Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen

BirtherReport.com ^ | 2/3/2012 | Kevin Powell

[GregNH]

We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.

[TheOldLady]

I thought zottee LorenC was a woman. Yeeks!

Oh, "LorenC" = "Lawrence?"

[Harlan1196]

So why do you bother with the courts then? Why do you get so worked up every time Orly posts about another “victory”? It appears that you agree with me that you will not get what you want in the courts so what is your plan B?

[Harlan1196]

Indians on sovereign Indian land were not under the jurisdiction of the US government. There were numerous ways for them to be naturalized as US citizens but they could not be born US citizens until 1924.

[Slings and Arrows]

Now I'm remembering the wedding party from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[TheOldLady]

tablelamp Since Feb 4, 2012

And how does a rank n00b have any idea what a "zot" is?

Are you a retread? What's your former handle?

[elvis-lives]

This is the expected outcome of a really stupid and arrogant lawyer. When the Defendants (Obama and legal team) failed to show for the hearing, the Plaintiffs (Taitz and Company) were offered a default judgement- a victory. But they refused the judgement because they wanted their “evidence” read into the record so they could feed their egos by claiming to have gotten damaging evidence into the record. Once the judge saw the weakness of the evidence- internet conjecture and opinions of non-experts, the judge ruled againt them.

This was a ridiculous move by Taitz. This is the equivalent to playing Black Jack, being dealt an ace of spades and jack of clubs but then asking for another card. She had a victory tied up in a bow, but was not satisfied. This was the sort of move you get when your attorney has an internet law degree. If anyone is going to be serious about this issue, money has to be raised and better attorneys hired.

[GregNH]

It’s not that you’re wrong because just any many others disagree with you. It’s that constitutional law professors and judges disagree with you. You’re not an attorney, let alone a law professor or a judge, right? It’s more likely that it’s your opinion of who is a natural born citizen that’s mistaken not theirs. Who is more likely to be more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly? You or the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals?

Listen broken bulb, The Constitution was written in plain English. We can read. one does not have to be a "Scholar" or a "Lawyer" to understand it. "We The People" sound familiar?

[Future Useless Eater]

...There is so much evidence from so many avenues that points to Canadian birth.

I seriously doubt that. If he was really born in Canada, there would be a paper trail there that could expose him. And Canada would have him by the short hairs. There is no evidence that he is beholding to them. If Canada could ruin him, that pipeline would never even have become an issue - It would have been pre-approved.

Instead, Obama was instrumental in getting his relative elected to the head of Kenya (that's a good clue right there)

He's quite certain he's bought off every official with access to Indonesian records,

He bows to muslim dicators,

He cowtows to socialist dicators,


Based on his actions, I'd say Obama is controlled by the most powerful and ruthless people in the world, and most likely this same group of people is the driving force that is fighting for the GOP to have no other choice in November than Mitt Romney.

I am now doubtful that Arpaio will come out with anything that is ruinous to Obama. He was offered a chance to put anything he had into official public record in this trial but he declined. This judge proved once again that nearly anyone can be silenced. Sheriff Joe is likely next.

[Las Vegas Ron]

You mean Drool or someone else?

LOL...that's the one.

[little jeremiah]

I wondered why he was let back in. He was outed but good. And I remain confused about Obama Exposer’s LorenC comment and why tableclamp is still here.

[ml/nj]

I can say it is unlikely any court would accept the experience of the witnesses proffered as meeting an expert standard.

Really? I don't know precisely what evidence she presented but any court that wouldn't accept someone like Mara Zebest as an expert on Adobe Software needs to be dissolved.

Some things are just obvious when presented too, whether they are presented by someone who has devoted his life to something, or by his secretary. So when the secretary shows enlargements of characters that were all supposed to have been produced by the same typewriter key that obviously were not, it seems absurd to me to reject out of hand what the secretary has shown.

ML/NJ

[Brown Deer]

you don’t remember Loren Collins?

http://www.lorencollins.net

He’s a fogbow that got zotted!

not Lawrence - he was named after his mother.

[Fantasywriter]

Why insult weasels? LorenC is just an immature, foolish little punk who revels in acting like a jerk.

humblergunner had some choice and apt words for Loren the other night, and I quote:

“Since that topic has nothing to do with the subject matter, what it’s gained you is a reputation as a lying piece of garbage.”

Iow, Loren, like ever other fogger, is a lying liar...surprise surprise. /s

No wonder they adore and all but deify Obama—he’s the only one who can beat them at the lying game.

Thanks, Loren, for reminding me why I became a conservative. I don’t like liars—and liberalism and its defenders are nothing w’out its/their lies.

Thanks also for reminding me why I stopped visiting fogbow. It was interesting for about a day, and then entertaining/funny for a couple of days more. After that the stench of lies and ignorance became overpowering and I haven’t been back. ‘Fear the fogbow’ - right. If you had one honest, intelligent person over there such a slogan wouldn’t be so hilarious. As it is, it’s just pathetic (though in a humorous sort of way).

[DiogenesLamp]

It would be funny, and actually appropriate, to see Kemp throw Judge Malihi under the bus. "Judge Malihi was supposed to perform the simple of duty of presenting me with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. He has failed in both circumstances, opting to express his own personal agenda. We are seeking his removal from office and will deny Obama to be on either the primary ballot or general ballot for lack of evidence."

That would be great, but it's wishful thinking. A man can be expected to stand against the forces which will be arrayed against him if he has someone backing him up with the law, but by himself? I would be astounded that he would be willing to do so.

I think we may have discovered an avenue of victory though. If Obama won't show up or present evidence for any of these hearings, next time we take a default judgement, and let THEM sue to overturn it. (Providing we can find another state to try this in.)

[rolling_stone]

What do you think of the job Obama has done so far?

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s not that you’re wrong because just any many others disagree with you. It’s that constitutional law professors and judges disagree with you. You’re not an attorney, let alone a law professor or a judge, right? It’s more likely that it’s your opinion of who is a natural born citizen that’s mistaken not theirs. Who is more likely to be more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly? You or the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals?

That's easy. Any court system that could conclude the 14th Amendment bans prayer in School, gives women a right to kill their offspring, and creates anchor babies, obviously can't be too competent at interpreting the constitution properly. Throw in Kelo v New London, the exclusionary rule, and the ridiculous expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause, and you've pretty much made the case that the ONLY people who shouldn't be allowed to interpret the constitution are the ones who are doing it now.

As William F Buckley said:

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

Regarding the issue of "natural born citizen", anyone can research it and discover it's true meaning and purpose. Those trained in the lawyerly profession are schooled into a "rut" of thought from which most of them cannot break. The same sort of problem exists in the scientific community and is referred to as "intellectual phase lock."

Only a person who is willing to take a fresh look at the issue without preconceived notions is able to make an objective analysis. The Robed Priests of academia and the courts are too steeped in their own dogma and rituals.

So to answer your question, any relatively intelligent person is likely more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly than are those people who have been taught to live in a rut.

As Ronald Reagan said:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, its just that they know so much that isn't so "

[DiogenesLamp]

Please look at the CONNECTION of Fogbow Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor with ‘kinfolk’ Michael Malihi. I think you will find your answer.

Are they related? I've read Jill Pryor's essay on the subject, and I was unimpressed. She drew conclusions from a lack of information, not an abundance. Very Unscholarly in my opinion.

[sourcery]

Analogy: Catholicism => Reformation => Protestantism.

And actually, the Age of Reason is another example where western civilization emerged from the “intellectual phase lock” of feudalism. The United States was founded in large part as a consequence of that. It would appear to be time for a repeat.

[sourcery]

Your argument is an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Court decisions get overturned all the time. That’s why courts of appeal exist.

Going even deeper, the law is ultimately political. Historically, there’s an ever-repeating cycle where the law gets so out of synch with the people that the people decide they need to hit the reset button, which can be as gentle as changing how they vote, or as harsh as bringing out the Guillotines.

The current disagreement over the definition of NBC is becoming just as much of a political argument regarding what the law should be as opposed to merely a legal argument over what the legal profession claims it is.

Lawyers can be and have been overruled by the people many times in the past.

[DiogenesLamp]

For an expert on the Constitution, you seemed to have missed a lot of case law on Indian sovereignty. Indian tribes are specifically mentioned three times in the Constitution so it is clear that they have a unique standing as opposed to Germans. The Indians were not considered under the jurisdiction of the US government - the Indian tribes were sovereign nations. It was recognized that they could be naturalized as US citizens:

“[Native Americans], without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people. —Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1857”

And over the years other methods of Indians obtaining citizenship were recognized:

1. Treaty provision (as with the Mississippi Choctaw) 2. Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887 3. Issuance of Patent in Fee Simple 4. Adopting Habits of Civilized Life 5. Minor Children 6. Citizenship by Birth (The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) 7. Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces 8. Marriage to a U.S. citizen 9. Special Act of Congress.

But Indians were never born US citizens until 1924.

And therein you miss the point. The European men who had Children in this Nation were presumed to be here for the purpose of staying and becoming citizens. The Children who are born here of any European parents were automatically granted citizenship upon birth. The Children of Indians were automatically excluded from citizenship upon birth.

If the rule upon which birth citizenship is based is that of being "born on the soil" then why were Indians treated differently?

You don't seem to be able to grasp that this is evidence against your "birth on the soil" rule. It is, in fact, proof that the "born here" rule was never regarded as the standard by which the citizenship of offspring was based. It was the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in ADDITION to the "born here" rule, which held sway as demonstrated in Ex Parte Reynolds.