Birthers Appeal To Fulton County Superior Court; Ask To Postpone Presidential Primary

Given that State Rep Mark Hatfield has a lot of time on his hands now that his peers at the Capitol don’t care much to have him around, he’s filed an appeal with the Fulton County Superior Court asking for an expedited review of Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s decision to generously allow Barack Obama (D-Natural Born Citizen) his rightful place on a Georgia Democratic primary ballot.

Should the expedited review not be granted, Hatfield on behalf of client Kevin Powell and deniers of reality everywhere, asks that a stay of Kemp’s decision be granted and the Democratic Preference Primary, currently scheduled for March 6th, be postponed.

A copy of the appeal can be found here.

As I’ve indicated before, this continues to be a problem for Georgia Republicans who should make it clear – early, often, plainly, and loudly – that Hatfield is acting on his own and does not represent either the views of the Party or their personal position.  Republicans have already committed message failure for most of this month arguing over the issue of contraception.  We don’t need the message for the month of March to be that during the 50’s, the State of Hawaii conspired with a village in Kenya to pave the way for a Kenyan (pronounced MUS-lum) to take over the Presidency.

45 comments

  1. PRevere says:

    GA law stipulates that any candidate if challenged, must prove he is eligible to be placed on our ballot. The challenge was issued and has thus far been ignored. The reward for looking the other way has been two fold. First GA gets License approval (first Lic approval in over 34 yrs. with twenty requests for the same on file from other States) to build two new Nuclear Reactors plus 8.3 Billion to subsidize the construction. Not a bad pay day. Second, Brian Kemp’s Home town in Athens gets a new Catepillar plant. All within two weeks of issuing his decision to allow Obama on the ballot. I know, it’s just a coincidence, right?
    Now for a question. Have any of you who would deride the actions of fellow Georgians to see Prima Facie evidence that Obama is who he purports to be, seen any such proof?
    Virtual (Internet docs posted by the WH) docs are not, I reapeat, not, Prima Facie evidence in any Court of Law and that, my fellow Georgians, is all I/we have asked for. Prove you are who say you are by producing one of the two Certified copies alledgedly sent to Obama by Hawaii. Simple thing, simple request yet Jablonski/Obama does not think we Georgians deserve to have our laws upheld and still refuses to provide the simple documentation that could finally resolve this. Still, those of you who support candidate Obama will continue to do so regardless of his lawless nature and will continue to use Saul Alonski type tactics to hide the truth about this man. Why do you and he continue to hide and who in this State really cares to uphold GA law when the payoff for not upholding it is so large?

    • FrankBolivar says:

      Apparently two of the attorneys involved in the case believe they are prima facie evidence as, during the hearing before ALJ Malihi, they stipulated to their authenticity.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      I have never seen any report of any human being stating they have seen a birth certificate of any POTUS or candidate, even going back pre-tin foil era.

  2. PRevere says:

    Typical responses from the herd of unelightened as led by Charlie. never ever address an issue head on when you can simple use the same worn out tactics proven time again to be successful by the Alinski for lunch bunch. Hey, you forgot to throw in the race card, must be slacking.
    Did I mention that the original “Birthers” were the Media when they went after John McCain for not being a natural born Citizen. My how soon you forget.

    • kyleinatl says:

      Not true, the birther movement began as a set of emails circulated by the Clinton campaign during the 2008 primary, and then misguided fools like yourself took that nugget and ran with it.

  3. Mary A. says:

    All three of the lawyers in the Georgia ballot challenge vouched for the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate. LOL!

    Hatfield and Irion had copies admitted as evidence to prove Obama’s father was a Kenyan, but that means the rest of the document has to be taken as true also. LOL! LOL!

    Orly had the affidavit by Linda Jordon admitted as evidence where Jordan proves the provenance of the LFBC. LOL! LOL! LOL!

    With lawyerin’ like that, Obama easily won with an empty chair! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

    • PRevere says:

      Hate to bust your unelightened (lying) bubble but Atty Hatfield never ever submitted or stipulated to any BC, choosing instead to shift the burden of proof upon Obama. Huge difference between the cases. I care little for what the other lawyers did and know that Mark, Kevin and I put the best case forward and will pursue it right on up the chain and will continue to get severance from the others at every turn. Orly is now out of the picture entirely. Jablonski will attempt to lump the three together since that’s the only way he can dillute our effectiveness. Malihi granted the severance and then turned around and lumped them together. Odd way of handling this, woudn’t you agree? Forgot to ask.., did you bother to read the filings? Had you done so, before posting, you’d have known this but, then again, why let facts get in the way.

      • Mary A. says:

        Ha ha. So I was mistaken. Hatfield didn’t submit a BC, just President Obama’s book that indicates he was born in Hawaii. LOL! Too bad the others verified Obama’s BCs at the same hearing. Also, Judge Malihi could just go to the Hawaii DoH site and verify the BC himself.

        BTW, thanks for all of the entertainment you and your fellow birthers have provided and will continue to provide. I’m all stocked up on popcorn and ready to watch more of your birther FAIL.

        Remember when you were gallivanting around with your “presentments”? LOL! LOL!

        This time I’m looking forward to you and your nutterbutters being charged with costs and fees. Mebbe some monetary sanctions tacked on too. LOL! LOL! LOL!

  4. FrankBolivar says:

    “PRevere February 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Hate to bust your unelightened (lying) bubble”

    Irony much there, Carl? (obvious from your post above)

    You and your ilk have been running around the country and the internet promoting lies about President Obama, the Constitution and the law for years.

    • Mary A. says:

      I’m a retired 99%er. Wonderful to be able to retire while still young!

      Guess what Carl, you’re a 99%er. You’re certainly not a 1%er. LOL!

        • Andre says:

          I’m just curious as to why folks keep giving these yahoos attention.

          I bet $10,000 that someone could produce a video of Obama’s mama giving birth on Wakiki Beach with the Governor of Hawaii in 1961 there as a witness, and someone would still claim Obama isn’t a natural born citizen.

          The best way to beat Obama is at the ballot box, not with these incessant lawsuits claiming Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

          People need to stop giving these nincompoop birthers attention. And that’s all I have to say about that.

          • Loren says:

            Is an ordinary Birther lawsuit newsworthy? Certainly not. No more than a 42nd annual Moon Hoax convention.

            But when you have a current Georgia legislator as counsel, representing a county Republican Party leader, asking that the Presidential Primary be postponed so that they can advance their pseudolegal arguments for why the incumbent President should be taken off the ballot…that’s newsworthy. That the legislator is doing this during the General Assembly session just compounds it further.

            It’s not the debunked claims themselves that are important; it’s the people involved. Cynthia McKinney got booted out of office for making some pro-Truther comments, and these guys are actively promoting their Birther claims with litigation and appeals and requests to reschedule elections. THAT is newsworthy, if only because they deserve to suffer the political consequences for the nonsense they’re pushing.

  5. AMB says:

    I object. This reeks of the GOP wanting to hide its crazy relatives in the attic. Maybe we need a discussion on why the GOP is attractive to looney tuners.

    • Andre says:

      Do you really want to have that discussion?

      Really?

      If so, allow me to ask why the Democrats attract those [ahem] “looney tuners” who believe September 11th was an inside job and that George W. Bush knew of the attacks beforehand.

      Both the so-called “Truthers” and the so-called “Birthers” need to be bound and gagged for spouting such ridiculousness.

  6. Harry says:

    Obama has never proven that he’s constitutionally eligible to be president. He’s never produced a genuine birth certificate. He could have been born in Kenya for all anyone knows. Even being born on foreign soil would not prevent his eligibility, except that his mother was not an adult US citizen and his father was definitely not a US citizen.

    • Charlie says:

      …and here we go again.

      “Obama has never proven that he’s constitutionally eligible to be president. He’s never produced a genuine birth certificate.”

      Yes, Harry, he has. By producing the second, he has done the first.

      If you wish to challenge the birth certificate, your beef is with the State of Hawaii. Feel free to spend the rest of your life tilting this windmill, but the President and Hawaii both have proven that he’s a natural born citizen. It’s now your job to somehow prove he’s not. Best of luck with that.

      • Harry says:

        I don’t have to prove anything…Obama does have to prove to my and other peoples’ satisfaction that he’s eligible to be president. He’s produced what technical experts consider is a falsified COLB. The chain of custody is not there. Two politically conflicted Hawaii governors – a RINO and a Democrat – said they believed they saw some “proof” Obama was born in Hawaii. Well, sorry, that’s not sufficient.

        • Charlie says:

          Of course you don’t have to prove anything Harry. But in the absense of you or one of your friends doing so, you have the status quo for 1 – 5 more years.

          “Obama does have to prove to my and other peoples’ satisfaction that he’s eligible to be president.”

          No. No he doesn’t. He’s perfectly willing and able to continue serving as President without proving any more to you. If you want something “proven” in a court room where it could have actual implications, then the ball – and burden – is in your court.

          • Harry says:

            But the point is, I and others don’t think Obama is a legitimate president because he hasn’t proven to withstand constitutional muster. Throughout history there have been cases of rulers who have control of the levers of government but not the support of large elements of the population, because they were not considered to be legitimate.

                • sunkawakan says:

                  Shame that the current Speaker of the GA House repealed the laws on barratry a few years back. Didn’t Dante have something to say about barrators?

                    • CNFPP says:

                      No Calypso. The logical reverse corollary would be, “Support of tyranny is dis-obedience to God.”

                      Either God exists, despite your unbelief or God does not exist despite my (and Jefferson’s) belief.

                      Therefore, support of or resistance to tyranny, under Jefferson’s belief, correlates to obedience, not tyranny.

                      It stands to reason that resistance = obedience while non-resistance = disobedience. That statement does not mean resistance = God which means non-resistance ≠ God or, stated like you have non-resistance = no God.

                      As the Jeffersonian statement does not require a belief in God, then, as an atheist, you can still be obedient to God without belief.

                      A good corresponding statement would be, “Not committing murder is obedience to God.”

                      By your statement above, as an atheist, you should be committing murder because you don’t believe in God. After all, a prohibition against murder is part of the 10 Commandments, a much more Biblical law than Jefferson’s.

                      However, not committing murder would make you obedient to God, even if you don’t believe in God.

                      I do realize it is usually a useless effort to interject logic on Peach Pundit, but I figured, what the heck?

                    • Calypso says:

                      @ CNFPP,

                      I see what you’re saying, and I could have worded it better. However, when I resist tyranny, only you (and other believers) see my action as obedience to God. As I have no belief in a God, I therefore see no obedience to one in my action.

                      If a certain tribe (of which I’m not a member) worships smoke and on a cold winter morning I throw a couple of logs in my fireplace and set them alight, to me (as I have no belief in the smoke God), the smoke emanating the chimney is nothing more than a by-product of my action to warm myself, while the tribe sees the smoke and begins worship.

                      How’s that for a run-on sentence? I need Salty to edit for me.

                    • saltycracker says:

                      C,

                      You’re just blowin’ smoke……you know Salty don’t edit no run on sentences that get a lot of a rant out quickly……

                      P.S. when there is smoke all around there are no atheists….

  7. saltycracker says:

    YAWNNNNNNNN…..THANK GOD we are a nation of laws and will let the courts settle it rather than the unwashed and unclean dither over it ad naseaum. I think he’ll be recognized as an evil shill, but until then…..zzzzzz, wake me when they find or don’t find his pedigree papers.

Comments are closed.