Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

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.

That is your error. They were NOT arguing Vattel’s natural law, but using a common legal term, with a meaning known to all.

Complete nonsense and here's in part why.

Former King subjects who were naturalized as citizen of the United States were still considered British as "natural born subject" of the King by British law [not natural].

As of consequence, the British blockaded American ports and took thousands of American citizens from US ships to serve the British Navy because of under English Common law, birth itself was an act of naturalization [not natural] that required no consent of allegiance and that could never be changed. It was “perpetual allegiance” to Great Britain - "Once a Brit always a Brit".

This baneful English Common Law doctrine, [not natural] to say the least, received the greatest degree of hate from American citizens. The English Common Law was extremely hated that the United States declared war on it and England. This English Common law [not natural] was thrown off completely in the garbage bin of history when the US Constitution was adopted, and you think it was the original intent of the Founders? You're smoking something illegal. When an immigrant becomes a US citizen, the naturalized citizen renounces his former royal titles and sovereigns when he takes the oath allegiance to the United States.

Why is that Ms. Rogers? Obama was born a foreigner, or he inherited a double or triple allegiance at birth to other foreign countries. That's not natural.

Even today, the United States frowns upon double allegiances as it is written in the oath of allegiance to the US when one becomes a citizen. However, the misconstruing by the court about the 14th Amendment has created double allegiances since WKA. That's not natural.

A quote for Congress report No. 784, June 22, 1874.

“The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

And the reason why:

"It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty. "

Again, what foreign national(s) was Obama born as? Oh yes, that's right. He was born as a British/Kenyan subject to the crown of Great Britain. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US.

The Common Wealth known as Massachusetts was not the United States under the US Constitution at the time, and I noticed you let one slip with your usual copy/pasting where it says 'natural born Citizens' instead of 'natural born subjects' after the state of Massachusetts ratified the US Constitution in 1788.

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.”

Your machination will not ever persuade making Obama a Natural Born Citizen.

From your WND article post - ping to Hatfield's appeal plans...

Knew it was coming. You should read his scathing letter to GA, SoS Kemp posted and linked here, and review this thread. :-)

Therefore, Hatfield did NOT conflict with Dr. Taitz’s LFBC forgery claims and there was no finding of fact by Malihi that the White House pdf LFBC copy was genuine, only that Malihi “considered” SADO to be Barry's mom and Barry to have been born in HI without reference to any specific evidence.

I've known this from the very beginning. I've been arguing with the Foggy OBots who rely on the courts to be dishonest that I've pointed out time and time again.

“The Common Wealth known as Massachusetts was not the United States under the US Constitution at the time, and I noticed you let one slip with your usual copy/pasting where it says ‘natural born Citizens’ instead of ‘natural born subjects’ after the state of Massachusetts ratified the US Constitution in 1788.”

Stupid:

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 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.”

In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner 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, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis 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.”

Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Stupid:

No that's all you. The words by Massachusetts doesn't change the meaning and the intent behind the natural born citizen clause. A misrepresentation of the meaning to Natural Born SUBject being only born in the Kings Dominion where the parents have no meaning. That's not the case to the actual meaning of natural born. You are hung up on BS semantic games. Of course, from a royal King's viewpoint, everyone should be naturally SUBservient to him and his crown aliens and all, but that's not the true meaning of the US Constitution clause and not so in the US as I so clearly pointed out to you above.

Here's some proof of facts that you continue to ignore.

From a US Constitutional Founder John Adam's own lawbook. Read closely and see if you can understand.

I see that "you forgot" to read the John Adam's Law book excerpt.

Here's what it states in the first paragraph.

"All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominion. "

As noted in the history books that the Law of Nation was highly influential to the US Constitution if not being the driving force behind it. Notice the founder's names highlighted and John Adam's name included

However, as have been told to you many times over that this English Common law statute has no effect to the natural born citizen clause. As de Vattel aptly states excerpted below from The Law of Nations:

"In England however, being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. It is asked, whether the children born of citizens of a foreign country, are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot itself furnith any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;"

>>...No. They used natural born subject and natural born citizen interchangeably for a number of years...<<

Nope. Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of NBC was the commonly held definition at the time of the framing of the constitution in the then (ahem) “civilized world”.

>>...Had they done so, there would have been no improvement in understanding...<<

There was no need, nor intent to “improve the understanding” of citizenship with the 14th Amend. Look into “why” the 14th Amend. was needed. The clue word for you is, “reparations”. It was not enacted to define who met Art-II qualifications for President. That was likely the furthest from their minds at the time. For one thing, they needed to confer “citizenship” upon recently freed slaves. If they wanted to magically bestow NBC status upon them (outside of the “natural” process) then they could have used the phrase, “natural-born-citizens” and removed all doubt. But they didn’t, because that was not their concern nor intent. So, they used the non-specific, generic “citizen” declining to specify naturalized, natural or otherwise.

Again, NBC is mentioned only once, and then only as a qualification for president. That is the context in which it was used, *NOT* as a qualifier for granting citizenship. The founders intent was to assure that subsequent Presidential candidates had no birth allegiance to any other nation except the USA. At the time, Vattel’s Law Of Nations was their ready-reference and defined NBC (as was commonly held at the time) as a citizen born in country to two citizen parents (jus soli *AND* jus sanguinis combined) which removes all possibility of any foreign birth allegiance. Vattel didn’t make that up out of whole-cloth, he recorded the then commonly held definition and well articulated the foundation for it.

Now you appear to think that just because some later black-robed scoundrels and politi-sluts felt the need to re-define citizenship somehow changes the founder’s intent. It simply does not and it flies in the face of simple common sense. So again, legalistically, in a court of perverted law, dual-citizenship foreigners *NOW* meet the qualification to become President. There’s nothing we can do about it but marvel at how inane and “wrong-headed” it has become; that it does not in any way, shape or form make it “right”, it merely makes it “legal”. If only more folks had the common sense to tell the difference.

“”All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominion. “”

Yep. Just like WKA wrote. Doesn’t say citizen-parents.

You admit Vattel wrote:

“By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot itself furnith any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;”

That is Swiss law. It is NOT US law, nor was it US law at any time. You could have and often did have a non-citizen father giving birth to a citizen child. A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, as the NY Supreme Court ruled in the 1840s, and no court has ever overturned.

“Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of NBC was the commonly held definition at the time of the framing of the constitution in the then (ahem) “civilized world”.

Interesting. “Natural Born Citizen” did not appear in any translation of Vattel until 10 years AFTER the US Constitution. Indeed, writing in the 1750s, where no democracy or republic existed on earth, Vattel would have needed to write about ‘natural born subjects’ - or, in French, sujets naturel. He never ever wrote that phrase.

He wrote, “The natives, or indigenes”. 10 years after the Constitution, a translator ‘translated’ indigenes (an English word as well as French, “a person or thing that is indigenous or native; native” - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigenes) NBC.

And, as has been pointed out, the Mass legislature used NBC interchangeably with natural born subject for years after the Constitution. That means one of the original 13 ratifiers of the Constitution - remember, state legislatures voted on the Constitution - understood NBC to be fully interchangeable with NBS.

Because Emerich de Vattel was Swiss he only wrote about Swiss law? LoL. Rogers you're so full of BS.

It's not Swiss law you ninny. Vattel wrote about universal Natural law that just as real as Positive law.

And you got some obscure NY Supreme Court Nonsense?? LoL. Come on.

I got the US Supreme Court holding explicitly stating that Natural born citizens are to have two parent citizens and born in the United States.

"I got the US Supreme Court holding explicitly stating that Natural born citizens are to have two parent citizens and born in the United States."

No, you have a court case that says that is, at least, A category of NBC, and that it wasn't going to try to determine things further. That is why, when this nutjob complains that the judge didn't obey Minor, he will once again be laughed out of court.

"Because Emerich de Vattel was Swiss he only wrote about Swiss law?"

No. But his definition that citizenship is based solely on the father is a Swiss definition, not English or American. You will notice that no one checks the citizenship of your parents when you apply for a US passport...

>>... or, in French, sujets naturel. He never ever wrote that phrase...<<

Too bad Jefferson was just a simpleton who could barely read and write English, much less be fluent enough in French to understand what he was reading. Too bad the other founders involved in the framing of the Constitution were dumb mono-linguists too.../sarc

But seriously, it’s latter translation stands accurate in communicating the original. To attempt to argue it changed the meaning & intent is laughable. Again, Vattel didn’t create the concept of a “natural born citizen” out of whole-cloth, he merely codified the commonly held understanding. From the common-sense point of view, he codified what was held as a citizen “by nature”. A native with no need for state-action. The combination of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis at birth left *NO OTHER POSSIBILITY* for additional citizenship by birth — you are a citizen by nature.

That’s why the translation stands as “natural-born-citizen” and it is the clear, obvious, unarguable translation. The founders and anyone else from that time on clearly understood this. Natural-born is “natural” born. As regards intent, there is nothing in the Mass legislature’s usage, nor is there anything in recorded history before, during or since the framing of the Constitution that indicated the founders, when using the exact phrase “natural born citizen” in the context of presidential qualifications, meant they intended someone subsequently born with multi-citizenship as being qualified as president. Even the mere suggestion of that argument wholly invalidates your point of view. It is revisionism writ large. Again, nothing subsequent courts or legislatures do will change the founders original intent.

No. But his definition that citizenship is based solely on the father is a Swiss definition, not English or American.

Oh please LoL. You can pile it very high.

The full title of his book.

"The law of nations: or, Principles of the law of nature, applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns"

Gee sport, nothing about specific Swiss law here.

You will notice that no one checks the citizenship of your parents when you apply for a US passport...

No reason to check if you're an NBC as that is not applicable. Just being a US citizen will suffice. A pretty dumb example.

Hate to break it too you sport but the 'nutjobs' and weaklings have taken over government. You can start with Malihi. It's called dishonesty through and through. It's called lying because the truth doesn't get them what they want or the desired results. That's being the 'nutjub' for whatever reasons because they lack basic, human integrity skills.

“Again, Vattel didn’t create the concept of a “natural born citizen” out of whole-cloth, he merely codified the commonly held understanding.”

No, he did not. At no time did Vattel ever attempt to define “natural born citizen”. He never uses the phrase. He also wrote on citizenship from the Swiss perspective, not English - which Vattel admitted. The phrase NBC didn’t EXIST when Vattel was writing...

“As regards intent, there is nothing in the Mass legislature’s usage, nor is there anything in recorded history before, during or since the framing of the Constitution that indicated the founders...”

Sorry, but no one denies that NBS included those born of alien parents. And the ratifiers of the Constitution used NBS = NBC. It takes gross revisionism to suggest that a 1797 book guided the document written in 1787. In fact, only an idiot would suggest it...

"Here's what it states in the first paragraph."

This just restates the Common Law that anyone born in the realm is a subject with several exceptions. The word "Obedience" is the same as allegiance.

From "A New And Complete Law Dictionary or General Abridgement of the Law" Timothy Cunningham, 1764 (Also in John Adams' library and used by the Continental Congress)

'Allegiance or Ligeance - Is the lawful obedience, which a subject is bound to render to his soverneign'

In your reference in the right hand column is the footnote to the Calvin's Case. In that case Lord Coke noted,

"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joined with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded contraligeant’ suæ debitum, for he owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject; a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it hath been said, is alia ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject”

Also from Cunningham's law dictionary is the definition of alien. It includes the same definition as your references

"All those are natural born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our King, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.”

And than goes on to give various examples including the following, "If an alien comes into England, and has issue two sons, those two sons are indigeneae, subjects born, because born within the realm."

You may wish to read Professor of Law Polly Price's article, "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)"

"The roots of United States conceptions of birthright citizenship lie deep in England's medieval past. This Article explores Calvin's Case (1608) and the early modern common-law mind that first articulated a theoretical basis for territorial birthright citizenship. Involving all the important English judges of the day, Calvin's Case addressed the question of whether persons born in Scotland, following the descent of the English crown to the Scottish King James VI in 1603, would be considered "subjects" in England. Calvin's Case determined that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King. A person born within the King's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign and in turn was entitled to the King's protection. Calvin's Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth. In the view of Sir Edward Coke, one of the judges deciding Calvin's Case, the court's determination was required by the divine law of nature, which was "indeed . . . the eternal law of the Creator" and "part of the law of England." 1997, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities

And the Founder's were well aware of the Calvin's Case:

"in Calvins Case, who was not of the Realm, but yet was no Alien because born within the Allegiance of [the King]." John Adams, April, 17, 1775 "To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay"

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.