Posted on 02/12/2012 10:09:40 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The BIRTHERS presented a document that agreed with the Defendant/Respondent Obama!
The Judge had every right, even an obligation, to accept that stipulation.
IF a foreign BC had been introduced by the Birthers, that would NOT be a “stipulation” but instead that document would be a contested fact or contested evidence.
What probative evidence did Congress use?
There’s an online Hawaiian BC and there’s an online Kenyan BC. And we could probably come up with an Indonesian or Canadian BC too, just for kicks.
Do you really want Congress, judges, or anybody else deciding who can be President based on online images?
If so, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you. lol
How does a plaintiff have the ability to make a document probative or not?
Congress has given the measure by which one state is to know the genuineness of another state’s records: it is to have the certifying statement and raised seal according to law.
What Malihi was presented with lacked that, regardless of what any plaintiff “stipulated”.
If Irion had presented a Cracker-jack box “birth certificate” - like maybe one of the crayon drawings that shows up here sometimes - and stipulated that it was accurate, would a judge have to accept that as probative? Please answer the question, because that seems to be exactly what you’re saying - that as long as a plaintiff stipulates something, that makes it legally true regardless of whether there is any probative evidence presented to document the fact.
One other point: If Irion had presented a Kenyan BC it would NOT be a legally contested “fact”, because nobody at that hearing would have contested it. It would be an admitted fact, that the defendant had admitted by not refuting it. That’s the danger of not showing up to a hearing.
So if an online image of a Kenyan BC had been admitted as evidence it would be UNCONTESTED evidence, just like Orly’s evidence was UNCONTESTED.
So if Irion had presented the uncontested evidence of an online Kenyan BC, what would Malihi by law do with it, and why?
The Judge does have the right to use simple logic as to the fact that the on line BC was not at all harmful to Obama’s position.
If a Kenyan BC or any other controversial document had been entered into evidence, I am guessing that the Judge would have handled such a controversy differently, but we will never know.
Here, there was no controversy, but a stipulation. Orly is not a very good attorney.
Define “controversial document”.
I have spent literally thousands of hours of my life investigating this issue and I could talk longer than anybody has the patience to listen, describing why I believe that everything this usurper has done is a big fat lie.
Orly Taitz entered into the record a US Passport Office document indicating that a dependent by the name of Soebarkah was removed from Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro’s passport. The document was actually an official record submitted by the Passport Office in a previous court case. Malihi rejected that piece of paper as not having probative value. It was an uncontested piece of evidence of known authentic provenance submitted to his court, and he rejected it. Obama has never contested anything on that document; it was in no way “controversial” since Obama has never spoken publicly about it. And even if he had it would have to be assumed that it was not controversial because it was never LEGALLY CONTESTED even after Obama had been ORDERED to appear in Malihi’s courtroom. By ANY measure of “controversy” that document would be considered non-controversial.
Yet Malihi rejected that paper document as having any legal significance whatsoever.
That totally blows away everything you’re saying. Taitz and Obama were both in agreement about that “Soebarkah” name on that legal document. If what you’re saying is true then Malihi HAD to consider that document probative. But he didn’t.
Why didn’t he?
And don’t tell me it’s because Strunk wasn’t certified as an expert witness. You don’t have to be an expert witness to provide a legal record in a hearing. If that WAS the requirement, then Irion would have first had to certify himself as an expert on Obama’s birth certificate, birth facts, etc before he could present even an online image of a birth certificate at that hearing.
The fact is that Malihi ignored anything he didn’t like and accepted anything he wanted to, and the LEGAL EVIDENTIARY VALUE of what was presented made absolutely no difference to him. Whether the fact at issue was “controversial” or refuted made no difference to him, as I’ve just demonstrated.
He ignored all legal standards for weighing the value of evidence and went with “judge’s knowledge”. He never said in his decision that he had determined the facts. He said he BELIEVED the facts to be such-and-so. This is either a “judge’s knowledge” decision, or else it is an acceptance of the equivalent of a crayon drawing of a birth certificate as if that had some kind of probative value - which is an affront to our entire judicial system.
And as I’ve said before, I hope that Georgians make Malihi lie in that bed he has made, by presenting online images of birth certificates for Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse and demanding that the State of Georgia call those images probative just like they did with Obama’s online BC. I hope somebody presents an online image of a CRAYON BIRTH CERTIFICATE for Mickey Mouse and expects it to be accepted according to Malihi’s new precedent for legal evidentiary standards.
And I hope they do it in such large numbers that the judge who hears the appeal of Malihi’s decision sees crayon birth certificates in his sleep at night, knowing that if he upholds Malihi’s decision that is all Georgia will ever get for documentation any more. I hope Terry Lakin presents an online image of a GA medical license to practice BRAIN SURGERY at the hospital where that judge would go in an emergency. I hope 3-year-olds show online images of birth certificates showing them to be 45 years old, and electrician’s licenses in bids for the wiring of the courthouse that the judge works in.
We are not talking piddles here, and I want that GA judge to realize what is at stake here. If he lets this go, the precedent is set that anybody can say anything and there is no legal way to measure the truth of the claim. That is serious, serious stuff. You don’t just screw the whole system of truth and accountability and think that the people of Georgia - or the US - are going to act as if it’s nothing.
And if it has to have the element of a fact being “stipulated” and uncontested by the other party, then we need to have a lawsuit where two parties agree that a 3-year-old is really a 45-year-old electrician or brain surgeon, based on an online image of birth certificate and license to practice.
Of course, if the judge accepts it as a legal fact that the cherub-faced person whose feet can’t reach the floor from the courtroom chair and who hasn’t yet learned to count to 100 is really a 45-year-old licensed/certified brain surgeon, that means that person’s qualifications are a legally-proven FACT.
I’m sure the whole State of Georgia will be praising Michael Malihi for the wisdom of his precedent...
So what is your opinion of the other two attorneys?
Any naturalized citizen of the U.S. can sign a release form to have a certified copy of their Certificate of Naturalization made public by the U.S.C.I.S.
And you insist I publish it. Why is that?
Obots would immediately begin to discredit the image, create edited copies and discredit those and then spend a great of time discussing how Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization had been “debunked”.
Wouldn’t any concerned citizen want the truth to come from a source authorized to possess and publish the Certificate of Naturalization? The release form is a one page document signed by Obama. It’s not complicated. But it is incriminating.
Exactly. What we are looking at here is an undeclared (but de facto) jurisdictional argument by Obama's administration against a State Court.
Obama not showing up WAS his argument - he (his lawyers), refused to acknowledge the State Court's jurisdiction over him.
Because of that, the State Court could only compell through a federal ruling in the matter (since Georgia arresting Obama for contempt was clearly not a possibility). So it would have had to either suspend it's procedure until the State sued the administration in federal court for a jurisdictional ruling so it could compell Obama, OR it could NOT presume jurisdiction and thereby just make a status-quo-acceptance non-ruling (which is what it did).
But there is real benefit here, because the issue can now be appealed by the complainants. But still, it will have to be appealed on jurisdictional grounds, because that's where Obama's lawyers blocked the process. And once the issue is decided on the federal level, it will apply to all the similiar State suits.
“But still, it will have to be appealed on jurisdictional grounds, because that’s where Obama’s lawyers blocked the process. And once the issue is decided on the federal level, it will apply to all the similiar State suits. “
____________
There is no appeal on jurisdictional grounds because this is a state matter (Election Law, ie. who can appear on the ballot) and the jurisdiction (Administrative Court) is dictated by Georgia Statute. The ruling cannot be appealed per jurisdiction, particularly by plaintiff, who chose the forum, which was the proper forum according to Georgia state law.
The Obama side did not challenge jurisdiction by not showing up. The only means of challenging jurisdiction is by answer or motion. Failing to do either would have resulted in it being forfeit (per Rules of Civil Procedure).
There is no appeal of this ruling, but there are 48 other states that have not ruled on the issue. Continue to challenge his appearance on the ballot. I recommend a friendly state, but one outside of the south (as historic voting rights rulings complicate things here). I’d suggest a western state, Montana or Wyoming perhaps.
The nuclear law, shut up and fold or lose a nuke plant in Georgia, frankly I’m surprised people havn’t connected the events yet.
@This has no appearance of impropriety or quid pro quo for being allowed on the ballot whatsoever. Unh-uh! Not in America. It could never happen here! February 09, 2012
Do you think I should have added an /sarcasm tag? {;^)
All variations of the same meme. You're just the latest variety and you're late to the show.
Oh my, you seem to have been right there...two replies up and four replies down.
Sure, I’d like answers and official documents. You claim your version is correct without providing any links or cites to such evidence.
I’ve already proven you wrong in your past claim that a minor could renounce US citizenship at a young age, or that a parent could renounce for a minor. It makes me a bit wary of further claims of special knowledge on your part. Show us evidence.
Sven just enjoys making this stuff up to screw with people.
Yeah, the nerve of you for asking Sven to actually show someone this smoking gun he says has.
Who do you think he is, Lucas Smith?
Yea, I’m the guy who posted;
“” defeat Obama in the upcoming election.”
So how would you propose we do that? Play by the rules and ignore the Dems scoffing the Constitution?
If you play poker with someone else who ignores the rules either someone will get dead or someone will get f***ed.
And we are playing some high stakes poker here.”
The Constitution didn’t define NBC but I’m positive they didn’t just mean someone born here of foreign parents.
What is realistic? We have a few more cases in other states, despite rulings there will be endless appeals. It may eventually get to the SCOTUS but too late. I’m afraid Obama’s name will be on the ballot everywhere.
I DON’T think we are wasting our time on this. I have hope for future generations to reap the benefits. However, I don’t think we will remove Obama under any circumstances other than violence (which I AM NOT advocating). We are living in a lawless age, an age of tyranny by the rule of men rather than the rule of law.
To think we will have justice by depending on law is foolish.
(longbow1969 is a commie plant)
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.