Posted on 02/12/2012 10:09:40 AM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Wait wasn’t Malihi like a hero in the way he was handling the case until he ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs? Nothing but ada-boy’s for this guy until his final ruling against Orly. LOL, and now that she and others don’t like his ruling, he was supposedly pressured or part of some Sharia conspiracy?
Malihi is a “Clinton era nominee” only by the fact he was nominated for the job in the 1990’s. Trying to slip the name “Clinton” in to make him seem overly partisan is laughably obvious. The guy has nothing to do with Clinton and was appointed by Governor Zell Miller - hardly a liberal activist.
Further, is goofy Taitz seriously claiming he ruled as he did because he is steeped in Sharia Law? What part of her conspiracy addled brain fails to realize ALL judges are ruling against her whether they have Iranian heritage or have nothing but American ancestry.
Orly is a nutcase, and at this point pretty much everything she says should be treated as part of a comedy routine - one that apparently enough people actually believe to keep her shtick funded.
Hussein is not going to be removed from the ballot anywhere. Period. It’s not going to happen...ever. This issue will have absolutely no bearing on the 2012 election and every moment spent on it is a complete waste of time and makes anyone associated with it look like a complete fool.
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
Yet here you are spending your time on nearly every thread about this issue that I have seen. LOL
Logbow can go win the future with his dear leader.
Malihi claims to have made his decision based on the law and evidence presented at the hearing. Yet there was no probative evidence presented at the hearing. Malihi said he “believed” or “considered” that Obama was born in Hawaii, but there was no probative evidence of that presented.
An internet image of a non-certified birth certificate for Obama was presented.
So either Malihi accepted an internet image not having the marks of authenticity required for Full Faith and Credit, or else he based his decision on “judge’s knowledge”.
Take your pick.
If it was based on “judge’s knowledge”, then it was a sharia ruling that violated US evidentiary standards.
If it was based on a computer image lacking the certifying elements, then he just set precedent that will come back to haunt the entire State of Georgia.
What I recommend is that residents of Georgia post to the internet images of birth certificates, drivers licenses, medical licenses, etc for Daisy Duck, Mickey Mouse, etc and take their laptops with them wherever they go. (Maybe Terry Lakin could pose as Mickey Mouse and post online a Georgia medical license for Mickey Mouse.) Then when the proper time comes to present documentation of some thing (when cited for speeding, when applying for a job at a VA hospital, etc) they need to show the laptop image for Mickey Mouse. If a GA State entity refuses to accept the online certificate as probative, the person (under the name used on their “documentation”) needs to sue the State of Georgia for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment - since they allowed an online image to be probative for Obama but not for Daisy Duck.
Hopefully these things would happen in large numbers and BEFORE the appeal of Malihi’s decision is heard - and the appeals court would be made aware of them so they would realize what was at stake if they allow Malihi’s precedent to stand.
The measure you use to judge others will be the measure used to judge you. Turnabout is fair play. If Obama’s online HI BC has to be accepted as probative if stipulated as genuine by a plaintiff, then so does Obama’s online KENYAN BC if so stipulated by a plaintiff...
Obama is messing with our entire way of executing justice. This is not some little game of “chicken”. We will either be America, or we will be Iran. And we had BETTER be choosing that very, very carefully.
+1
Malihi wasn't "like a hero". Many of us here were hopeful that he would finally allow this case to be heard since all previous similar challenges to zero had been dismissed. There were 3 plaintiffs in the case Malihi heard, Taitz was only 1 of them and, yet, you seem to think that, at the end of the day, Malihi ruled against her alone!
The fact is that we don't know WHY he ruled as he did, we only know that he ruled the way that he did. IMO, that leaves us with 3 possible reasons: 1) Malihi caved to threats made by zero and/or his goons to Malihi, his family and/or his career; 2) the fix was in from the outset and Malihi played us excellently or, 3) Malihi made his ruling on the basis of some standard other than American legal practice and precedents.
We have a case in which the defendant (zero) neither appeared at the hearing, nor offered ANY evidence to show why he SHOULD be allowed on GA's ballot. The 3 plaintiffs (of which Taitz was one) offered a numbered of compelling reasons (and submitted a LOT of evidence to support their position) to show why zero should NOT be allowed on GAs ballot. And, despite this, Malihi ruled in zero's favor. The ruling makes no sense and, IMO, if pressured, Malihi would NOT be able to offer a satisfactory explanation for his ruling.
So, we have before us a conundrum. One thing of which we can be assured (IMO), Malihi didn't base his ruling solely against Taitz.
Anybody else having trouble posting? I keep getting a screen telling me that either the site is down for maintenance or has capacity problems. About every 4th time I click to post it’ll actually let me post. Anybody else having these troubles?
Malihi rejected Taitz’ “expert witnesses” because they weren’t properly certified. Fair enough. But then why the heck did he apparently accept a vital record that wasn’t properly certified? The double-standard is not only staggering, it is an affront to everything this country is about. Routine stuff for sharia courts though...
Anybody else having trouble posting? I keep getting a screen telling me that either the site is down for maintenance or has capacity problems. About every 4th time I click to post it’ll actually let me post. Anybody else having these troubles?
Malihi rejected Taitz’ “expert witnesses” because they weren’t properly certified. Fair enough. But then why the heck did he apparently accept a vital record that wasn’t properly certified? The double-standard is not only staggering, it is an affront to everything this country is about. Routine stuff for sharia courts though...
Anybody else having trouble posting? I keep getting a screen telling me that either the site is down for maintenance or has capacity problems. About every 4th time I click to post it’ll actually let me post. Anybody else having these troubles?
Malihi rejected Taitz’ “expert witnesses” because they weren’t properly certified. Fair enough. But then why the heck did he apparently accept a vital record that wasn’t properly certified? The double-standard is not only staggering, it is an affront to everything this country is about. Routine stuff for sharia courts though...
Anybody else having trouble posting? I keep getting a screen telling me that either the site is down for maintenance or has capacity problems. About every 4th time I click to post it’ll actually let me post. Anybody else having these troubles?
Malihi rejected Taitz’ “expert witnesses” because they weren’t properly certified. Fair enough. But then why the heck did he apparently accept a vital record that wasn’t properly certified? The double-standard is not only staggering, it is an affront to everything this country is about. Routine stuff for sharia courts though...
No judge is required to settle issues that are not in dispute, in fact, facts and law not in dispute are to be avoided.
You do not understand the process.
Anybody else having trouble posting? I keep getting a screen telling me that either the site is down for maintenance or has capacity problems. About every 4th time I click to post it’ll actually let me post. Anybody else having these troubles? I think I’ve clicked to post this about 10 times now and it’s not letting it post.
Malihi rejected Taitz’ “expert witnesses” because they weren’t properly certified. Fair enough. But then why the heck did he apparently accept a vital record that wasn’t properly certified? The double-standard is not only staggering, it is an affront to everything this country is about. Routine stuff for sharia courts though...
I respond to lots of threads. When I see stupid stuff like conspiracy laden birther blather, I feel obligated to be a voice of reason. It is always worthwhile for at least a few people to bring some sanity to these threads. If no one does so, casual readers or lurkers might be led to believe the majority of conservatives actually buy into this silliness. None of this birther stuff is ever going to go anywhere, and having it associated with conservative movement is damaging to the overall effort to defeat Obama in the upcoming election.
Judicial Supremacy is NOT a Conservative principle, in fact Judicial Supremacy is a radical, liberal idea.
Congress and the President are COEQUAL in their duty, right and responsibility to interpret, enact and enforce the Constitution.
Birthers THINK that they are the “true conservatives” in this silly fight, but they are actually endorsing the very liberal idea that ONLY the Courts can decide such matters.
The States all said Obama was eligible. I wish the states had demanded a valid birth certificate, in 2008, but the States did not do so.
The Electors, from each State, cast their votes for either Obama or McCain. BOTH were eligible, according to Congress, as Congress accepted those votes.
Unfortunately, Obama was the winner.
Obama was then Sworn in to Office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
WE LOST! Now let's devote our efforts to making sure we do not lose, again, in 2012!
(Paying more homage to the Judicial Supremacists won't help us win! Congress says Obama was eligible, Congress will say that Rubio is eligible. A True Conservative would support Congress over the Courts!)
Do you believe he is constitutionally eligible to be President or not? Yes or No.
“Wait wasn’t Malihi like a hero in the way he was handling the case until he ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs?”
And Benedict Arnold was a big hero for a while as well. Your point is what now?
Yes, Hussein was born in Hawaii. He is a NBC and is eligible to be president. Rubio and Jindal are also constitutionally eligible. The birther definition of NBC is not accepted by the states or the courts when it comes to eligibility.
Yes, Hussein was born in Hawaii. He is a NBC and is eligible to be president. Rubio and Jindal are also constitutionally eligible. The birther definition of NBC is not accepted by the states or the courts when it comes to eligibility.
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.