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.
The laws of these United States should always be a reflection of natural law. Our founders attempted to set us up with a non-tyrannous government. Laws that go against natural law are tyrannous.
Our Constitution only mentions or envisions two subdivisions of U.S. citizens going forward - those born with natural allegiance to these United States - and those that must be “naturalized” into that condition of allegiance.
"The fifth, and perhaps most glaring, flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is his adoption of the non-binding reasoning of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E. 2d 678 (2009), in finding that "a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth" ("Decision," p. 10).
Although, as pointed out hereinabove, there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever submitted in the above-captioned cases to establish Defendant Obama's place of birth, Judge Malihi's ruling that a person's birth in the United States automatically confers the status of "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution is unfounded; is an incorrect statement of the applicable law; and is contrary to the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 22 L. Ed. 627, 21 Wall. 162 (1875).
Minor is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase "natural born Citizen" refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child's birth) themselves United States citizens. Because Defendant Obama's father was not a United States citizen at the time of Defendant's birth, Defendant does not meet the Article II "natural born Citizen" requirement for the presidency, and Judge Malihi committed fundamental error in finding otherwise....
-end snip-
No he wasn't or did E. de Vattel create natural law. He only observed and wrote about the subject in his treatise 'Principle of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct to the Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. The title speaks for itself. He observed the natural behaviors or sovereigns over the centuries gone by. The Constitutional Founders were students of Vattel and believed in The Laws of Nations as they applied the the Law of Nations to the newly created US Constitution.
The title speaks for itself and speaks ONLY for itself - Vattel doesn't speak for the founders, the founders can speak quite well for themselves.
The document the founders wrote, the U.S. Constitution - only mentions or envisions two types of U.S. citizen going forward - those born with natural allegiance to these United States - and those who must be “naturalized” into that state of allegiance.
"A sixth significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is his failure to rule on Plaintiffs' Citation For Contempt filed against Defendant in these cases. Citing Defendant's (and defense counsel's) knowing, intentional, and deliberate failure to comply with Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce, Plaintiffs' Citation sought from Judge Malihi a certification to the Superior Court of Fulton County of the facts of the Defendant's contemptuous behavior for a determination by the superior court of appropriate action, including a finding of contempt. OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.22 (5) makes such a certification to the superior court mandatory, upon application of a party, when another party disobeys or resists any lawful order or process; neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed. Incredibly, Judge Malihi did not even acknowledge the existence of the Plaintiffs' Citation For Contempt in his final ruling."
It cannot be anymore clearer that Malihi committed willful malfeasance.
You fail to understand. No surprise. A natural allegiance (no split allegiances between states) are those who are natural born and who have NO other allegiance but to only one state at birth. Naturalizing citizens by the US or any other nation is done by laws create by man and the newly created citizens are not natural to the nation that they are being naturalized. No need to make laws to create natural born citizens because they already are. Naturalization laws created by the United States include the 14th Amendment.
The Constitutional author's created the 'grandfather' clause as an exception to the natural born citizen clause because they understood they were NOT natural born citizens at birth to the newly created nation. They understood that you cannot create natural born citizen by positive laws so hence they instituted the Constitutional grandfather clause.
He went against his own past ruling? It just gets worse and more worse for Malihi.
There are at least three types of citizen for the U.S.: naturalized, native by being born on American soil, and Natural Born, on our soil to two citizen parents, of that class there is no doubt. Loosen your kneepads, obamanoid, you and mister rogers, the stealth obamanoid.
Now if they had said “Obama was not born in America” then perhaps there would have been a different outcome. They hung their hat on the “two citizen parents = natural born citizens” and got their asses handed to them.
There are only two types of citizenship recognized in the U.S. Constitution. How one becomes an Amendment XIV Citizen of the United States, by birth or by naturalization, is irrelevent once you become one.
It is a state of sovereign claim by both the nation and the citizen. You are a Natural Born Citizen, or you are not. You are a Citizen of the United States, or you are not. There are no varying types between the two.
According to the Constitution the ONLY three types of U.S. citizens, in that you are correct.
The first are those at the founding who were (mostly) British citizens by birth but who took up arms for these United States.
They were not natural born TO these United States - they themselves birthed a nation. They were eligible for the Presidency.
Going forward - one was either natural born as a citizen because conditions of birth gave one natural allegiance or one had to be “naturalized” via a legal process.
Of these citizens, those who were natural born with allegiance to these United States were eligible for the Presidency - and those who were “naturalized” into that state of allegiance that otherwise only birth could bring were not.
It is really simple. No wonder it is beyond your ken.
Patrick Henry? Really? You’re not fit to shine his shoes.
There are two major categories of citizenship, Native and naturalized. In the native category there is at least one sub category of which there has never been dispute, natural born citizen. If you wish to add two more sub-categories, using merely jus soli or jus sanguina, then there are three sub categories under non-naturalized or native born citizneship. Deny it all you like in service to your affirmative action lying enemy of the Republic Pres_ _ent, but to ignore the reality is to open the door to what the founders clearly sought to prevent, ‘anchor baby’ power in the potus position. Have Nice Day
IMO this will go forward.
“The issue here is of natural law that the Constitutional Founders base the natural born citizen clause”
That is your error. They were NOT arguing Vattel’s natural law, but using a common legal term, with a meaning known to all.
Notice how the Mass Legislature, varied between NBC & NBS at random - using them as interchangeable terms:
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
It looks to me like they were trying to establish who the Father was.
18 Q Showing the witness what has been marked for
19 identification as Plaintiff's 1. Are you familiar with that
20 document?
21 A Yes.
22 (The document referred to was
23 marked for identification as
24 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1.)
25 Q What is it?
1 A It's the birth certificate that I downloaded from
2 the WhiteHouse.gov website. It's a birth certificate
3 professed to be of Barack Hussein Obama II.
4 Q And do you see an item on line 8 -- I'm sorry,
5 excuse me -- on item 11. Can you read that?
6 A Yes, item 11 says the birthplace is Kenya, East
7 Africa.
8 Q And that's referring to --
9 A That is the birthplace of the father.
How is that stipulating that he was born in Hawaii?
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.