Posted on 02/09/2012 10:36:04 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Though Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi claimed to have issued a decision based upon “the law as well as the evidence,” we now know he made proper use of neither.
For the Judge had no evidence in the Court record upon which to base his assertion of “fact” that Obama “was born in the United States.” And the Indiana Appeals Court decision to which Judge Malihi looked for his ONLY guidance made a thoroughly incorrect interpretation of existing case law. (1) p3
In short, Judge Malihi’s decision wouldn’t pass muster in a first year law school classroom.
“The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record.” This is a rule of evidence of the superior court as stated by Attorney Mario Apuzzo. Yet only plaintiff’s evidence was contained in Malihi’s Court record and the Judge concluded that their claims were “not persuasive.”
As Apuzzo puts it, “surely the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth.” (2)
So how exactly was Judge Malihi permitted, in a proper legal manner, to state in his Decision “the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States…”? (1) p6
But just as disturbing as basing “fact” on evidence he didn’t have is the Judge’s choice of an incorrectly reasoned and decided Indiana case as the basis of his decision.
As in the case before Malihi, the 2009 Indiana case “Ankeny v Governor” involved a suit by plaintiffs who claimed Obama did not meet the Article ll, “natural born citizen” requirement of the United States Constitution.
Although there is no definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, there is a Supreme Court case in which the term “natural born citizen” is...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
There is no question that birth on US soil to two US citizen parents is the gold standard of US citizenship (and allegiance).
The only question is why you and some others are so all fired anxious to convince the rest of us to accept a weaker standard.
Comedienne Roseanne Barr will be added to the California primary ballot as a candidate for the Green Party.
Elections Code 13314 states the following:
(a)(1) An elector may seek a writ of mandate alleging that an error or
omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in the placing of a name
on, or in the printing of, a ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or
other official matter, or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is
about to occur.
(2) A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon proof of both
of the following:
(A) That the error, omission, or neglect is in violation of this code
or the Constitution.
(B) That issuance of the writ will not substantially interfere with
the conduct of the election.
(3) The action or appeal shall have priority over all other civil
matters.
(4) The Secretary of State shall be named as a respondent or a real
party in interest in any proceeding under this section concerning a
measure or a candidate described in Section 15375, except for a candidate for
judge of the superior court.
(b) Venue for a proceeding under this section shall be exclusively in
Sacramento County in any of the following cases:
(1) The Secretary of State is named as a real party in interest or as
a respondent.
(2) A candidate for statewide elective office is named as a party.
(3) A statewide measure that is to be placed on the ballot is the
subject of the proceeding.
The challenge needs to be before the ballots are printed.
Nonsense!
If you were stating the truth, you could point to a Member of Congress, a Governor, a former Presidential candidate or some Conservative leader who agreed with you.
You CAN’T!
You can’t find anyone, since you are WRONG!
Your view is pure nonsense and will never prevail in Court or anywhere else.
The fact is that every case that has been brought before the Courts and Judges have resulted in putting the case off on technicalities with no one actually getting the case into a court room.
The Government , both parties, and the Judges are frightened to death of riots by Obamaites and te nullification of everything Obama has done.
If no one can see the conspiracy in this they are deaf,dumb,and blind.
My guess is we will never get the truth in my lifetime.
“Born in the United States” is the red herring in this whole issue. Even if he was, his father (of record) was a British subject, so he is not “natural born”.
And I forgot the Indonesia connection, too. But natural born alone should be sufficient to bar him.
But a 14th-Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen. Contrary to 14th-Amendment jurisprudence, the requirement of sole allegiance to the United States from birth onward has never been stricken from the Constitution’s eligibility clause.
The Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause remains intact and unmolested by any controlling precedent.
An undisputed fact is that Obama was not born into the status of having a natural, undivided allegiance to the United States.
Unfortunately, concerning Obama and presidential eligibility, reasonable doubt does remain. Doubts remain because of the unwarranted secrecy of Obama in guarding the ordinary records of his background. And doubts will remain until the Supreme Court squares the Constitution’s requirements with the facts of Obama’s parentage and conflicting allegiances at birth.
It was a set up all the way around.
Either Malihi decided to protect his muzzie brother, or more likely he was given an offer he couldn’t refuse. Hussein’s attorney didn’t show because he knew he didn’t have to - the fix was in.
Love the way you wrote it. The gold standard = Born in the USA to 2 American citizen parents.
Our founders, did not allow children born to Americans overseas to become president, so why would they allow the children of foreigners’ born overseas in a foreign land called America, where their only connection is as a birthplace, become president?
If you were stating the truth...
You CAN’T!
You can’t find anyone, since you are WRONG!
Your view is pure nonsense...
Screaming at me with your hair on fire does little more than prove that you've already lost the argument.
I asked you a simple, pointed question, and your head detonated. In my experience, people who are caught selling lies always do that.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
Madison said that Location of Birth was the most important factor, and enough, in the United States.
Madison said that Location of Birth was the most important factor, and enough, in the United States.
Well, it also shows that the attorneys on your side of the argument are really not very good at what they do.
They do not understand simple legal issues.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the Moment of Birth.
It has always meant the same thing.
However, there was no Congressional guidance, about what made you a Citizen, if born off of US Soil, until Congress acted on that matter, just as Madison, Father of the Constitution, had requested.
It should be attorneys on your side too, unless you stand with Obama.
I agree fully that Obama has been too secretive, about his past. I agree that Obama’s documentation of his place of birth is still suspicious.
I want to know about Obama’s college writings and grades and admissions and financing.
However, you have no right to FORCE every conservative to respect and support your views of the law and the Constitution, on the flimsy legal case that Obama’s father was not a Citizen.
(The truth is, I think Obama’s real father might be Communist Pedophile Frank Marshal Davis, and I suspect that Obama Sr. might have been nothing more than a convenient “stand it” on any BC.)
Anyway, we are a nation of laws, not men. You are attempting to push false interpretations of the law without regard to history, legal process, or even English Language comprehension.
We are not required to die on this hill, in this battle you have designed for us.
This is the wrong fight.
We, YOU, can not win on the ridiculous arguments you are raising.
So, every elected conservative in the country has ignored you, as have the vast majority of conservative leaders.
“Mr. Failure to Appear” has an established pattern with the courts...
Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982?
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-putative-president-barack-hussein.html
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.