Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen

BirtherReport.com ^ | 2/3/2012 | Kevin Powell

[GregNH]

We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.

[bushpilot1]

“By the time he(Obama) returned to the house, he was often stumbling and barely coherent.

The children, cowering in their beds, listened as he crashed into furniture and cursed at his own clumsiness.”

Ruth obtained a restraining order on Double Double Obama.

Double Double ignored the restraining order; “one night Obama returned from the bars in his usual ill humuor, except this time he had a knife”.

“He came to the door one day, banging, banging and Auma let him in of course, being a child,” Ruth recalled. “And when he came in he had that knife. He laid it against my neck as he shouted at me. I was terrified of course.”

Double Double Obama held a knife at Ruth’s throat.

[bushpilot1]

Zeituni Obama lived in the back yard (Ruth’s rented house) in a small shed.

How did Zeituni get to the US. Did she paddle her way in the shed?

[jaydee770]

>>...“Under the sovereignty” doesn’t mean sole claim. If that were true, a US citizen couldn’t have a second citizenship...<<

Perhaps it was awkwardly phrased — to be clear, my intent was that the US could not claim *sole* sovereign jurisdiction **regarding a newborn’s citizenship** simply because, by pure accident of birth, they happened to be born on US soil. The country(s) of the child’s parent(s), if they are not citizens of the child’s country of birth, will usually have some say in the matter of the child’s citizenship.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is zero evidence he was legally adopted by Soetoro.

I wouldn't say there was ZERO evidence.

And then there was this statement by Maya Soetoro:

"You mentioned the adoption laws of Indonesia that you saw as related to my brother's legitimacy (you were suggesting that because my father, his stepfather, had adopted him, that my brother was no longer American) and I said that I had no idea about Indonesian adoption law.

And then there is this:

With Lame Cherry's analysis of it.

There are the Dunham/Soetoro Divorce Records which say:

“The parties have 1 children below age 18 and 1 chidren above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.”

So like I said, I wouldn't say there was "ZERO" evidence of it. There is some. It is not absolutely conclusive, but it is certainly indicative.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, Malihi based his decision on Jablonski’s ‘Motion To Dismiss’. Jablonski cites Ankeny v Daniels in it. Also there is a Jill Pryor connection to all of this.

Does anyone else see how ridiculous it is to decide the laws of one state by what a state court may have ruled in another state? Amateur-like work product is all I can say.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yes, when the Entire world believes the World is flat, Columbus cannot be correct.* When the Entire World has decided that the Earth is in fact round, and at the center of the Universe, Galileo must be wrong when he says that it is not. When the ENTIRE Scientific community says that Light is carried by Ether waves, the Albert Einstein must be mistaken when he says that it is not.

Scientific facts have an existence independent of what anyone knows or thinks. Law is different; law, by definition, is what legislators and judges say it is. Otherwise, how could the law be different in New York from New Jersey or Alabama. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote more than 100 years ago, when you ask a lawyer what the law is, you are asking for nothing more or less than an accurate prediction of what a court will rule if asked this quesstion next week.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well said, explains so much in such a succinct way.

Too bad the poster you're responding to won't get it.

I think the problem is a lack of ability to comprehend complexity. The answer they like is simple and easy to understand, while the answer which is correct requires thinking and research to understand.

Those people which keep chanting "Born Here Good! Not Born here Bad!" remind me of those people in the movie "Idiocracy" and their meaningless slogan about brawndo.

Just as those stupid bastards were killing their crops with the stuff, these morons are killing our nation with THEIR version of "brawndo." Only a moron would think "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" is reasonable interpretation of the law.

The founders weren't stupid. It's a sorry state of affairs that their descendants are. I fear there will be much blood before the end of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

OMG I just checked my signup date- I just realized I have been freeping for nearly 20 YEARS!!

I need to go outside and get some sun

I have been arguing on line for 20 years, but i've only been a freeper for a little less than 1 year. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

“Under the sovereignty” doesn’t mean sole claim. If that were true, a US citizen couldn’t have a second citizenship. It means under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US. Every tourist, businessman and illegal alien who’s here from another country is under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the US while he’s here.

It is amusing to watch someone like you attempt to explain to us the meaning of your understanding of bad law.

Prior to 1922, it was not POSSIBLE to have a dual citizen offspring. Also, Indians were under the jurisdiction, but were not allowed to become citizens. Does believing in a weird dichotomy hurt much?

[DiogenesLamp]

Very astute. That is my working theory also.

[DiogenesLamp]

Scientific facts have an existence independent of what anyone knows or thinks. Law is different; law, by definition, is what legislators and judges say it is. Otherwise, how could the law be different in New York from New Jersey or Alabama. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote more than 100 years ago, when you ask a lawyer what the law is, you are asking for nothing more or less than an accurate prediction of what a court will rule if asked this quesstion next week.

Irrelevant to my point. I thought I made it very clear, but obviously not clear enough. My point was that the naysaying of many does not make someone wrong.

Any argument that someone is wrong because many others disagree with them is a fallacy of the form "argumentum ad populum."

[Lurking Libertarian]

Any argument that someone is wrong because many others disagree with them is a fallacy of the form "argumentum ad populum."

True in some fields. As to the definition of NBC, no court will rule differently from Arkeney or the recent Congressional Research Service report. That is how the law currently defines the term.

[little jeremiah]

So we continue to lose because the lawyers who advocate our side and most of their clients are living in a dreamworld.

Maybe also because the lawyers don't have enough hard evidence at their disposal. Also, regarding the funding needed; if lawyers did have access to hard evidence, why couldn't some of the people fighting this fight organize a fundraising drive to get the requisite funds? I bet a lot of people would donate if they knew that some butt kicking lawyer/lawyers were willing to take it on and had hard evidence. Even as broke as I am I'd donate a little.

[sourcery]

True in some fields. As to the definition of NBC, no court will rule differently from Arkeney or the recent Congressional Research Service report. That is how the law currently defines the term.

To legally define a term requires the legal authority to do so. Once the Supreme Court defines a Constitutional term, that event absolutely denies any authority of any other court or legislature to change it.

The Supreme Court defined "natural born citizen" in Minor vs. Happerset, even stating that there was "no doubt" regarding is correctness. Therefore, any statement by anyone else who is not the Supreme Court that contradicts the definition provided by the Supreme Court lacks the authority to do so, and is legally null and void.

[Yaelle]

I think he informally “adopted” Barry only.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Once the Supreme Court defines a Constitutional term, that event absolutely denies any authority of any other court or legislature to change it.

The Supreme Court has changed its mind many times. Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, for example.

The Supreme Court defined "natural born citizen" in Minor vs. Happerset, even stating that there was "no doubt" regarding is correctness. Therefore, any statement by anyone else who is not the Supreme Court that contradicts the definition provided by the Supreme Court lacks the authority to do so, and is legally null and void.

First off, the definition of NBC in Minor was dicta; Ms. Minor was not seeking to become President.

Second, Minor says there was no doubt that someone born in the U.S. to two citizen parents was a NBC and there was doubt as to whether someone born in the U.S. to alien parents was. That was not a definitive decision.

Third, several earlier Supreme Court decisions (see the footnotes in Judge Malihi's decision) had said that anyone born in the U.S. was a NBC, regardless of parentage.

Fourth, later cases are very much to the contrary; see Wong, and the cases cited in the Congressional Research Service's report.

Fifth, and most importantly, what you or I think is "null and void" doesn't matter; as I said above, "the law" means what the courts will rule tomorrow, and no court will say anything except that "Natural Born Citizen" means a citizen who wasn't naturalized.

[Aagcobb]

Newt should make this a campaign issue. Imagine the electricity he would generate if he had a news conference and called on the Georgia Secretary of State to reverse Malihi! Donations and volunteers would pour his way from the people tired of the D.C. Elite telling us they know best.

[DiogenesLamp]

Newt should make this a campaign issue. Imagine the electricity he would generate if he had a news conference and called on the Georgia Secretary of State to reverse Malihi! Donations and volunteers would pour his way from the people tired of the D.C. Elite telling us they know best.

I'm pretty sure he's afraid to touch the issue. There are a LOT of conservatives who just want this to go away. They believe what they believe, and you simply can't even get them to look at the facts. There minds are made up.

[Aagcobb]

He should make a stand on the Constitution without fear. What has he got to lose? The elites have already rigged the game to hand the nomination to Mittens.

[vharlow]

Challenged? Well, it wasn’t the defendant who failed to show up or even send his lawyer.