If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
GA SOS BRIAN KEMP HAS REFUSED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE
by Sharon Rondeau
(Dec. 29, 2011) — A citizen and registered voter of the state of Georgia has petitioned for the convening of a special grand jury to examine the conduct of Secretary of State Brian Kemp for placing Obama’s name on the 2012 presidential ballot, apparently without vetting him for constitutional eligibility.
Whether or not Barack Hussein Obama qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution has been a question for more than three years. While Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii, his birthplace might not be the factor which determines his eligibility. Some legal scholars, researchers and attorneys have found evidence from United States history which indicates that the citizenship of one or both parents was also, or perhaps the only, determining factor for a person to be considered a “natural born Citizen.”
In April 2008, Sen. John McCain was pronounced in a non-binding Senate resolution to be a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of the fact that he was born, albeit in Panama, to two U.S.-citizen parents. Obama’s eligibility was not held to the same standard.
One legal source states that the U.S. follows the British “right of the soil” rule to determine American citizenship and mentions the term “natural born Citizen” without defining it. Others say that simply being born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, qualifies the person as a “natural born Citizen.”
Obama has claimed that his father was a Kenyan national with British citizenship which made him a dual citizen at birth, raising the question of foreign allegiances. There are questions about the authenticity of the short-form and long-form birth certificates which Obama, or someone acting on his behalf, presented to the public in digital form.
Prior to the request for a special grand jury, the petitioner had submitted a FOIA request to Kemp’s office which Kemp did not address. The requester then wrote a formal letter to Kemp, citing the state law which mandates that candidates for both state and federal positions be constitutionally qualified.
The state of New Hampshire has disqualified presidential candidates in both 2008 and 2011 for failure to meet the “born-on-U.S.-soil” definition of “natural born Citizen.”
The statute which provides for the seating of a special grand jury, O.C.G.A. § 15-12-100, states, in part:
(a) The chief judge of the superior court of any county to which this part applies, on his own motion or on petition of any elected public official of the county or of a municipality lying wholly or partially within the county, may request the judges of the superior court of the county to impanel a special grand jury for the purpose of investigating any alleged violation of the laws of this state or any other matter subject to investigation by grand juries as provided by law.
Georgia’s previous Secretary of State, Karen Handel, who later ran for governor, challenged the qualifications of a candidate for “Public Service Commissioner, District 4” because he owned two homes, splitting his residency between them, and one of the homes was not located in District 4. According to Handel, the candidate had “claimed a homestead exemption on the Cobb County property for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007.” While the candidate, Powell, attempted to transfer the homestead exemption to his home in Towns County, which is located in District 4, he reportedly “missed the deadline” to do so on three separate occasions.
Handel concluded that, according to state law, “A candidate for State office must meet all constitutional and statutory requirements for holding the office sought by the candidate” and cited O.C.G.A. §21-2-5(a).
The statute cited by Handel includes federal officeholders and states:
(a) Every candidate for federal and state 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.
Blanchard stated that his latest request is not a lawsuit, but “a request to seat a special grand jury to investigate alleged unlawful activity on the part of the SOS.”
The petitioner’s cover letter reads as follows:
Judge Barrett, by hand carry:
I am requesting a special grand jury to investigate alleged unlawful activity on the part of the Secretary of State.
My petition is pursuant to OCGA Title 15, which specifies that only an elected official may file. However I was not able to find an elected official who would stand up, therefore I am asking you to request impaneling a jury on your recognizance, acting on my request, as is allowed by the OCGA.
You will note in my petition that I have exhausted all avenues of redress. My efforts at “testing” the Secretary’s office to provide substantiation for this petition, took an inordinately long six weeks, approximately; with only eight weeks, approximately, remaining to the primary election day, your urgent attention to this matter will be needed.
I am available at your convenience, to discuss this petition.
For the Republic,
M. J. Blanchard
Of his efforts to determine whether or not Obama was vetted, Blanchard told The Post & Email, “I took a different approach to the ballot challenge in that I challenged the SOS for putting Obama on the ballot without qualifications. I used his lack of response to my FOIA as proof that he had nothing to qualify Obama with. His attorney did respond, after about a month, but sent irrelevant information concerning filing but no bona fides. The SOS shuffled my complaint off to an administrative sub-set of the judiciary (OSAH) as Blanchard v. Obama. The case was dismissed and sent back to the SOS. The SOS has not responded so I have filed the petition for grand jury. The key to my complaint is found in OSGA 21-2-5 (a) & (c).”
Blanchard stated that he would like to “make the Secretary of State respond and prove the allegations are not grounded. The grand jury will decide if there is a case and then it will be released to a trial. If the cases before OSAH are dismissed and a special grand jury is not seated that is end game.”
(4) To certify to the proper superintendent official lists of all the political party candidates who have been certified to the Secretary of State as qualified candidates for the succeeding primary and to certify to the proper superintendent official lists of all the candidates who have filed their notices of candidacy with the Secretary of State, both such certifications to be in substantially the form of the ballots to be used in the primary or election. The Secretary of State shall add to such form the language to be used in submitting any proposed constitutional amendment or other question to be voted upon at such election;
Other prominent assignments of powers and responsibilities to the Secretary in relation to the implementation of the state’s election laws include authorizing the Secretary to accept or challenge the qualifications of candidates for state or federal office (O.C.G.A. § 21 2 5),…
Blanchard’s petition to impanel the grand jury reads:
Chief Judge of Union County, Georgia, Superior Court
Judge David Barrett
Georgia Secretary of State
Petition for impaneling a Special Grand Jury pursuant to O.C.G.A. 15-12-100 for the purpose of investigating an alleged violation of the laws of this State; as provided by law.
Oral Argument Requested
Pursuant to the provisions of O.C.G.A. 15-12-100 a special grand jury is requested for the purpose of:
(A) Directing the Secretary of State, hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”, to remove the man named Barack Hussein Obama*from Georgia’s primary voting ballot for cause, i.e. Mr. Obama’s credentials were not vetted by the Defendant as required by Georgia law;
(B) Granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the “Defendant”, from issuing any letters, certificates, or other documents indicating that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of President or that the Democratic Party has selected Mr. Obama as its Presidential candidate, or requesting that the name of Mr. Obama be placed on any ballot for the office of President of the United States for the 2012 primary or general election. Grounds for this motion, as more fully set forth below, are that Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and that the Supreme Court of the united States has defined “natural born citizen” as a person with both parents being citizens at the time of his birth; therefore Mr. Obama does not fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President.
*Hereinafter this memorandum will refer to President Obama, also known as Barack Hussein Obama Jr., Barack Obama II, and Barry Soetoro, as “Mr. Obama.” This reference is not intended to be disrespectful to the office of the President or to the individual Barack Obama. It is used only to identify the individual, separate from the office, and to simplify communication for purposes of this petition.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR SETTING A SPECIAL GRAND JURY
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted).
II. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits
(A) Georgia code Title 21 O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (c) Att. A, states quite clearly that: “The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. The Defendant by failure to make an appropriate respond to the petitioner’s FOIA request for Mr. Obama’s presidential qualifying credentials admits that he has nothing, and therefore has placed a candidate on our ballot in violation of the law. The Georgia codes are clear on this point.
(B) It is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. This fact has been admitted by Mr. Obama in his book “Dreams From My Father,” has been confirmed in statements by the U.S. State Department, and is reflected on the birth certificate published by the White House and claimed by the President as his birth certificate. To Plaintiffs’ knowledge Mr. Obama has never denied the fact that his father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor has he ever made any statements contrary to this fact. enc. 4
The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Court in Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term “citizen,” it does so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” enc. 1,2, 3, 3a, 3b
Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Mr. Obama can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, Mr. Obama cannot meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1. It is also undisputed that the Defendant intends to list Mr. Obama as the Democratic nominee for the office of President of the united States in the 2012 general election as he has already placed his name on the primary ballot for March 6, 2012. Said nomination requires the Defendant to qualify Mr. Obama as the Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party in the 2012 primary and general election and represent that he is qualified to hold the office of President per O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(c). Because Mr. Obama is not a natural-born citizen, as defined by the Supreme Court, and because the Defendant is aware of all undisputed facts and definitions set forth herein*, any representation by the Defendant that Mr. Obama is Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President would be negligent misrepresentation, fraud, misfeasance, and unlawful.
* memo:blanchard:kemp:12/7/2011 w/enclosures, Att. D, received on 12/13/11 @0440 hrs.
Note: Enclosure references in petition are the same as those in the memo, above.
III. Absent the Requested Relief Petitioner will be Irreparably Harmed
Petitioner is a citizen of the State of Georgia with all rights and privileges granted by the Constitution of the State of Georgia, thereof. Absent this Court’s grant of the requested relief, said individual will be irreparably harmed by the Defendant’s persistent disregard for the laws of the State of Georgia, the Georgia Constitution, and the united States Constitution.
As an Army veteran and also as a past Deputy Sheriff and citizen of the State of Georgia the petitioner has standing. An oath was sworn, twice, to defend the Constitution. The petitioner is being stopped in those efforts by a judicial system that does him irreparable harm by branding him: “without standing”. The petitioner is a citizen whose forebears created the Constitution that formed the judicial branch of government. A Constitution created by citizens and preserved by citizens. The petitioner is being prevented from complying with an oath that he swore before God. The petitioner asks for redress of these grievances that are doing him great harm. His efforts have been thwarted at every turn. His letter to the Defendant dated November 19, 2011,Att. B, enclosed, directing the Defendant to remove Mr. Obama from our primary ballot was referred to the Office of State Administration Hearings as part of a block of ballot challenges. His complaint lies solely with the Defendant for his unlawful act and failure to remedy that act, a letter dated November 28, 2011, enclosed with attachments, Att. Ca, Cb, Cc, Cd pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-18-70, FOIA, response to which, on December 19, 2011,contained no relevant data, a letter to the Defendant dated December 7, 2011 Att. D requesting Mr. Obama’s removal from our primary ballot was referred to OSAH as Blanchard v. Obama on December 9, 2011, and the request in a letter dated December 12, 2011, Att. E, to remand his complaint to the office of the Secretary of State was refused. A motion to dismiss was finagled with Mr. Obama’s attorney and the motion sent back to the SOS office. An email was sent to MS Linda Ford, Director, Elections Division on December 19, 2011 requesting mediation or re-instatement of the complaint with OSAH as Blanchard v. Kemp. The email was resent at MS Ford’s request. There has been no response and now as of December 28, 2011 MS Ford does not answer her phone. Att. Fa, Fb.
A special grand jury is now the only recourse for redress of grievances.
IV. The Balance of Equities Weighs Heavily in Favor of the Petitioner
This petition would require the Defendant to refrain from asserting a fact on behalf of Mr. Obama that is in clear contradiction to Mr. Obama’s own assertions. This is not a heavy burden.
On the other side of the balance of equities, allowing the Defendant to make factual misrepresentations would result in a flawed or invalid U.S. Presidential election. This result would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, other veterans, candidates, to all Americans, and to the validity of the U.S. Constitution.
V. Public Interest Supports Granting the Requested Injunction
The Defendant performs his duties for the benefit of the citizens of the State of Georgia. A gross misrepresentation of fact, perpetrated by the Defendant upon the citizens of the State of Georgia, would cause profound harm to those citizens. Such an act amounts to perpetrating a gross misrepresentation upon each and every registered voter in Georgia. The public interest is obviously served by prohibiting such a clear misrepresentation of fact and preventing a flawed Presidential election to occur.
Will the Superior Court of Union County enforce the most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution? This petition relies upon uncontested facts as a Superior Court defined them. Public trust in the judicial branch and in the authority of the Constitution will be greatly enhanced by granting this petition and pursing it to a successful conclusion.
VI. Relief Sought
(A) The petitioner requests an order directing the Defendant to remove Mr. Obama from the Georgia primary ballot.
(B) The Petitioner requests an order prohibiting the Defendants from issuing any letters, certificates, or other documents indicating that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of President or that the Democratic Party has selected Mr. Obama as its Presidential candidate, or requesting that the name of Mr. Obama be placed on any ballot for the office of President of the United States for the 2012 general election.
For the Republic,
Dated: December 29, 2011
M. J. Blanchard
Delivery by hand carry