Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

birther-report ^ | February 3, 2012 | birth report

[satan69]

Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

A state administrative law judge on Friday flatly rejected challenges seeking to keep President Barack Obama from being a candidate in next month's Georgia primary.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has maintained a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, has a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is not a natural born citizen.

Last month, Malihi heard testimony and took evidence in a hearing boycotted by Obama's lawyer.

With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification documents, Malihi said he found the testimony presented by lawyers of the so-called "birther" movement and their evidence "to be of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."

A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation, Malihi wrote. "None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony," he wrote.

MORE HERE: http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html

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.

[Scanian]

Clever software.

However, every bit of what it discloses has been on my profile page for years, excluding the OS (I use more than one).

[Hawthorn]

>> Common Law is trumped by legislation. <<

Well, of course. But, doncha know, we have learned from the NBC experts that Monsieur Vattel was a source of wisdom transcending the banalities of mere common law. Anything Vattel said on the matter of NBC's cannot be "trumped" and cannot be overruled -- not by legislation, not by the 14th Amendment, not by logic nor by standard usage of the English language.

So since Vattel tells us that Zerobama's Kenyan parentage disqualifies Dear Barry from the office of POTUS, we need inquire no further into the matter. Period. Full stop. End of story.

[goldi]

Don’t know. Maybe he’ll hold a press conference with his experts and let the people judge.

[coloradan]

There’s a line between embracing something and finding for the side that neither presented evidence nor even showed up. He was prepared to enter a summary judgement but, upon receiving evidence, decided to hold in favor of the no-shows. That’s an alarming precedent irrespective of the facts of the case.

[coloradan]

That is a fantastic picture! It deserves to be hung in public buildings.

[mojitojoe]

Software?

[Scanian]

Yes...the Danasoft on your profile page which yielded info about my location, OS, etc.

[Danae]

That Indiana case MUST be appealed.

That abomination is a massive corrupt hurdle.

That ought to be the next step IMHO.

[DustyMoment]

Thanks, Drew, now I know that I'm an idiot. FYI, there is compelling evidence that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, starting with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment stipulates that to be eligible to be POTUS, a candidate must be a natural born citizen.

The term "natural born" comes from the British "natural law". Under natural law, the status of an individual's citizenship at birth, is derived from the parents. 2/3rds of any individual's citizenship comes from the citizenship of the father, with the remaining 1/3rd coming from the mother. The law does NOT allow the citizenship status of any individual to be derived solely from one parent, so there is no way that his status could have come just from his mother.

We know that Obama's father was NOT American because he was in Hawaii going to school and was Kenyan. All of the official documentation supports the fact that he was Kenyan and Obama even acknowledges that his father was Kenyan. So, under the term "natural born" in the 14th Amendment, Obama doesn't meet the minimum standard. The natural born terminology has been misinterpreted and misunderstood for well over a century to mean someone born on American soil. However, when you chase the term back to its roots (as I did), you discover that that is NOT the meaning and never was.

The location of his birth, then, essentially becomes immaterial. However, this tends to be a sticking point for many people. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii in 1961. However, there is anecdotal evidence that, before he became a candidate for president, he claimed that he was born in Hawaii in 1959, 2 years before Hawaii became state. Again, this is anecdotal, so it can't be proven one way or the other.

So, let's go back and re-visit the natural born requirement. At some point, Obama was adopted by an Indonesian man named Soetero, who moved Barry (whose name was legally changed to Barry Soetero) to Indonesia where he attended a muslim school. A legal adoption suggests that his citizenship status had to have changed from whatever he was considered previously, to Indonesian. However, like everything else he has done, those records have been sealed, so there is no way to confirm it one way or the other. Nonetheless, it muddies the water with respect to his legal status. We don't know his legal citizenship status at the time of his birth and the adoption confuses the issue more. At the time he was born, Kenya was a British territory so, in keeping with the 14th Amendment, he could possibly have had dual citizenship as both Kenyan and British or, possibly, British and American (although that is relatively dubious).

Which brings us to Obama's background To date, he has spent nearly $2 Million to cover up and hide all the evidence of his background. That raises a lot of suspicions but, as you might surmise, does not in and of itself prove that he has done anything illegal. However, it does raise one very important question: why would someone spend $2 Million to hide their background when they knew it was such a major issue and they could resolve the issue by simply releasing their vault copy of their Birth Certificate? Instead of doing that, Obama has released 3 different copies of his Birth Certificate, all of which have been conclusively proven to be forgeries or fakes, beginning with his original Certification of Live Birth.

So, in and of itself, each item I have addressed here (other than the 14th Amendment issue) doesn't provide any proof one way or the other. However, collectively, they certainly suggest that something is very, VERY wrong with Obama's story and it needs more in-depth investigation.

However, the fly in the ointment for Obama remains the natural born requirement of the 14th Amendment. So far, Obama hasn't figured out how to lie, obfuscate, or wiggle his way around that one to get out of it. Instead, he just ignores it and either pretends it doesn't exist, or hopes it will simply go away.

Anyone who goes to the lengths that Obama has to hide his background rather than being forthcoming about who and what he is is tacitly admitting that he HAS something to hide.

Which takes us to the judges. Every single case that has been brought against Obama on the basis of his eligibility status (regardless of how it is phrased) has been dismissed out of hand. Typically, the judge has dismissed it claiming that the plaintiff "lacks standing" in the eyes of the court to bring such a case. This, in itself, raises additional questions. The issue of Obama's eligibility to be POTUS is a fundamental Constitutional issue. To date, none of the respective judges has defined who has standing to bring these types of cases, they have simply dismissed the case claiming that the plaintiff lacks the standing. IMO, being that this is a fundamental Constitutional issue, ANY American citizen should be able to bring such a case to court and have the necessary standing. The Founding Fathers established a government that Lincoln so eloquently described as "of the people, by the people and for the people". IOW, we OWN the government, lock, stock and barrel; right down to the last dust bunny in the corner of any federal building! So, if we are the owners of the government, does that not give us standing to question the eligibility of the individual we have hired to lead the government?

These are legitimate and compelling issues, Drew, and NOT, as they have been characterized by the leftist DBM, the rantings of drooling right-wing fringe nutjobs.

[Froggie]

The truth will be made knows after Obama is out of office and no longer in a position to punish those who speak out. They will realize the pot of gold publicity and book rights will bring them - of course by that time it will be too late, the damage he’s done will long live after him ...

[El Sordo]

Or maybe, just maybe, that really is the proper legal decision.

[DustyMoment]

Or maybe, just maybe, that really is the proper legal decision.

How so? No one from the defense submitted a shred of evidence and, as I pointed out to Drew in my post #69, there is a lot of compelling information to the contrary - much of which was presented.

Suppose you get a traffic ticket for doing 45 in a school zone and you decide to fight it because you know you weren't speeding due to the fact that your car was in the shop that day and you were riding your old Huffy bike. The officer didn't provide ANY proof during the stop to show that you were the one speeding (as required by the 4th Amendment), he didn't show you that he was licensed to operate a radar gun (as required by the FCC), and he didn't show you whether or not the radar gun's calibration was up-to-date (as required by most PDs and manufacturers to maintain acuracy).

On the day of your hearing, the officer failed to appear and provide testimony (again, as required by the 4th Amendment), nor did he send a representative to provide evidence or give testimony on his behalf, but the judge still ruled against you.

Did you get a fair trial and was the ruling just?

While this is a bit of an apples and pears comparison, in esence, that is what happened in Judge Malihi's hearing.

[El Sordo]

The “compelling information” you posted is largely a load of Birther hooey that doesn't stand up under even modest scrutiny.

BHO is not the first President to have only one citizen parent.

There have been other individuals over the last 200 years who were born on US soil to one citizen parent and they ran unsuccessfully for the Presidency or Vice Presidency without their eligibility being questioned.

When considering the line of succession for the Presidency, having only one parent citizen parent has never been a disqualifier as long as the person had been born in the US.

There is the argument that it shouldn't be that way. That is fine. But to argue that it isn't that way is another matter.

[DustyMoment]

The “compelling information” you posted is largely a load of Birther hooey that doesn't stand up under even modest scrutiny.

Suit yourself. But, don't blame anyone else when someone yells "fire" and you burn to death because you think they are full of it.

BTW, I notice that you posted no facts to support your argument, you only threw stones.

[El Sordo]

Three facts:

BHO is not the first President to have only one citizen parent.

There have been other individuals over the last 200 years who were born on US soil to one citizen parent and they ran unsuccessfully for the Presidency or Vice Presidency without their eligibility being questioned.

When considering the line of succession for the Presidency, having only one parent citizen parent has never been a disqualifier as long as the person had been born in the US.

[DustyMoment]

BHO is not the first President to have only one citizen parent.

That's not the issue!

There have been other individuals over the last 200 years who were born on US soil to one citizen parent and they ran unsuccessfully for the Presidency or Vice Presidency without their eligibility being questioned.

Name them!

When considering the line of succession for the Presidency, having only one parent citizen parent has never been a disqualifier as long as the person had been born in the US.

I think you need to go back and take a long hard look at the 14th Amendment. You appear to have bought into a bunch of liberal talking points without giving any real thought to what they are saying. Therein is why I posted the long, factual post to Drew. The issue exceeds simply having 1 parent. Under the terms of the 14th Amendment, neither BHO nor any of the bazillions of Mexican anchor babies are "natural born" citizens.

This issue has been twisted and turned every way possible to avoid addressing what the 14th Amendment requires for the POTUS.

And, the NEW info coming to light as the result of all this is that since about 2003, there have been multiple bills introduced in the House and Senate trying to legally circumvent the natural born requirements of the 14th Amendment. If this is all birther "hooey", why has the Congress tried between 5 and 8 times since '03 to quietly override that part of the 14th Amendment? Smoke, meet fire!

[El Sordo]

“That's not the issue!”

And that's one glaring reason Birthers never get anywhere. A clear and concrete example that runs contrary to their fervent desire is simply ignored.

“Name them!”

John C Freemont
Spiro Agnew

There were others who did have their eligibility questioned, albeit unsuccessfully. Christopher Schumann and Charles Huges, for example.

And your reading of the 14th amendment is simply way out in left field. Another reason that Birthers have not gotten anywhere and will never get anywhere.

[DustyMoment]

“That's not the issue!”
And that's one glaring reason Birthers never get anywhere. A clear and concrete example that runs contrary to their fervent desire is simply ignored.

So, not only do you NOT grasp the fundamentals of the issue, you are going to define it for me!!??? Your "clear, concrete" example simply states the same blather. At issue is whether or not BHO meets the qualifications to be POTUS as established by the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether or not he came from a one-parent household or he was raised by a family of orangutans, the issue is the wording "natural born citizen". A natural born citizens is one, both of whose parents are American citizens and who was born on American soil. BHO's father, as BHO proudly proclaims, was NEVER an American citizen, he was a British citizen from Kenya!

And your reading of the 14th amendment is simply way out in left field. Another reason that Birthers have not gotten anywhere and will never get anywhere.

Ok, if MY reading of the 14th Amendment is "way out in left field" how do you feel about the Supreme Court's reading of the 14th Amendment and THEIR definition of "natural born citizen"?

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts…..”

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html

This is precedent on the meaning of NATURAL Born Citizen. This Minor v. Happersett has NEVER been overruled.

Barack Hussein Obama claims the Barack Hussein Obama Sr. as his birth father. His father was a British citizen from Kenya and never became a U.S. citizen.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

[El Sordo]

Exactly the same circumstances (CAA was born in the US to an American mother and British father), but not the issue.

Sure.

Regarding Minor...

Do some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents?

As to this class have there been doubts?

For the purposes of that case was it necessary to solve these doubts?

[DustyMoment]

No wonder you don’t get it.

Free Republic is a site for conservatives to discuss conservative issues.

DU is where you need to share your brilliance.