Georgia Judge Rules Against Plaintiffs:
Attorney Mark Hatfield "taking it up on appeal"
Attorney Mark Hatfield "taking it up on appeal"
Article II Super PAC Email
Greetings,
As you know we were expecting word out of Georgia today and we got it. Late this afternoon Judge Malihi issued his ruling against all four Plaintiffs.
We caught up with Swensson/Powell's counsel, Mark Hatfield, late this afternoon to get his initial take on the ruling. Here is what he stated “obviously we are disappointed w/the decision, but there are a couple of items in the ruling that we are looking at. First, the Judge never made any ruling on who has the burden of proof even though he indicated in chambers prior to the hearing that making the determination of the burden of proof laid with Defendant Obama." He went onto state "the Judge has a record of placing the burden on the candidate, but didn't do so in this case." Another point Hatfield made was the “Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in Arkeny elevates the Indiana case above the Constitution" while also noting the Judge ignored the Minor court in Minor v Happersett, a ruling that clearly defined natural born Citizen, established precedent. When asked about next steps Hatfield stated "we are going full bore and taking it up on appeal”.
Click this link to read Judge Malihi's ruling - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
We will be following this in detail and will keep you abreast of activities as they unfold.
Sincerely,
Helen Tansey
Director
Article II Super PAC
director@Art2SuperPAC
804.840.1449
Note: 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.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
Mr. Swensson, GA Soc. of State Brian Kemp said before the hearing that he would abide by the Judge's recommendation. That STRONGLY implies he also has the authority to make a decision contrary to that recommendation. HOPEFULLY, he said what he did earlier thinking Malihi could not possibly rule any way other than that Obama was not eligible to be on GA's ballot; and, hopefully, he can and WILL contradict Malihi's ruling and recommendation.
ReplyDeleteIf there is the slightest possibility that Kemp can make a decision solely on his own review of the evidence, every effort should be made to encourage him to rule in favor of the preponderance of evidence that Obama can never become president, past, present, or future.