Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday

Coach is Right ^ | 1/17/2012 | Doug Book

[Oldpuppymax]

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)

It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.

Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)

As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!

The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)

That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.

As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…

[DiogenesLamp]

America is a common law country - the only thing that matters is the case law.

Lets talk about American law.

James Madison had this to say about the common law:

The great mass of suits in every State lie between Citizen & Citizen, and relate to matters not of federal cognizance. . . . What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

Apparently the Monarchical based "common law" was not a factor in deciding who would be American Citizens.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s10.html

[philman_36]

Why do you always mash those two together?

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….
@Lecture 13

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
@Lecture 25
Miles apart and your ellipsis is just plain wrong.

[edge919]

Doc, Minor did NOT say there were only two kinds of citizens. He mentioned three specifically. The first were those who associated together as the original members of the United States:

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption.

Waite said citizens could be added by birth or naturalization, but he NEVER said there were only two types of citizens. Under the addition of citizens by birth, he identified at least TWO different classes, natural-born and those born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. NBC does NOT mean "born a citizen." There's NOTHING in the Supreme Court precedent that defines it this way. Instead the SCOTUS defined NBC exclusively as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." What would be the point of saying anything about parents being citizens if NOT for how it was used to define NBC??

[philman_36]

And another thing...you should provide links or the whole paragraph from whence you derive your quotes.
Doing otherwise is deceptive as something taken out of context can easily misconstrue the intent of the author.
Shall I do so yet again to disprove your erroneous assertions?

[Kansas58]

Diogenes lived in a barrel, and walked around with a lamp, in the daylight, “looking for an honest man” -—

Diogenes called Plato a “liar” for the way in which Plato explained the philosophy of Socrates.

Obviously, the guy was a bit stuck on himself, huh?

Diogenes, and ONLY Diogenes, could POSSIBLY understand the truth, and he was so SUPERIOR to everyone else, wasn’t he?

Why, they even named a MENTAL ILLNESS after the guy!

Most radicals have a Martyr complex.

Pick an impossible position to justify, and they play the Martyr!

[DiogenesLamp]

America is a common law country. Case law and precedent is what matters. WKA is presently the law of the land. It doesn’t matter what you think they got wrong or what they left out. It is the law of the land and its present interpretation is encapsulated in Ankeny.

I'm afraid you are going to have to UnLearn a lot of wrong ideas before you will be able to comprehend the correct ones. "PRECEDENT" does not decide what is the truth. "Precedent" is merely a fallacy turned into a methodology.

It is the legislatures that decide what the law is, not the courts. Cases should be decided on their merits based on first principles, not on what was the previous opinion of some court that may or may not have weighed the facts correctly.

That you should even offer Ankeny as an argument indicates how much you need to learn before you are even up to speed in discussing this issue. Ankeny is nothing but encapsulated crap. Bad Facts, Bad reasoning, and erroneous conclusion.

WKA addresses the first 50 years - that long discussion of the evolution of the common law term from NBS to NBC is addressing the legal framework in which the Founders were familiar with.

Uh, right. Let me show you what the Founders were familiar with.

This is a page from John Adams own personal copy of the Mathew Bacon book on English Law. This book was not only studied by John Adams, it was also studied by his son, John Quincy Adams. Let's see what it says.

Link.

Wow! Under the English Common Law of which John Adams was familiar, it was a requirement that a natural born subject have PARENTS who "at the time of their birth" were in Actual Obedience of the King! Why that is almost the exact same definition as Vattel! Whoda thunk?

You may also not have known this, but John Adams was sent to the Netherlands during the Revolutionary war to gain support among the European governments for the United States. While residing in the Netherlands, he actually lived in the home of Charles Dumas, who happens to be the Publisher of Emerich Vattel's "Droit des Gens" and who is also the very same man that sent Benjamin Franklin three copies of it in 1775.

Now do you suppose that during the several years that John Adams lived in the Home of Charles Dumas, that they happened to have discussed the principles of international law according to the book "Droit des Gens" which was published by Charles Dumas?

Yes, please go on and tell me all about what the founders knew.

[philman_36]

[Seizethecarp]

Barry couldn't get a drivers license or even get into Little League with the “preponderance of the evidence” you have listed.

Barry's legal team has spent untold $$ to insure that no certified BC for Barry has ever been “produced” in evidence and this incriminating pattern of behavior has continued in this GA ballot challenge. Only a photocopy image of an alleged certified copy of the HI LFBC with alleged raised seal was presented as hearsay “evidence” by Irion and Taitz, and also sent ex parte by Jablonski to SOS Kemp and copied to Malihi.

Failing to find SCOTUS support, or support in ANY federal case to support Barry's NBC eligibility, Malihi resorted to dicta in Ankeny, an Indiana state appeals court case. In Ankeny the judges failed elementary grammar, not to mention proper legal construction, in claiming that the Minor v. Happersett NBC language supported rather than refuted Barry's eligibility. No subsequent federal case affirms this claimed precedent ruling on the NBC definition...thus the resort to the state case, Ankeny.

The dishonest twisting of the Minor case NBC language by the Ankeny panel takes place in the interpretation of two sentences:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

The Ankeny panel replaces the word “citizens” in the first sentence with the meaning “natural born citizens.” This is clearly false.

Then the Ankeny panel takes the words “this class” in the second sentence and deems them to mean “this natural born citizen class” about which “there have been doubts” which is false. As the first sentence clearly says, it is the citizenship, not the NBC status, of “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents” about which “there have been doubts,” not their NBC status.

The WKA court only resolved the citizenship status of WKA, NOT his NBC status, which even the Ankeny panel admitted, as did Malihi.

So in GA we have Malihi affirming Barry is NBC relying on dicta in Ankeny twisting the dicta in ARK which cited a holding in Minor v Happersett...a holding defining NBC to "no doubt" EXCLUDE Barry if constructed strictly.

[Red Steel]

Attorney Hatfield is going to have a field day taking apart judge Malihi and “Arkeny,” etcetera during the appeal. He’s going to lay their BS bare. LoL.

[philman_36]

Have you just faded away once again? Are you not even willing to at least put up an attempt at addressing my replies?

[philman_36]

...“Arkeny,”...
A deliberate misspelling, perhaps?
It makes me wonder what the implications of that are.

[Red Steel]

Subconsciously deliberate by Malihi. LoL.

[philman_36]

Subconsciously deliberate by Malihi.
There seems to be a whole lot of "subconsciousness" surrounding this issue.

[philman_36]

Kind of like in Scott vs. Sandford, aka the Dred Scott Decision, wherein the surname was spelled incorrectly.
Sanford, not Sandford.

[Harlan1196]

Do you understand how the deck departments of large amphibious ships are organized? Do some research before you embarrass yourself.

[Harlan1196]

I think if you check the judge’s ruling you will see he was just talking about Orly’s evidence and witnesses.

[Harlan1196]

I am not talking about English common law specifically. I am use the phrase in the general sense.

Two different systems of justice developed in Europe:

1. In one system the judges were given the power to interpret the law as they saw fit.

2. In the other, the judge was expected to rule with deference to precedence and case law.

The second is refered to as a Common Law System. That is the type of justice system America has.

[philman_36]

I think if you check the judge’s ruling you will see he was just talking about Orly’s evidence and witnesses.
Why "think" when you can KNOW!

@Farrar/Welden/Swensson/Powell v Obama - Judge Malihi Final Decision - Georgia Ballot Challenge - 2/3/2012

This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell. Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs,Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section II applies to all Plaintiffs.

And as far as Section II is concerned...what does "considered" mean?

[philman_36]

...the following facts are considered...

[Harlan1196]

And section I applies to which case?