Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen
BirtherReport.com ^ | 2/3/2012 | Kevin Powell

Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-726 next last
To: tablelamp; sourcery

It’s obvious that “tablelamp” and other assorted re-tread fogbowers want our side to give up on courts, and “go for the ballot box” only. Why would that be? I can thnk of several reasons.


681 posted on 02/05/2012 3:02:50 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Georgia Ballot Challenge News
February 3rd, 2012

Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden vs. Obama - Judge Michael Malihi’s Final Order - Georgia Ballot Access Challenge - 2-3-2012

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”.

http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Here’s the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2842756/posts?page=9#9


682 posted on 02/05/2012 3:06:38 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Clueless or has specific motivations.


683 posted on 02/05/2012 3:07:45 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone; tablelamp
What do you think of the job Obama has done so far?

I want to know too.

684 posted on 02/05/2012 3:09:30 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The Ark court had no problem with accepting that someone who might be born a U.S. citizen can lose their citizenship because his parents renounced it for him. If we want to follow Ark for "guidance" on NBC, then we need to follow it here too, right??

There were a number of 20th Century SCOTUS decisions on revokation/ renunciation of citizenship, including Afroyim v. Rusk and several others.

685 posted on 02/05/2012 4:29:44 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

good news and thanks for the ping!


686 posted on 02/05/2012 4:30:12 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

And Joe Arpaio ain’t giving up, either!!!!


687 posted on 02/05/2012 4:38:30 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: GGMac; All
There are also the Soetoro divorce papers of 1980 in which it is stated there are two children - one child over age 18 and therefore not requiring court consideration regarding support; the other a minor child who did require court consideration regarding support.

Something has been bugging me for a while. Since this is mentioned here, I will address it here.

If I've understood it correctly, there was another adopted child Lia, who died in the past couple years. I was never sure if she was adopted by Stanley Ann and Lolo while they were married.

If I recall correctly (and I might not!), the children weren't mentioned by name in the divorce papers.

Is there evidence that Stanley Ann and Lolo formally adopted Lia? How old was she at the time of the divorce? If she was formally adopted and Zero was not, could she possibly be the "one child over 18"?

(There are so many threads with so much information on these topics. I try to keep up, but it's impossible to read--or remember--it all. Apologies for going OT of the thread, but I didn't know where else to address this.)
688 posted on 02/05/2012 4:47:20 PM PST by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

No - Indians were never deemed to be Americans. They were to be members of sovereign Indian nations. Hence the requirement to be naturalized as American citizens.


689 posted on 02/05/2012 6:50:50 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
No - Indians were never deemed to be Americans. They were to be members of sovereign Indian nations. Hence the requirement to be naturalized as American citizens.

Again, you aren't getting the point. The CHILDREN of Indians were not granted automatic 14th amendment citizenship. Yet the CHILDREN of other "Sovereign Nations" were granted citizenship.

If the rule is "birth on the soil" then why did it apply to the children of European Nations, but not to the children of Indian Nations?

Obviously "birth on the soil" was not the deciding factor. I bet you still do not "get it."

690 posted on 02/05/2012 7:01:26 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
It’s obvious that “tablelamp” and other assorted re-tread fogbowers want our side to give up on courts, and “go for the ballot box” only. Why would that be? I can thnk of several reasons.

Speaking as a long-time FReeper (who very much wants to see Obama out of office) and as a lawyer, I don't want to see time and money wasted on the eligibility issue, because no court will ever uphold the two-citizen-parent theory. It reminds me of the tax protestor websites, where people post elaborate arguments about how the 16th Ammendment was never validly ratified or about how "income" doesn't include pay for ordinary work. Interesting arguments, but they will never prevail in court.

691 posted on 02/05/2012 7:06:18 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

If anyone cares about the meaning and intent and simple English of the Constitution, your words are “we’re already in hell so let’s make ourselves comfortable”.

Yeah, the courts we have now - cesspools.


692 posted on 02/05/2012 7:11:56 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It isn’t that they don’t “get it”.


693 posted on 02/05/2012 7:13:00 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Lawyers can be and have been overruled by the people many times in the past.

And this is a point which needs to be shouted from the Mountaintops! The courts WILL do what the people demand when the people get sick of their bullsh*t. I think it's way past time we put the fear of God and the People into some of these presumptuous bastards. The courts need to be reminded that they answer to US!

694 posted on 02/05/2012 7:13:29 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: HoneysuckleTN; GGMac

http://www.wnd.com/2010/08/190449/

From the link above. Another, incredibly odd data point.

“A photograph of Lia shows her holding a monkey doll and wearing clothes given her by Madelyn Dunham, Obama’s maternal grandmother, when Lia visited Hawaii for three months. The visit apparently was in 1971, the year Obama left Indonesia permanently.”

So....

In 1971 we have:

a) Obama starting school on the first day supposedly in late August or September.
b) Obama flying alone from Indonesia to Hawaii.
c) Obama and SAD/S flying together from Indonesia to Hawaii in mid-October.
d) Obama newly found step-sister ‘visiting for 3 months’ in 1971.

So far...nothing seems glue together. The story line acts as if Hawaii was an hours drive away from Indonesia. Not thousands of miles away on the other side of the international date line.

I think ‘step-sister’ was created to help with the Lolo / Stanley Ann divorce statement. The divorce does not specifically name the children. But it indicates 1 older than 18 and one less than 18. That would be Obama and Maya. Unless this ‘newly found’ step sister is claimed to the unnamed child over 18.

The Indonesia years remain problematic. And when you bring up Indonesia the Obots tend to get really annoyed.


695 posted on 02/05/2012 7:32:43 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
There were a number of 20th Century SCOTUS decisions on revokation/ renunciation of citizenship, including Afroyim v. Rusk and several others.

Yes, that's why I said the 20th century courts had forgotten about the part of Ark that I quoted. The idea of not being able to renounce a child's citizenship is relatively a new invention. Ark had no problem understanding that it could happen at the end of the 19th century.

696 posted on 02/05/2012 7:39:58 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If Obama won't show up or present evidence for any of these hearings, next time we take a default judgement, and let THEM sue to overturn it. (Providing we can find another state to try this in.)

No, actually I don't think would have been a good strategy. If Obama sues to overturn a judgment, it means he's arguing against the state. At best the state would only have a superficial interest in defending this on appeal. The better option is for skeptics and challengers to appeal where more evidence can be presented and the weakenesses of Ankeny can be attacked. Malihi may have done this issue a favor because he left open Obama's bona fides.

697 posted on 02/05/2012 7:48:07 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If the rule is "birth on the soil" then why did it apply to the children of European Nations, but not to the children of Indian Nations?

This is the one area that exposes a real weakness in Justice Gray's decision in Ark. Gray also wrote the decision in Elk v. Wilkins, and he had to fudge around his OWN precedent, which he did by saying:

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law) ...

So, all he does is say that the Indians have a "peculiar relation" to the National Government to avoid admitting that he did NOT apply to them his own so-called "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." The Indians were here BEFORE we had a "national government" ... did the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth OR the common law make them Natural-Born Subjects?? The answer to that question is obvious and it proves yet again that jus soli was not and could not have been the basis for the founders understanding of the term "natural-born citizens."

698 posted on 02/05/2012 8:01:50 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: edge919
So, all he does is say that the Indians have a "peculiar relation" to the National Government to avoid admitting that he did NOT apply to them his own so-called "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

Elg dealt with an Indian who had been born in Indian country and only later moved to a state. At that time, many of those Indians didn't regard themselves as being "within the country," and in a very real sense, they weren't. Until the 20th Century, the Government dealt with Indian tribes through treaties, not by legislation. All through the 19th Century, many Indian tribes were at war with the United States Government. Indians born in Indian country were not then regarded as citizens because they were, in a very real sense, hostile aliens.

The Court's awkward language was a reflection of the fact that the U.S. Government officially claimed the legal right to rule over the Indians, but was still in the process of achieving control de facto. Once that was accomplished, Indians became citizens.

699 posted on 02/05/2012 8:46:53 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

because no court will ever uphold the two-citizen-parent theory. It reminds me of the tax protestor websites, where people post elaborate arguments about how the 16th Ammendment was never validly ratified or about how “income” doesn’t include pay for ordinary work. Interesting arguments, but they will never prevail in court.

Well then why have the courts t4ried so hard to avoid getting the issue heard on its merits and making a decision? They have made decisions about the income tax, so let them make a decision about two parents ..no they are avoiding evading and just plane sidestepping the issue. I guess it isn’t as clear cut as you want it to be. We have a right to know, Jindal and others have a right to know if they are eligible...to say otherwise is Anti-American and anti-Freedom. I guarantee if we stop paying taxes until they make a decision, we will get one ASAP.


700 posted on 02/05/2012 8:57:47 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720721-726 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson