Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Obama Release Your Records ^ | Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 5:14 AM

[Red Steel]

Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State

Brian Kemp About Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Article II Super PAC Email

Greetings,

Kevin Powell and Carl Swensson's counsel, Mark Hatfield, early this morning sent his response to judicial errors of fact and law to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, in response to Judge Michael Malihi's decision in the Georgia ballot challenge.

Click this link to read Attorney Hatfield's response - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Below is the ending portion of Attorney Hatfield's 6-page rebuttal letter to the Georgia Secretary of State. Read the whole letter!

"Please note that the foregoing cited errors, omissions, and flaws in Judge Malihi's "Decision" are not intended to be exhaustive, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to raise other claims of error hereafter.

Mr. Secretary, as you deliberate on your final determination of Defendant Obama's qualifications to seek and hold office, I am requesting, on behalf of my clients, that you consider the posture of these matters. Defendant Obama has initiated the submission of his name as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Ballot. Likewise, in accordance with their rights under Georgia law, my clients have raised a challenge to the Defendant's qualifications as a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution. The Defendant and his lawyer tried, unsuccessfully, to have my clients' challenges dismissed. The Defendant was then legally served with a Notice to Produce, requiring him to appear at trial and to bring certain documents and items of evidence with him. The Defendant did not object. When the time for trial was imminent, the Defendant's lawyer wrote a letter to you in which he boldly criticized and attacked the judge and in which he stated that he and his client were refusing to come to court. The day of trial, after you warned him that his failure to appear would be at his own peril, the Defendant and his lawyer nevertheless failed to appear for court and failed to comply with the Plaintiffs' valid Notice to Produce. The Defendant thus not only presented no evidence of his own, but he failed to produce significant pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs were legally entitled. Inexplicably, Judge Malihi, after verbally acknowledging Plaintiffs' entitlement to a "default judgment," then entered an order fully favorable to the recalcitrant Defendant, and to top it off, the judge refused to even acknowledge Plaintiffs' attempts to have Defendant held accountable for his purposefully contemptuous behavior in ignoring Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce.

Doesn't this result sound unreasonable? Doesn't this result appear on its face unfair? Doesn't this result in fact suggest that the Defendant is above the law?

Mr. Secretary, I am respectfully requesting on behalf of my clients that you render a decision in this matter that treats Defendant Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot who fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and who disregards the authority of our judiciary. I request that my clients' challenges to Defendant Obama's qualifications be sustained and upheld.

Finally, in view of the rapidly approaching Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia on March 6, 2012, I respectfully request that you enter a decision in these matters on an expedited basis."

READ THE FULL LETTER DEBUNKING THE DECISION BY JUDGE MALIHI HERE. IT ALSO DEBUNKS CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS.

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.

[philman_36]

IINM,since the 1960’s, no law review article on Presidential eligiblity (Gordon, Lohman, Pryer, Medina) have cited Minor as precedent for NBC.
(@Gordon, @Lohman, @Pryer (sp), @Medina) Funny that, that you would specifically include only Democrats/liberals.

And the Ankeny Court specifically says Minor did not decide NBC.
Really? @Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse v. Governor of the State of Indiana

¹² Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Really? Where?

[philman_36]

@Minor v. Happersett () 100 U.S. 1The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Snip...

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.

That is the crux of the matter, isn't it. Since the boil is at a head don't you think it should be lanced?

[4Zoltan]

"In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:"

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens..[skip]...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

"Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12"

Footnote 12 that you reference only states the obvious that in Minor, the Court didn't even consider the case of a child with one citizen parent.

[4Zoltan]

So cite other law review articles.

[4Zoltan]

“we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.”

So you agree, that if President Obama was born in Hawaii, he is at least a citizen at birth.

[philman_36]

Footnote 12 that you reference only states the obvious that in Minor, the Court didn't even consider the case of a child with one citizen parent.
They didn't have to. There were naturalization laws that already covered the child born of an alien, whether it be one or two of them at question.
I can't help it if the Ankeny court deliberately got it wrong simply for political reasons. It's been done before. Or didn't you know that?

Did the Ankeny court state that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen?

[philman_36]

Still waiting...

They could hardly agree if they were not informed, could they?

[philman_36]

So cite other law review articles.
On what subject? You have to make a complete sentence first for me to even know what you're talking about!

So in the mean time let me ask you this...
If "nobody knows" what natural born citizen means then why have there been so many attempts to change Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 in the last few years?

@Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
Eight times? Come on!

I mean, in order for something to be changed to something else the person wanting to change the thing would first have to know what the thing being changed from meant in the first place, wouldn't they?

Else why bother changing it at all unless you wanted it to mean something else than what it already did, right?

[philman_36]

You seem pretty smart even though you tend to leave important things out of quotes.
Can you answer my questions in reply 188?

[philman_36]

I haven't forgotten about you either, Harlan?
Can you answer my questions in reply 188?

[philman_36]

Surely one of you must be able to answer my questions.

[philman_36]

Hopefully my questions aren't too difficult. I can rephrase them if necessary.

@Readability Calculator

Gunning Fog index : 14.80
Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :
Coleman Liau index : 9.18
Flesch Kincaid Grade level : 13.83
ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 17.69
SMOG : 10.75

[ctdonath2]

Or he found a horse’s head in his bed.

[Harlan1196]

Why are you talking to us - shouldn't you be on the phone to the Georgia SoS explaining to him how no one in his office knows how to do their jobs? Maybe he will give you a job.

You have shown ability to gather an impressive collection of legal minutia. You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.

I will make a fearless prediction - this case will go no further. If appealed it will lose. At every level. Every time. And your collection of laws will not change that simple fact.

[philman_36]

Or he found a horse’s head in his bed.

You know, being from where I'm from and following the ways of my Cajun cultural heritage, I've eaten hog head cheese many, many times. I don't particularly care for it one way or the other, but I'll eat it.
And every single time I see or hear that expression the first thing that goes through my mind is...I wonder if it would taste like hog head cheese.

[philman_36]

You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.
Why, Harlan, how could a newbie like you have been following little old me for three long years?
And I'm flattered that you've spent so much time keeping a tally of me being wrong.

[4Zoltan]

“Funny that, that you would specifically include only Democrats/liberals.”

You said that I only cited liberal democrats law review articles on Minor v. Happersett.

So cite other law review articles that claim Minor v. happersett is binding precedent.

As to your question:

Of the Constitutional amendments proposed only 1 deals with the definition of natural born citizen (S.2128 by Republican Senator Don Nickles). And it says,

“(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States—
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.”

The rest are attempts to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible to the Presidency, they are currently excluded. Those don’t try to change the definition of “natural born citizen”.

The last effort by Sen. McCaskill is not an amendment but a bill. It would make child born overseas to US Military personnel to be included in the term “natural born Citizen”. It doesn’t say anything about children born in the United States. It would clear up cases like Senator John McCain.

BTW, they don’t mention Sen. Hatch’s 2004 amendment S.R. 15 which would also allow naturalized citizens to be President. It is sometimes referred to as the Schwarzenegger Amendment.

[philman_36]

You said that I only cited liberal democrats law review articles on Minor v. Happersett.
No, I said that you specifically included only Democrats/liberals and their law review articles on presidential eligibility. You were even kind enough to give the names of the authors.

Let's review that reply...

IINM,since the 1960’s, no law review article on Presidential eligiblity (Gordon, Lohman, Pryer, Medina) have cited Minor as precedent for NBC.
(@Gordon, @Lohman, @Pryer (sp), @Medina) Funny that, that you would specifically include only Democrats/liberals.

The rest are attempts to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible to the Presidency, they are currently excluded.
Yeah, I guess being more subtle was a necessity after being busted the first time trying to do it.

Those don’t try to change the definition of “natural born citizen”.
While technically true, it nevertheless tries to undermine the intent of the Founding Fathers which was avoiding foreign influence in the office of POTUS.

Good effort. Yours is the first answer that even attempts to answer the question.

[Harlan1196]

Upper right hand corner > search > philman_36

Amazing technology.

Can you show me where any of your theories have ever prevailed in court? I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[philman_36]

Can you show me where any of your theories have ever prevailed in court?
I've never brought any theories to court to have them either fail or prevail.

Amazing technology.
Yes, it is.

Now you kids, thank Al Gore for inventing the Internet.

Thanks, Al.