Article and comments # 1 through 4 .... worth taking a look.
Thanks, LV Ron.
Posted on 02/07/2012 11:38:23 AM PST by Red Steel
Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State
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.
Good luck wit dat.
I have no hope for justice.
"Judge Malihi" constitute a second significant flaw in the judge's ruling and serve as the stated factual basis for his erroneous conclusion
To say the least. Mahili was intentionally erroneous on the face of it.
Le Ping!
Article and comments # 1 through 4 .... worth taking a look.
Thanks, LV Ron.
What’s likely here is this guy either wanted the rule to favor Obama, and it was over before it began in his court, or he lacks the political will power to face the OBots, the Dems, and the liberal media. The same goes for the GA, SoS Kemp and about all politicos in America today. Most people are mentally weak in the arena against the left today since it can be overwhelming, especially people in politics. It will take a decade or more of sustained effort that cuts across all political issues by the Tea Party and its allies to turn this around.
Hatfield:
"Defense counsel, in fact, never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.
However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial."
- -- - -
So Jabber Jabber Jablonski emails the Kemp with the Obama Internet pictures. The BS piles is overflowing in this case.
Well, at least the OBot lawyer didn't give Kemp only a hyperlink to the forged COLBs like the Perkins & Coie OBot lawyer Bauer did in the Fed case! /sarc.
Here is what WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) says:
“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), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
Let’s go thru that:
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.
Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:
“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Some here make a big deal about slaves not being citizens, but slaves were considered property under Dred Scott, and thus not capable of being citizens. And since so many people thought the Dred Scott case was an obscene rejection of “citizenship by birth within the country”, Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause:
“citizenship by birth within the country”.
That is why birthers get their butts handed to them in court, even when the other side doesn’t show up. YOU HAVE NO CASE!
I have really been out straight and don’t see much of a break in the action. Anyway I found this but haven’t had time to research it myself, but if this is true it is extremely interesting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2842152/posts?page=717#717
The judge woke up with a horse’s head in his bed.
It's an open and shut case against Obama. It's the Establishment who lie and cheat and whatever they else they can get away with because they are mental cowards. Yeah Ms. Rogers, cowards.
I’ve seen from what others have put up about Malihi and there’s very little public info on him. The official bio on him has none to little.
I guess Obama thugs got to the Judge.Thats what fascists do, as they did in 1928 Germany.
We have slipped one notch closer to swivel warp ( civil war)
Do you think that the people will agree to be governed outside of the Constitution? Hardly.
Obama should not campaign in Georgia, its a plantation state with a need to plant.
So when a child born of American citizen parents in Germany or whatever foreign county of his birth he is a natural born citizen? According to your "logic" he is an NBC of Germany or whatever foreign country of birth.
Our citizenship rules apply within our borders. Other countries have other rules. NBC is derived from English common law, and I doubt the Germans use it. But I don’t know - we’re not discussing if Obama is a NBC of Germany.
I am guessing either bribed or threatened. Or both.
The issue here is of natural law that the Constitutional Founders base the natural born citizen clause for would be future presidents to Constitutionally qualify , which has nothing to do with laws made by Congress or man. Positive law is not in play or is English Common law which is too man-made laws.
But I don’t know - we’re not discussing if Obama is a NBC of Germany.
No, we are discussing the heart of the issue is what is a natural born citizen, that is universal law in every country on Earth.
Attorney Hatfield-
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
So much bull in this Obama Kangaroo court.
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.