissed a legal challenge to Obama’s name being on the state’s 2012 presidential ballot.
It was the actions the court took in reaching that conclusion that has left the legal foundation working with one of the plaintiffs wondering in astonishment.
“Our system of government is based upon an assumption that the people placed in high office are honorable. This is an absolute requirement for the survival of our nation. The Founding Fathers understood that when dishonorable people begin to take high office, the system of government they set into motion would begin to fail. Unfortunately America’s judicial system is proving this principle.”
The statement comes from Liberty Legal Foundation’s analysis of the case that was dismissed by the Georgia Superior Court.
A commentary at The Western Center for Journalism explained, “The Georgia Superior Court clerk’s office did everything in its power to thwart the very filing of a legal appeal in Weldon v. Obama, the case in which Judge Michael Malihi ruled that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore eligible for the Georgia ballot.”
Then the court itself dismissed Weldon’s appeal.
The challenges to Obama had been raised by several individuals represented by different attorneys. They brought the arguments under a state law that allows any citizen to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.
The plaintiffs argued several points before Malihi, including Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth.
Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
The Western Center noted that Irion claimed Malihi’s court refused to forward his motion for contempt against Obama to the Georgia Superior Court despite state law providing the court no such discretion, and then the Superior Court refused to respond to the foundation.
On the foundation’s website, under the headline “What We Reap When Honor Fails,” was a listing of the conflicts that developed with the court.
For instance, “The Georgia Superior Court clerk initially refuses to file LLF’s appeal document, then backs down after being instructed on the law.” Then, “The Georgia Superior Court clerk refuses to file LLF’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction because $1 was not included with our filing. Then, when LLF hand delivers $1 to the clerk, the clerk sits on the motion for 10 days and mails it back to LLF claiming that the correct staffer didn’t get the $1. Our plaintiff gave the case number, name of the motion, and name of the staffer, who was literally pointed at in the room. Yet the clerk’s office still claims that that staffer didn’t get the $1. The motion had to be completely re-filed and was then delayed another two days before finally being filed.”
The foundation also noted, “The chief judge of the Superior Court was made aware of all of the incidents occurring in her clerk’s office, yet she did nothing to correct the situation.”
When Obama’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, the court also waited three days to notify Irion’s foundation and then it was with the message that the time to file an opposition had been shortened.
“Late that same day the chief judge signs an order denying LLF’s motion to have Van Irion admitted as a visiting attorney in this case, preventing LLF from filing the opposition that the court had ordered us to file 6 hours earlier. (Note that I’ve been admitted as a visiting attorney in 5 states and at every level of court, both state and federal. I’ve never been denied admission before. Further, my local attorney sponsor was a sitting member of the state’s legislature, making this denial even more shocking.) Even more outrageous is the timing of the denial, made just hours before a court-set deadline, after the court sat on our motion for more than two weeks,” Irion said.
“Only 90 minutes after our plaintiff files an opposition himself (because LLF was denied the ability to file it for him), the chief judge issues a three-page opinion granting Obama’s motion to dismiss our appeal. It seems obvious that the court’s opinion was written before they asked us to file an opposition. Also, the dismissal was granted while the court had not even received the record of the hearing held by the lower court. In other words, it ruled without even reviewing the record or reading our plaintiff’s opposition,” the foundation said.
“The incidents cited here demonstrate the harassment, bias, and lack of honor in the administrative operation of our courts. This bias effectively prevents those on one side of an issue to have basic access to the courts. In other words, the courts are now barring specific viewpoints from entering the front doors of the court”
Following a hearing on Jan. 26, Malihi essentially tossed all of the information the plaintiffs and their attorneys presented.
“The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations,” he said.
The ruling was made even though state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Obama and his attorney snubbed the hearing, refusing to show up.
World Net Daily