Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/81824490/Swensson-v-Obama-Petition-for-Judicial-Review-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-15-2012
Timestamp: 2018-09-21 13:40:16
Document Index: 55909921

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art2', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 1', '§ 21', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 21', '§ 21']

Swensson v Obama, Petition for Judicial Review, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge, 2-15-2012 | Allegiance | Citizenship
Swensson v Obama, Petition for Judicial Review, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge, 2-15-2012 http://www.Art2SuperPAC.com
Swensson v Obama, Petition for Judicial Review, Ge...
Llamanzares DECISION
Citizenship q and A
Elliott v Cruz SCOPA - Appellants Brief - Final With TOC and TOA
2012-09-02 - (9th Cir) - LLF Reply (Emergency Motion) ECF 10
Glenn - Are You Listening? Another Open Letter to Glenn Beck from Commander Kerchner
AZ - 2012-06-04 - LLF - DNC Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions
) ) Case No.:
2012 C_V 211527
Your are hereby summoned and required to file with the Clerk of said Court and serve upon plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address is:
J. MARK HATFIELD HATFIELD & HATFIELD, P.C. 201 ALBANY AVENUE
An answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 30 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, JUDGMENT BY
DEFAULT WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT
onorab1e Cathelene "Tina" Robinson Clerk of uperior Court
To defendant upon whom this petition is served: This copy of complaint and summons was served upon you , 20 Deputy Sherriff
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNT STATE OF GEORGIA
CARL SWENSSON, Petitioner V. RARACK OBAMA, Respondent PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Now comes Petitioner Carl Swensson, by and through undersigned counsel, and files this Petition For Judicial Review against Respondent Barack Obama as follows: 1. This action is an appeal of a Final Decision of Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp denying Petitioner Carl Swensson's challenge to the qualifications of Respondent Barack Obama, a presidential candidate, to seek and hold the Office of the President of the United States, and finding Respondent Obama eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election. 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e). 3. Petitioner Carl Swensson is a natural person residing in Clayton County, Georgia. He is a registered voter in the State Page -1CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
CV 211527
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 Respondent herein. 4. Respondent 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 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193, the name of Respondent to the Georgia Secretary of State's Office as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot. 5. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b), Petitioner timely filed with the Georgia Secretary of State a written challenge to the qualifications of Respondent to seek and hold the Office of the Presidency of the United States. Petitioner's challenge contended that Respondent does not meet the "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. 6. Also pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b), the Office of the Secretary of State thereafter referred Petitioner's challenge for
a hearing before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings. 7. Pursuant to proper notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on January 26, 2012 before Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Malihi. Petitioner was present at trial and submitted into the record, through counsel, evidence and testimony pertaining to the issues raised by his challenge. Respondent and his attorney, however, did not appear for trial and failed to submit any evidence or testimony whatsoever. 8. On February 3, 2012, the administrative law judge issued an initial Decision, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," finding Respondent eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2 - 5(b), the administrative law judge's Decision was reported to the Secretary of State. 9. On February 7, 2012, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(c), Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp issued a Final Decision, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B," adopting the initial Decision of the administrative law judge and denying Petitioner's challenge.
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e), Petitioner now appeals and seeks judicial review of the Secretary of State's Final Decision in this case, and further seeks a reversal of that Final Decision, for the reason that substantial rights of the Petitioner have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, and decisions of the Secretary of State are: (a) state; (b) of State; (c) Made upon unlawful procedures; (d) Affected by other errors of law; (e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; and (f) Arbitrary and capricious and characterized by an abuse of discretion and a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. 11. In particular, Petitioner would enumerate the following specific grounds for review of the Secretary of State's Final Decision in this case: (a) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge, erred in issuing a single ruling applicable to the cases of In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary In violation of the Constitution and laws of this
Petitioner and certain other individuals (represented by separate counsel) who independently challenged Respondent's qualifications, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by Petitioner Swensson differed from that offered by such other individuals; (b) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge, erred in finding as "fact": 1) that Respondent was born in the United States; and 2) that Respondent's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of Respondent's birth. (c) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision'of said judge, erred in considering as evidence two (2) electronic images of Respondent's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates which were attached to a letter sent, prior to trial, by email to the Secretary of State, despite the fact that such images were never tendered or admitted into the record in accordance with the rules of evidence; and despite the fact that Petitioner was never given an opportunity to compare such images with the originals or to have the images established as documentary evidence according to the rules of evidence applicable to the superior courts of this state; (d) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge,
erred in failing to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof and in failing to apply the burden of proof in reaching factual and legal conclusions in Petitioner's case, despite the fact that Petitioner specifically filed a pre-trial "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof"; (e) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge, erred in failing to find Respondent's deliberate failure to appear for trial an event of default and in failing to sustain Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's qualifications on that independent basis; (f) The administrative law judge, and consequently the
Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge, erred in adopting the reasoning of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana and in finding that a person automatically qualifies as a "natural born Citizen," pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution, by merely being born in the United States, without regard to the citizenship of his parents; (g) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge, erred in failing to properly construe the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett;
(h) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge, erred in finding that Respondent qualifies as a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution, despite the fact that Respondent's father was not a United States citizen at the time of Respondent's birth; and (i) The administrative law judge, and consequently the Secretary of State adopting the initial Decision of said judge, erred in failing at Petitioner's request to certify to this Court, for a determination of appropriate action including a finding of contempt, the facts of the contemptuous behavior of Respondent (and Respondent's counsel) in knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately failing to comply with Petitioner's Notice to Produce served upon Respondent. 12. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant an expedited hearing and review of this Petition due to the fact that the Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Election is scheduled to take place on March 6, 2012, less than three (3) weeks hence. 13. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e), Petitioner further respectfully requests that this Court order a stay of the Final Decision of the Secretary of State finding Respondent eligible to
be included on the ballot in Georgia as a candidate for the presidential primary election pending a final judgment of this Court reviewing said Final Decision. 14. This Petition is timely filed within ten (10) days after the entry of the Final Decision by the Secretary of State. 15. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e), the Secretary of State, as soon as possible after service of this Petition, is required to transmit to this Court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review. WHEREFORE, Petitioner Carl Swensson respectfully requests that this Court: (1) Conduct a hearing and review the record in this case on an expedited basis; (2) Grant Petitioner a stay of the Final Decision of the Secretary of State finding Respondent eligible to be included on the ballot in Georgia as a candidate for the presidential primary election pending a final judgment of this Court; (3) Issue an order reversing the Final Decision of the
Secretary of State, finding that Respondent does not meet the Article II "natural born Citizen" requirement for the presidency, removing Respondent's name from the presidential ballot in Georgia, and adjudging Respondent in contempt of court for his
deliberate failure to comply with Petitioner's Notice to Produce in the administrative proceedings; and (4) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This 15th day of February, 2012. HATFIELD & HATFIELD, P.C.
minnalk A -411wrmallw.
ark Hatfiel loner Attorney for Pe Georgia Bar No. 337509 201 Albany Avenue P.O. Box 1361 Waycross, Georgia 31502 (912) 283-3820
DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY JUDY, THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE ROTH, Plaintiffs, v. BARACK OBAMA, Defendant. : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215136-60-M ALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff's: Orly Taitz Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
DAVID P. W ELDEN, Plaintiff, :
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215137-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff: Van R. Irion
BARACK OBAMA, Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski Defendant.
CARL SWENSSON, Plaintiff, v. BARACK OBAMA, Defendant. Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski : : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1216218-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Hatfield
KEVIN RICHARD POWELL, Plaintiff, V. BARACK OBAMA, Defendant. Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1216823-60-MALIHI Counsel for Plaintiff J. Mark Hatfield Counsel for Defendant: Michael Jablonski
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant President Barack Obama does not meet Georgia's eligibility requirements for candidacy in Georgia's 2012 presidential primary election. Georgia law mandates that candidates meet constitutional and statutory requirements for the office that they seek. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a). Mr. Obama is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Georgia Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the Office of the President of the United States. Id. The United States Constitution requires that a President be a -natural born [c]itizen. - U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. As required by Georgia Law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp referred Plaintiffs' challenges to this Court for a hearing. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). A hearing was held on January 26, 2012. The record closed on February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth and their counsel Orly Taitz, Plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell and their counsel J. Mark Hatfield, and Plaintiff David P. Welden and his counsel Van R. Irion, all appeared and answered the call of the case. However, neither Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the
This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson. and Kevin Richard Powell. Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section II applies to all Plaintiffs.
Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.
Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth contend that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. To support this contention, Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Obama maintains a fraudulently obtained social security number, a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, and that he does not otherwise possess valid U.S. identification papers. Further, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Obama has previously held Indonesian citizenship, and he did not use his legal name on his notice of candidacy, which is either Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama Soebarkah. (Pl.s . Am. Compl. 3.) At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses 2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)—(9). The weight to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10). The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. ; Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth
Originally, Ms. Taitz indicated to the Court that she would offer the testimony of seven witnesses. However, during her closing argument, Ms. Taitz requested to testify. Ms. Taitz was sworn and began her testimony, but shortly thereafter, the Court requested that Ms. Tatiz step-down and submit any further testimony in writing. The credibility of witnesses is within the sole discretion of the trier of fact. In non-jury cases that 3 123 Ga. App. 350, discretion lies with the judge. See Mustang Transp.. Inc. v. W.W. Lowe & Sons, Inc., 352 (1971). 4
certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses' testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Duffee Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for
the testimony of an expert witness to he received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved). None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive.
Application of the "Natural Born Citizen" Requirement Plaintiffs allege that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the
United States and, therefore, is not eligible to run in Georgia's presidential primary election. As indicated supra, the United States Constitution states that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible for the Office of the President . . ." 4 U.SConstarI,§1cl5. For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama's father was never a United States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree. In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ("Indiana Court") addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. Id. at 681. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that -there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was
4 The definition of this clause has been the source of much debate. See, e.g., Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968); Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988); Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349 (2000); William T. Han, Beyond Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship, 58 Drake L. Rev. 457 (2010).
ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive. The Indiana Court began its analysis by attempting to ascertain the definition of "natural born citizen" because the Constitution does not define the term. Id. at 685-86;
see also United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898) (noting that the only
mention of the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution is in Article II, and the term is not defined in the Constitution). The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Id. at 685 (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 167); See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . ."). In Minor, the Court observed that: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-68. Plaintiffs ask this Court to read the Supreme Court's decision in Minor as
defining natural born citizens as only "children born in a country of parents who were its
citizens." 88 U.S. at 167. However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define the term natural born citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen. Next, the Indiana Court looked to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment and "natural born citizen of the United States" in Article II to determine whether a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of the child's birth, were subjects of China "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . Id. at 686
(citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653). The Indiana Court determined that the two provisions "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. - Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654). The Indiana Court agreed that "[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655) (internal citation omitted). The Wong Kim Ark Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents,
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. 5 705.
The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual . . . and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance. the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day. within the jurisdiction of the King. 169 U.S. at 655. It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England. were within the allegiance, the obedience. the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State. or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
Id. at 660 (quoting Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 164 (1830) (Story, J.,
concurring)). And: The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language. 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Id. at 662 (quoting Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 576 (1856) (Curtis, J.. dissenting)). Finally:
Relying on the language of the Constitution and the historical reviews and analyses of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Indiana Court concluded that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those -born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens." 916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth!' For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
SO ORDERED, February 3'1, 2012.
IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE STATE OF GEORGIA DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY JUDY, : THOMAS MALAREN, LAURIE ROTH, Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE: CE-1215136-60- MALIHI Petitioners, Counsel for Petitioners: Orly Taitz v. Counsel for Respondent: Michael Jablonski BARACK OBAMA, Respondent. DAVID P. WELDON, Petitioner,
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE: CE-1215137-60- MALIHI Counsel for Petitioners: Van R. Irion : Counsel for Respondent: Michael Jablonski
BARACK OBAMA, Respondent. CARL SWENSSON, Petitioner, v. BARACK OBAMA, Respondent. KEVIN RICHARD POWELL, Petitioner, v. BARACK OBAMA, Respondent.
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE: CE-1216218-60- MALIHI : Counsel for Petitioners: J. Mark Hatfield Counsel for Respondent: Michael Jablonski
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE: CE-1216823-60- MALIIII Counsel for Petitioners: J. Mark Hatfield Counsel for Respondent: Michael Jablonski
FINAL DECISION'
Petitioners filed candidate challenges pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b) contending that
Respondent does not meet the State of Georgia's eligibility requirements for his name to be listed on the 2012 Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Judge Michael Malihi, Administrative Law Judge ("ALP) for the Office of State Administrative Hearings, held a hearing on each candidate challenge on January 26, 2012 and entered an initial decision for the above-captioned cases on February 3, 2012. The Secretary of State formally adopts the initial decision of the ALI into this final decision. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY DECIDED THAT the above-captioned challenges are DENIED. SO DECIDED this 7th day of February, 2012.
BRIAN P. KEMP Georgia Secretary of State
I Judge Michael Malihi previously consolidated the above-captioned candidate challenges for the purpose of issuing his initial decision. Those candidate challenges remain consolidated for the purpose of issuing this Final Decision.
I, J. Mark Hatfield, Attorney for Petitioner, do hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Summons and Petition For Judicial Review and attachments thereto upon: Mr. Michael K. Jablonski Attorney at Law 260 Brighton Road NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309-1523 Honorable Brian P. Kemp Secretary of State State of Georgia 214 State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Honorable Michael M. Malihi Administrative Law Judge Office of State Administrative Hearings 230 Peachtree Street NW Suite 850 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail in a properly addressed envelope with sufficient postage affixed thereto in order to insure proper delivery, and by emailing same to Mr. Jablonski at michael.jablonski@comcast.net , by emailing same to Secretary Kemp at vrusso@sos.qa.gov , and by emailing same to Judge Malihi at kbeal@osah.qa.gov . This 15th day of February, 2012. HATFIELD & HATFIELD, P.C. rk Hatf Att ney for Toner Georgia Bar No. 37509 201 Albany Avenue P.O. Box 1361 Waycross, Georgia 31502 (912) 283-3820
Documents Similar To Swensson v Obama, Petition for Judicial Review, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge, 2-15-2012
contest6494