From further reading at http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/ it seems that Malihi had originally lumped 3 lawsuits into one but the lawyer who is arguing the NBC issue asked for the cases to be separated so that his case doesn’t have to be connected to Orly Taitz. The judge agreed to sever the cases so each will stand separately.
On Jan 26 he’s supposed to first hear arguments on the NBC case, followed by the case presented by Mark Hatfield (not sure what the basis for that case is), and finally hearing the arguments by Taitz.
I wonder if these cases would be appealable to the federal courts.
Back in 2008 we didn't know who he was and had no time to vet him.
All of that has changed. I had a conversation with coworkers last week and explained Obama was born a dual citizen. My youngest daughter was also born a dual citizen. She was born before my wife naturalized. She is entitled to have two passports, just like Obama was entitled to have two passports.
Yesterday my wife and I decided we will get her papers done and get the second passport. She has full legal rights in her mothers home country. She can own property there. She can inherit property there. She can go to college there.
Many people don't understand the the US allows dual citizenship. We tend to think its not allowed, but it is.
Conversations like this are going on all over America. We need to inform out friends. A born dual citizen is not a natural born citizen. My daughter is an American citizen by birth. But she is also a foreign citizen by birth. She is not a natural born citizen.
This is good news if this is true. If one of these cases is based on the Minor definition of NBC, a compelling legal precedent from the nation's highest judicial authority, then it stands a chance of success. The farther Orly can be kept away, the better.
I am not a lawyer but the main federal discrimination statute is probably 42 U.S.C. 1981:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1981.html
Viz.:
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
I believe states can be sued along with officials such as the Secretary of State in both their individual and official capacities.
I imagine Obama, were he to be able to use this, would seek to show that the manner in which his case has been handled differently from white candidates for president. He could go on and on about Chester Arthur and other white historical candidates who did not win but who were either not challenged or whose challenges were dismissed. If he does, though, I wonder where that leaves the original NBC criteria question. Does a person who is not necessarily qualified for a job to begin with have to demonstrate that he is qualified if he loses a judgment along the way to disqualification, and has to appeal? Which takes precedence, the qualification question or evidently ancillary question of discrimination? Can Obama cite the statute on appeal or must he file a suit, in which case, how does he establish standing to sue (that is, if he were to file a suit, how would he establish that he is qualified to run for president, and avoid a presumably certain dismissal motion for lack of standing himself, and would the Georgia SoS even consider not filing a dismissal motion based on lack of standing for whatever reasons, apparent or hidden)?