Whose law did Judge Malihi use to make his ruling?

Coach is Right ^ | 2/12/2012 | Suzanne Eovaldi

[Oldpuppymax]

“This is an outrage, an absolute outrage,” Attorney Orly Taitz told a radio audience in Western New York. She believes Judge Michael Malihi, a Clinton era appointee, is from Iran which could have a bearing if he is steeped in Sharia Law.

When he brought down a favorable decision for Obama’s appearing on state ballots, Taitz sent by overnight courier a 23 page appeal to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp pleading with him to ignore the judge’s advisory decision – to no avail.

Kemp rubber stamped the Malihi decision, and now the appeal process begins in earnest. Plaintiff attorney J. Mark Hatfield will escalate this case to the appellate level immediately.

With emergency appeals well in place before Georgia’s March 6 Super Tuesday, Hatfield told World Net Daily: ”I will be filing that on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell just as soon as I can get it drafted!”

Taitz told her listeners: “It was abundantly clear. .that Judge Malihi was under an outside pressure to rush the case.” Her appeal contains these three key procedural points: Malihi refused to allow her to properly present her opening statement; he rushed plaintiff witnesses; he would allow only the Natural Born Citizen argument.

But what Malihi did was unprecedented because he based his decision on the Arkeny [sic] v. Daniels case out of Indiana which was NEVER cited by the defense! “A presiding judge cannot suddenly pull out of a hat some case,” Taitz fumed.

Trying to follow up on the Malihi Iranian angle proved...

[butterdezillion]

Congress did not LEGALLY certify the electoral vote. Dick Cheney failed to ask for objections as required by statute.

If we’re still going to accept that “certification” even though the procedural requirement was not met, then we need to overturn a lot of Miranda cases where criminals were set free simply because of procedural omissions.

I cannot believe that any conservative would be fine with a judge pulling out of his rear end a decision based on no admissible, probative evidence. Any idiot can see where that takes us - especially when we can look at Iran and most of the backwards world and realize that the difference between us and them is precisely the rule of LAW, not the rule of men.

[Harlan1196]

So why did the Republican SoS accept such blatant malfeasance on the part of one of his judges? The SoS had the final say - why did he accept the decision?

Could it be because the judge did it in accordance with Georgia law?

Why do you think the SoS accepted the decision?

[DustyMoment]

Do you deny that Congress has these powers, which only require a simple majority vote?

In the absence of any proof to the contrary, I absolutely do. Congress can tell anyone anything at all BUT . . . . . until it is signed and enacted into law it has no effect. They can tell the Court how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but, unless the POTUS agrees that the SCOTUS neds to learn how to make a peanutr butter and jelly sandwich, it's not going anywhere.

And, the Congress knows that IF they try to start telling the courts what to do, at some point in time, a bill or a law that they are particularly fond of will come before a judge. Therein lies the balance of power that the Founders designed into every aspect of our form of government.

Congress currently has two powers that no other branch can touch - the power to tax and the power to spend. The president doesn't have that power, nor does the Judicial branch. Because the Congress rescinded the line item veto, even the POTUS cannot veto items in a budget that the Congress passed unless he/she/it vetos the ENTIRE budget. And Congress always makes sure to put some honey for the POTUS in the budget along with the vinegar.

The balance of power extends throughout the Constitution and is prominently mentioned in the Federalist Papers. EVERYTHING the Founders did revolved around maintaining the balance of power. The Congress has certain leverage, the POTUS has certain leverage and the Judicial branch has certain leverage. Even we peons who own and pay for this out-of-control government have leverage - that's what the Second Amendment is all about; maintaining the balance of power. The states have it and, because we all want to get along, no one has exercised that balance of power since the Civil War. At the outset of the Civil War, the South used its ability to secceed from the Union as a means of maintaining the balance of power. Lincoln, in turn, used HIS balance of power to force the South back into the Union. This is the framework that the Founders provided.

So, hate to break it you but the Congress is not as all powerful as you think.

[sometime lurker]

Sven, give it up. You make claims with absolutely no evidence to back it up, some of it in direct contradiction to what the State Department says.

It has nothing to to with the State Department "fighting" to keep anyone eligible, it has to do with what the policy is, which directly contradicts what you claim it is. So put up or shut up - show evidence or stop posting nonsense.

[butterdezillion]

Because he said in advance that he would and he knew it was eventually going to have to go to an appeal anyway.

Besides that, people are so very, very fallible. That’s why it’s so critical that we have the rule of LAW and not the rule of fallible and so-easily-corrupted (or threatened) men. That’s what I and my fellow patriots are fighting for, and that’s why it doesn’t bother us one bit when people mock us for not being like everybody else who goes along with the corruption, deception, and thuggery.

[SvenMagnussen]

Stop trying to manipulate posting rules to meet your agenda.

Believe it or not, the State Department doesn’t think moving to Indonesia to live in Indonesia “indefenitely” is a bad thing to be prevented. Once the CAO saw Barry Soetoro’s Hawaii COLB with a raised seal and the registrar’s signature indicating Lolo Soetoro was Barry’s father, there wouldn’t have been any impediment by the State Department for Barry to renounce his U.S. Citizenship after he moved to Indonesia.

U.S. native born children of non-U.S. citizen parents frequently move back to their parent’s home country. The State Department doesn’t bat an eye when an Indonesian man walks into the U.S. Embassy with his U.S born son and says he’d like to have his child’s U.S. citizenship renounced.

At this point, a Locally Employed Staff (LES) member will be assigned to the child’s case and the parent will be asked to give power of attorney to the LES for the purpose of determining the voluntary nature of the renouncement.

Far from your theories the child will be asked to explain his reasons for renouncement, a search will be conducted to determine if the child is involved in some custody battle or a victim of kidnapping. After the Hawaiian Soetoro marriage license and Barry Soetoro’s Hawaiian COLB is shown, most questions and concerns about the veracity of Barry’s renouncement will be alleviated. Suddenly, the LES will become an advocate for the child and newly adopted country because the LES isn’t xenophobic.

[Harlan1196]

So I am not a patriot for disagreeing with you? Really?

So my 20 years of military service means what to you?

You are being questioned (not mocked) because you have been consistently wrong and you clearly lack an understanding of how the legal system and state bureaucracies work.

When you fall back on a massive conspiracy that encompasses the entire legal system and both political parties then perhaps there is less to your arguments then you think.

Have you ever once sat down with an experienced lawyer and talked to him about this?

[butterdezillion]

I never said you weren’t a patriot. I said that the people who are not accepting the BS are patriots. I’m sure that there are people who don’t know they are accepting BS who believe that the way they are behaving is patriotic as well, and if motivation is all one considers they would be considered patriots as well. Deceived patriots, but patriots. The net effect is the same as if they were enemies, and that is why deceit is such a blight on a people. It neutralizes the well-intended people by making them believe that good is evil and evil good.

Those who have seen the truth and still support the deceit are worse than enemies.

You’ve pre-judged that a conspiracy couldn’t happen. Just like Malihi pre-judged that one of the conflicting internet images can’t be a forgery. But I’m not like Malihi and I’m not like you - because I operate with an evidence-based epistemology. If the evidence points to conspiracy then I am inclined to believe the evidence. If the evidence points to forgery then I am inclined to believe the evidence.

You can find a lawyer who will tell you anything you want to hear on this particular issue. Mario Apuzzo is an experienced lawyer. Mark Hatfield is an experienced lawyer. But then so are Obama’s lawyers.

[sometime lurker]

Once again, I’ll ask you to link to something that is evidence of your claims.