All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision (that Obama is NBC)

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers ^ | February 3, 2012 | Mario Apuzzo

[Seizethecarp]

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.”

The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

[SeaHawkFan]

In a default hearing, facts and conclusions of law are entered.

I’m addition to entering a default judgment, the judge enters the additional GA re regarding jurisdiction, that device of the complaint complied with the rules and the the defendant failed to appear or defend the allegations.

Somebody got to this guy, but more likely is simply part of the corrupt network of government officials.

[SvenMagnussen]

“No facts or testimony are found by the court to be factual in the event of a default.”

Plaintiff David Farrar took the witness stand and stated he was a Georgia registered voter and objected to Obama being placed on the ballot due to publicly available information on Obama’s birth location.

The burden of proof does not shift to Plaintiff because Plaintiff objected to Obama being on the ballot. A pretrial Order stated the burden of proof was on Obama. There was no opposition to Plaintiff’s objection. Consequently, the objection to Obama’s ballot placement must be sustained.

[Seizethecarp]

“Plaintiff David Farrar took the witness stand and stated he was a Georgia registered voter and objected to Obama being placed on the ballot due to publicly available information on Obama’s birth location.”

In Malihi’s decision he stated that by demanding a hearing on the merits rather than accept a bland simple removal of Barry from the ballot for failing to appear, the plaintiffs, including Farrar, took the burden of proof of constitutional ineligibilty onto themselves.

At the Farrar (Taitz) hearing on the merits, Malihi’s decision was that NONE of the witnesses were properly established as experts and none of their testimony was “probative.” The evidence could have been probative if the foundation of the expertise of the witnesses had been properly laid and if the same evidence had been properly “proved up” as lawyers say. This should have been a walk in the park with no opposing counsel jumping up and objecting, but Dr. Taitz has not been able to master this skill in any hearing before any judge to date.

The result is that NONE of the Farrar hearing testimony and evidence were incorporated into Malihi’s findings of fact.

All that Malihi ruled in his decision was his own “consideration” that Barry's mom was a US citizen, his father was not and Barry was born in HI. Malihi’s conclusion of law was that given those found facts, Barry was NBC under the Ankeny consideration of WKA and the 14A “in Tandem” resulting in a conclusion that Barry was NBC.

The good news is that this can go up to SCOTUS on appeal.

Malihi did not say which specific bits of testimony and evidence from Hatfield and Irion supported his decision that resulted from his “consideration.”

[LucyT]

. . . . Check out # 103.

Thanks, Seizethecarp.

.

[SvenMagnussen]

Court precedent indicates a candidate for office in the State of Georgia MUST prove eligibility when a Georgia registered voter complains to the GA SoS the candidate is not eligible to be on the ballot.

See O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008) "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office" citing Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility.

O'Brien v Gross was a Malihi ruling. Malihi is ignoring his own precedent to ensure Obama does not have to testify under oath.

[Seizethecarp]

“See O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008) “The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office” citing Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility.”

The plaintiffs had a default judgment to remove Barry from the ballot in hand due to Barry's failure to appear and “establish affirmatively his eligibility.” That default order would have fulfilled the precedent that Malihi’s prior ruling set.

ALL of the Plaintiff's declined to accept the default removal, so that Malihi court precedent did not apply to any of the three hearings after that moment.

IIUC, there cannot be BOTH a default pre-trial ruling and a trial on the merits. All plaintiffs declined the default ruling and agreed to take the burden of proof onto themselves as a necessary condition of having Malihi go ahead with a trial on the merits.

It would have been impossible for a trial on the merits to go forward with the burden of proof remaining on Jablonski when he wasn't there. That would have been a kangaroo court!

[rolling_stone]

I dont think so...what shifted the burden of proof?

[Seizethecarp]

IIUC, Barry's burden of proof ended the moment the plaintiffs decided to reject the default ruling which was entirely based on Barry failing to show up to fulfill his burden of proof obligation under the precedent that Malihi declared in his own court.

When the plaintiffs demanded a trial on the merits, they took onto themselves the burden of proof that their own unopposed testimony and evidence proved Barry was not NBC in the first two hearings, and in the third hearing that his BC was forged and his SS# never issued to him.

[rolling_stone]

I don’t think the burden of proof changes depending on who shows up....

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit....

[Hotlanta Mike]

Peter Boyles Show

Monday, February 06, 2012
February 6, 2012 6am

Dr. Jerome Corsi joins the show to discuss the ruling handed down by Judge Malihi which will allow Obama to appear on the Georgia ballot in November. Peter takes calls in the latter half of the hour.

http://www.khow.com/player/?station=KHOW-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=fullshow_boyles.xml&mid=21793027

[Hotlanta Mike]

What Price Freedom?

POST-MALIHI RULING ANALYSIS AND INTERVIEW WITH CARL SWENSSON

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/07/what-price-freedom/