I was hoping and praying it was a done deal.
You're not fooling anybody...
Posted on 02/12/2012 10:09:40 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Nor do I. After the Georgia hearing Decision this has become a much more serious matter than it ever was before.
Your "If you play poker with someone..., which was used in reply 28, was what prompted me to add you originally. Thus the reason I made my singular reply to you alone. As I said, I read the reply up instead of down (not very practical in hindsight) and that's the very reason I made the reply you're addressing now.
Sorry about that, and again, my apologies.
Yes, it’s sad, especially when someone else who doesn’t verify reads it. Weeks or months later, someone is bound to post that [whatever Sven said] has been proven, and make an idiot of himself. I shudder every time I remember Representative Leo Berman claiming there was a Pakistan travel ban in a CNN interview.
The plaintiffs entered that birth certificate to make their case that Obama’s father was not a US citizen. Are you saying that the judge should not have allowed the plaintiffs to use that evidence to make that argument? In other words, did the plaintiffs lawyer make a mistake?
Further proof that Orly is clueless:
“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.”
The judge had to decide if the plaintiffs made a legally valid argument regarding eligibility, specifically the meaning of NBC. He is not restricted to just the facts presented in the hearing - he has to rule in respect to actual law. In this case he researched NBC and decided that current precedent is Wong Kim Ark. He specifically cited Ankeny v Daniels but Ankeny is just a reaffirmation of Wong Kim Ark. He therefore rejected the plaintiffs arguments.
You can argue whether or not Ankeny or Wong Kim Ark are valid but you can’t argue that the judge could not use those cases.
I don’t care what the plaintiffs did or didn’t do. What matters is what the judge decided, and he decided that Obama was born in Hawaii based on nothing more than an internet image. Dangerous, dangerous precedent, and he and everybody else needs to be made to FEEL IN THEIR GUTS just how dangerous that really is.
I’d like Malihi or any other judge who would accept this standard to face the prospect of a 3-year-old legally performing brain surgery on them because of that standard.
For that matter, I’d like you to face that same prospect so you can fully appreciate the enormity of what you are claiming.
This is from the Georgia ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE:
“(4) Unless otherwise provided by law, the standard of proof on all issues in a hearing shall be a preponderance of the evidence.”
The definition of preponderance of the evidence is:
“The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[4] described it simply as “more probable than not.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence
That strikes me as a very low legal bar to hit. The cumulative effect of the birth certificate plus stipulation of fact plus no effect challenge to his place of birth certainly meets the “more probable than not.” standard.
HA! That’s exactly what some Obot argued regarding Royce Lamberth’s refusal to address Orly’s cited precedents regarding his sanction of her. The poster here said that he couldn’t address Orly’s cited cases because they weren’t Georgia cases; that he could only use GEORGIA precedents.
I’m not defending Orly’s competence; she’s obviously made some pretty bad mistakes. But if she’s incompetent for making that argument then so is the Obot who was arguing with me about that very point.
Malihi was wrong, though, to say that his decision was based on only the evidence presented at the hearing and the law. Ankeny is not law. And the opinion expressed by the judge in that case was not even binding in any way, since it was associated with a case that was dismissed because there WAS NO case. If Malihi was going to base his decision on the law he had to go to legally-binding decisions regarding the definition of “natural born citizen”.
But the whole thing was a sad joke anyway because he had to legally determine the FACTS of the case before he could rule on how the law applies to those facts, and he had no probative evidence of any facts. He even stated that what he had was his BELIEF regarding the facts - which he would have had no need to say if he had acutally had any probative evidence of those “facts” he believed.
The law that Malihi was asked by Brian Kemp to apply is the Georgia statute that says that a candidate on the ballot MUST BE QUALIFIED for the position they seek. Malihi ruled that Obama was qualified, even though the only evidence of that was an internet image of disputed provenance and genuineness (having no raised seal on it as required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution), and in spite of official records from 2 vital records offices (the Passport Office and social security’s e-verify) which indicated problems with Obama’s records and claims.
Really, really dangerous decision.
“Otherwise provided by law” - would that be, for instance, the state laws which say that a birth certificate is only probative if it has the raised seal and certifying statement? Or the Act of Congress which codified the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution by saying that one state is required to accept the acts and records of another state when those acts and records are submitted having the certifying statement and raised seal to prove their genuineness?
So that if a document was submitted without those things the law would require them to be REJECTED as non-genuine.
IOW, vital records are required by LAW to be genuinely certified in order to be probative. Where there isn’t a law about it - say, for instance, if you were talking about evidence regarding forgery, somebody failing e-verify, somebody actually refusing to appear in court as ordered and submit to that court a record they claimed they had 2 certified copies of.... that kind of stuff would go under the “preponderance of the evidence” rule. Which Malihi didn’t obey, because he simply ignored all that stuff.
But the one thing hewas REQUIRED BY LAW to reject was a non-certified vital record. And that is what he presumed to be true.
Bass-ackwards.
And extremely DANGEROUS.
Also, Harlan, I’ve noticed that you’ve not answered some very critical questions:
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Taitz case, and if so using what probative evidence?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Irion case, and if so using what probative evidence?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Hatfield case, and if so using what probative evidence?
If Irion had presented the online Kenyan BC and stipulated it as accurate, and Obama conceded the truth of it by his failure to show up or contest that evidence, would Malihi have been required to accept the Kenyan BC as probative?
I really hate lawyerly two-steps, and I’m not going to waste any more time with you unless and until you answer those questions. Everybody here can see you’re avoiding those questions like the plague, and I’d bet that most people know exactly why you’re avoiding them.
The same reason Obama avoided appearing in court even though he had nothing on his schedule for that day and had been ordered to appear.
And while Ankeny may not be law, the core of Ankeny is law - the WKA Supreme Court decision. Pick your poison - you still end up at the same place.
Lets not forget that the legal burden of proof was: “more probable than not.” If Orly had not botched her case so badly, then perhaps some doubt could have been cast on the birth certificate. But all the judge had was a plaintiff provided BC and a stipulation of fact.
The plaintiffs should have accepted the default judgment.
BTW - you keep saying that the BC needed a raised seal on it as required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Can you cite some actual regulations or case law?
Then they screwed up and convinced the judge the Obama was born in Hawaii.
As for Irion offering the Kenyan BC - don't forget that the judge has to agree with the stipulation. I doubt any reasonable judge would accept such a stipulation especially if questioning Obama’s birthplace was at the core of the plaintiff's case - it is more likely that he would allow it to be entered into evidence and make Irion make his case as to why it was valid.
The reason the judge accepted the BC and stipulation was because Irion said Obama’s birthplace was irrelevant to his case.
I’m waiting for answers to 4 specific questions that you’ve been avoiding like the plague.
What is the answer to question 1? Question 2? Question 3? Question 4?
A seal merely makes a BC self authenticating. It can be authenticated by other means OR all parties can stipulate as to its authenticity.
Look at the Georgia laws of evidence - the word probative is not as precise as you would make it out to be.
You keep make a lot of absolute statements as to what is required. I think it is time you actually backed up your statements with some links to actual laws.
Obama proved nothing!
However, the plaintiffs did a great job a taking up the slack.
It's entirely up to the ALJ to determine the validity of any evidence presented. Malihi could have slept through the hearing and made his decision completely based on the Ankeny opinion.
“...it is a Constitutionally defined term.”
I’ve got to take issue with that statement. The term is not defined in the Constitution. A rather large part of the problem here regarding BHO is the lack of a clearly defined legal understanding of the term.
You are right - I was trying to say that it is a federal issue because it is a Constitutional issue.
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.