Patriot Update

The time to have stopped him was before he was elected. Now it is up to a higher power than one judge. He was never vetted. Why? Because of pay offs. Fear. Who did that? Because the Republican party wanted him to win. Why else did they elect to run John McCain? The man that was most likely not to win.
The Republican’s are not all stupid. Something more is at work here than just one person who isn’t qualified to be the leader of the free world.
I’m not a conspiracy nut job. Just a realist.
This president is an actor. First and foremost. He was spotted to be groomed for the part and he has acted his role well. As well as the script writers want him to .
This day he (preached) that ” Jesus would want the rich to be taxed more.” Here you can see that the 20 plus years that he spent in the church of the Reverend Wright was not wasted. He did listen well. It was Wright and black liberation theology all through.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, IF OBAMA DOESN’T RECOGNIZE A
LEGAL COURT ORDER, WHY SHOULD WE RECOGNIZE OBAMA AS OUR PRESIDENT? KEEP OBAMA OFF OF THE BALLOT IN EVERY STATE UNTIL HE RECOGNIZES AND FOLLOWS OUR LAWS.

EXCELLENT article…

OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
CARL SWENSSON,
Plaintiff
V.
BARACK OBAMA,
Defendant
* DOCKET NO.: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
1216218-60-MALIHI
*
*
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
KEVIN RICHARD POWELL,
Plaintiff
V. DOCKET NO.: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-
1216823-60-MALIHI
BARACK OBAMA, *
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell each filed
with the Georgia Secretary of State a challenge to the
qualifications of Defendant Barack Obama to appear on the voting
ballot in Georgia as a candidate for the Presidency of the United
States. Plaintiffs’ challenges contend that Defendant Obama does
not meet the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II,
Page -1-
Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution regarding
eligibility for the presidency.
Pursuant to Georgia law, the Office of the Secretary of
State referred Plaintiffs’ challenges to this Court for hearings.
Pursuant to motion of both Plaintiffs, the cases of Plaintiffs
Swensson and Powell were consolidated for hearing and decision.
Pursuant to proper notice to all parties, the Court
conducted a hearing on January 26, 2012. Plaintiffs were present
at trial and submitted into the record, through counsel, evidence
and testimony pertaining to the issues herein. Defendant Obama
and his attorney, however, did not appear for trial and failed to
submit any evidence or testimony whatsoever. Pursuant to the
motion of counsel for Plaintiffs, the record was closed at the
conclusion of trial.
The Court now makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in these matters:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff Carl Swensson is a natural person residing in
Clayton County, Georgia. He is a registered voter in the State
of Georgia, and he is an elector eligible to vote for candidates
for the Presidency of the United States, including presidential
candidate Barack Obama, the Defendant herein.
2. Pursuant to 0.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b), Plaintiff Swensson
timely filed with the Georgia Secretary of State a written
Page -2-
challenge to the qualifications of Defendant Obama to seek and
hold the Office of the Presidency of the United States.
Plaintiff Swensson contends that Defendant Obama does not meet
the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement of Article II,
Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
3. Plaintiff Kevin Richard Powell is a natural person
residing in Gwinnett County, Georgia. He is a registered voter
in the State of Georgia, and he is an elector eligible to vote
for candidates for the Presidency of the United States, including
presidential candidate Barack Obama, the Defendant herein.
4. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b), Plaintiff Powell
timely filed with the Georgia Secretary of State a written
challenge to the qualifications of Defendant Obama to seek and
hold the Office of the Presidency of the United States.
Plaintiff Powell contends that Defendant Obama does not meet the
“natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement of Article II,
Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
5. Defendant Barack Hussein Obama II (hereinafter “Barack
Obama”), on or before October 31, 2011, submitted a letter to the
Executive Committee of the Democratic Party of Georgia seeking to
be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Preference
Primary Ballot. Consequently, on November 1, 2011, Georgia
Democratic Party Chairman Mike Berlon submitted, pursuant to
0.C.G.A. § 21-2-193, the name of Defendant Obama to the Georgia
Page -3-
Secretary of State’s Office as a candidate to be listed on the
Georgia Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot.
6. Defendant Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961.
Defendant’s natural and legal mother was Stanley Ann D. Obama,
and Defendant’s natural and legal father was Barack Hussein
Obama.
7. Defendant’s aforesaid father, Barack Hussein Obama, was
born in Kenya and was a subject of Great Britain. Moreover,
Defendant’s aforesaid father, Barack Hussein Obama, was not a
citizen of the United States as of the date of birth of Defendant
Obama in 1961 or at any other time whatsoever.
8. Despite being timely served with a Notice to Produce by
Plaintiffs’ counsel requiring Defendant to personally appear for
trial and to bring with him certain documents for use as evidence
by Plaintiffs at trial, Defendant Obama failed to appear for the
trial of these matters on January 26, 2012. Likewise,
Defendant’s attorney also failed to appear for trial. No
evidence or testimony was introduced into the record by or on
behalf of Defendant Obama at trial. The Court closed the record
at the conclusion of the January 26, 2012 trial.
9. The failure of Defendant Obama and defense counsel to
appear for trial on January 26, 2012 was knowing and intentional,
as demonstrated by Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12, a January 25, 2012
Page -4-
letter written by defense counsel to Georgia Secretary of State
Brian Kemp.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Defendant Barack Obama, having initiated the submission
of his name as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic
Presidential Preference Primary Ballot, is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Georgia Secretary of State and this Court in
the above-captioned proceedings for the purpose of determining
Defendant’s qualifications to seek and hold the public office for
which he is offering. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.
2. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a), “[e]very candidate
for federal…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.”
3. Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States
Constitution, concerning “[e]ligibility for office of President,”
provides in pertinent part that “[n]o Person except a natural
born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President….”
4. The burden of proof rests entirely upon Defendant Obama
“to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office.” See
Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433
(2000). Plaintiffs are not required “to disprove anything
Page -5-
regarding [Defendant Obama's] eligibility to run for office….”
Id.
5. Because Defendant Obama, as well as his attorney,
failed to present into the record at trial any evidence or
testimony whatsoever concerning Defendant’s eligibility for
office, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to carry the
burden of proof in affirmatively establishing his eligibility for
office, and Plaintiffs’ challenges herein should be sustained on
that basis.
6. Further, inasmuch as OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.30 (“Default.
Amended.”) provides in pertinent part that “[a] default order may
be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage
of a proceeding,” and in view of the deliberate failure of
Defendant Obama and defense counsel to appear for trial on
January 26, 2012, the Court finds Defendant in default on the
issue of Defendant’s qualifications and eligibility for office
pursuant to the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Article II,
Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ challenges herein
should be sustained on the additional, separate, and independent
basis of Defendant’s default.
7. Notwithstanding the foregoing bases for finding that
Plaintiffs’ challenges herein should be sustained, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell, through counsel, did
Page -6-
introduce into the record evidence and testimony pertaining to
the merits of the issue of Defendant Obama’s eligibility for
office pursuant to the “natural born Citizen” requirement of
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States
Constitution. Plaintiffs’ evidence established that Defendant’s
father, Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya and was a subject
of Great Britain. Additionally, Plaintiffs established that
Defendant’s aforesaid father, Barack Hussein Obama, was not a
citizen of the United States as of the date of birth of Defendant
Obama in 1961 or at any other time whatsoever.
8. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 22 L. Ed. 627, 21 Wall. 162 (1875),
is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II
phrase “natural born Citizen” refers to a person born in the
United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of
the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.
9. Applying the aforesaid rule of Minor v. Happersett in
the instant cases, the Court concludes that Defendant Obama does
not meet the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for
the presidency, as Defendant Obama’s father was not a United
States citizen at the time of Defendant’s birth. Defendant Obama
is therefore ineligible for the office he seeks, and the Court
finds that Plaintiffs’ challenges herein should be sustained on
their merits, notwithstanding the Court’s previous conclusions in
Page -7-
paragraphs 5 and 6 above that the Plaintiffs are entitled to
judgment based upon the separate issues of burden of proof and
default, respectively.
CONCLUSION AND REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes and hereby
reports to the Secretary of State that Plaintiffs’ challenges to
the qualifications of Defendant Barack Obama should be sustained
and upheld; that Defendant Barack Obama is not entitled to appear
on the primary or general election ballots in the State of
Georgia as a candidate for the Office of the President of the
United States; and that Defendant Barack Obama’s name should be
withheld from the presidential ballot or, if the ballots have
been printed, should be stricken from the presidential ballot.
This day of , 2012_
Michael M. Malihi
Administrative Law Judge
Page -8-
J ark Hatfi
Att ney for ntiffs
Georgia Bar No 37509
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, J. Mark Hatfield, Attorney for Plaintiffs, do hereby
certify that, pursuant to the Order entered in the abovecaptioned
matters regarding electronic service, I have this day
served the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law upon:
Michael Jablonski
michael.jablonski@comcast.net
by email addressed thereto in order to insure proper delivery.
This 1st day of February, 2012.
HATFIELD & HATFIELD, P.C.
201 Albany Avenue
P.O. Box 1361
Waycross, Georgia 31502
(912) 283-3820