More than a year ago, on December 2, 2010, I noted that the adamant refusal to verify and investigate Obama’s eligibility is a grand conspiracy — by the Democratic and Republican parties, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Army, the Social Security Administration and, of course, the media. I concluded with this lamentation:
“If Diogenes were alive today, he’d be consigned to an eternal and fruitless wandering in his search for just one honest man in the U.S. government. Sadly, there is none.”
Diogenes (412/404-323 BC) was a Greek philosopher and one of the founders of Cynic philosophy. An iconoclast and gadfly, he believed that virtue was better revealed in action than in theory and spent his life in a relentless campaign to debunk the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society. Diogenes became notorious for his provocative behaviour and philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man.
Beginning in 2008, a succession of attorneys and citizens brought lawsuit after lawsuit before state courts, challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President. In each case, Obama’s hired guns — at a reported cost of $2 million in attorney fees — filed motions to dismiss. And in case after case, the presiding judge agreed with the defendant, Obama, and dismissed the lawsuits on the grounds that the plaintiffs all lacked “standing.”
In law, “standing” refers to the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. Although Obama’s eligibility pertains to nothing less than the integrity of the United States Constitution, and although the eligibility plaintiffs include Alan Keyes (a 2008 presidential candidate), retired and active U.S. military officers, and “ordinary” U.S. citizens, judge after judge nevertheless dismissed the lawsuits on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no “standing.”
At long last, one judge is breaking from his peers, thereby ending Diogenes’ long quest.
Dr. Orly Taitz is one of the valiant attorneys doggedly tilting at the Obama eligibility windmill. Yesterday on her blog, Taitz finally has good news to announce.
A judge in Georgia has done what all previous judges refused to. Michael Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge of the Administrative Court in Georgia, just ruled in four eligibility cases that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. This means that Obama will have to stand trial and prove his eligibility for office!
The four lawsuits are:
- David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, Laurie Roth v. Barack Obama (Taitz is the counsel representing the plaintiffs David Farrar et al.)
- David P. Welden v. Barack Obama (Counsel for the plaintiff is another valiant attorney Van R. Irion.)
- Carl Swensson vs. Barack Obama (Counsel for the plaintiff is J. Mark Hatfield.)
- Kevin Richard Powell v. Barack Obama (Counsel for the plaintiff is J. Mark Hatfield)
Representing the defendant, Barack Obama, in all four cases is high-powered attorney Michael Jablonski, who is also the General Counsel for the Democratic Party of Georgia.
This is the ruling of Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi:
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.
The most important reasons for Judge Malihi’s ruling are Nos. 6-8:
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 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.
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.
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.
Which leads the judge to issue his decision:
Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
To read Judge Michael Malihi’s court order in pdf, click here.
We need to pray for protection of this brave man — that God sends St. Michael the Archangel, the prince of the Heavenly hosts, to protect Michael Malihi from all evil and harm. (For the Prayer to St Michael, click here.)
Let Judge Malihi know you support and are praying for him. Here’s his contact info:
Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi
Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings
230 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 850
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Email of Judge Malihi’s case management assistant, Valerie Ruff: email@example.com
Tel: (404) 651-7595
Fax: (404) 818-3751
Another way we can help is to donate whatever we can afford to the legal funds of eligibility plaintiffs. An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.
Click here to make a secure donation to the Legal Defense Fund.
A big h/t to beloved fellow Tina.