Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor
http://english.pravda.ru ^ | February 6 2012 | Mark S. McGrew

Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45

Friday, February 3, 2012, for some kind of a bribe or because he was threatened, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi sold out his country and defecated on the constitution of The United States of America.

As an Administrative law judge in the State of Georgia, a case was presented to him to have Barack Obama removed from the ballot to run for President in the State of Georgia.

His actions have set precedence in American law that if a person is charged with a crime, the best defense, is to not show up for court. Law schools may now offer a course in "The Obama Defense".

Three separate legal teams presented evidence and witnesses to show that Obama is not eligible to run for President because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama produced no evidence, no witnesses and both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so.

Forget about what we think, whether he is, or is not a natural born citizen. Opinions don't count. Only evidence and witnesses count. But we're not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have.

Judge Michael Malihi violated a basic rule of legal interpretation in his ruling. He violated our earliest Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Constitution. He ignored evidence. He ignored witnesses. He ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the term "natural born citizen" means, one who is born in America to two American citizen parents.

As attorney Leo Donofrio points out on his website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

"...this Court is 'not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.' ...There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father's British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948.

All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot."

It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the constitution and legal precedent. He knows he's a crook. He knows he's a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.

He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.

(Excerpt)


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: naturalborncitizen; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 641-652 next last
To: Kansas58

It’s clearly established Obama meets the definition of an unnatural born citizen.


121 posted on 02/06/2012 8:34:47 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
It DOES NOT MATTER what any SCOTUS ruling says, if said ruling was based on the citizenship requirements in place at that time, and those requirements were later altered by Congress -—

Since Congress can only enact legislation pertaining to naturalization, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...), how could Congress pass legislation concerning a natural born citizen and then alter that legislation later, as you state, when it was never empowered to do so?

Aren't those "altered requirements" you're talking about merely changes to legislation previously enacted by Congress?

122 posted on 02/06/2012 8:37:52 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Why did the US government cite Vattel’s chapter 212 in the WKA brief to the US Supreme Court?


123 posted on 02/06/2012 8:40:12 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You are clearly wrong on the law.

Congress DOES have the authority, through Legislation, to alter or change citizenship rules for Natural Born as well as Naturalized Citizens.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, clearly said so, and I have posted his statement to this thread at least twice, already.

Since Citizenship rules were vague, at best, it was necessary for Congress to define the rules for Naturalization as well as for Natural Born Citizens.

The primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, said that Congress had such power.

That is good enough for me.

124 posted on 02/06/2012 8:45:11 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
What does natural mean?? Photobucket
125 posted on 02/06/2012 8:45:15 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You lose this. Photobucket
126 posted on 02/06/2012 8:47:29 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
what does natural mean in natural born citizen???? Photobucket
127 posted on 02/06/2012 8:48:49 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Who cares?
It does not matter, as Vattel no longer controls the law on these issues.
As Madison stated, clearly, Congress had the authority to enact and change laws concerning citizenship.
Congress HAS changed the laws on citizenship, several times, since WKA was decided.
At the time of that antiquated MOOT ruling, there was little other guidance for the Court.
Now, there is, in the form of Congressional Legislation.

The rules to obtain Citizenship at Birth have changed over time. Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth and NOTHING else!

128 posted on 02/06/2012 8:49:38 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
First off, my apologies for earlier. Nobody likes being played the fool and too many folks have done just that with "Internet documents" in the past. I wouldn't put it past somebody to attribute something to any of the lawyers involved that they didn't write.

Having said that, beyond a few things like typos and poor word choice I would say it was pretty concise.
I don't think it'll change much, but who knows. I expect the response will be that the things she mentioned would be considered in the review process and that she will be notified later on the conclusion reached.

I'm not a lawyer and have never played one on TV either so your mileage may vary.

I did rather like her asking about how Malihi could use Ankeny when it was never presented.

129 posted on 02/06/2012 8:50:59 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
What does natural mean.. Photobucket
130 posted on 02/06/2012 8:54:52 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

What does: “YOU WILL NEVER WIN A COURT CASE” mean?


131 posted on 02/06/2012 8:56:52 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Apology accepted; I can certainly respect verifying the facts.

I have a feeling this could be a repeat of the Judge Land situation. Orly insulting the court in her appeal isn’t a great way to go, but I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure of the consequences.


132 posted on 02/06/2012 8:58:41 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Congress DOES have the authority, through Legislation, to alter or change citizenship rules for Natural Born as well as Naturalized Citizens.
Then from whence does such authority derive?
In other words, what specific Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power, much less the authority, to perform this function?
It obviously isn't Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, since that pertains to naturalization, so where does Congress get the authority you claim it has?

Since you've learned to link it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide support for your conclusions.

133 posted on 02/06/2012 8:59:12 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

James Madison says that Congress has such power.

That is good enough for me, as Madison WROTE THE CONSTITUTION!


134 posted on 02/06/2012 9:01:28 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Tell us what natural meant several hundred years ago..I will give you a clue.. Photobucket
135 posted on 02/06/2012 9:02:01 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Madison said the law of nations is a part of our laws...Madison placed Vattel’s Law of nations is the Constitution.

Obama as an unnatural born citizen violates the law of nations and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in 2004 said Vattel’s Law of Nations has been a part of our law over 200 years.

Daniel Webster said the same and he directly referenced Vattel.


136 posted on 02/06/2012 9:08:21 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Madison said the law of nations is a part of our laws...Madison placed Vattel’s Law of Nations in the Constitution.

Obama as an unnatural born citizen violates the law of nations and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in 2004 said Vattel’s Law of Nations has been a part of our law over 200 years.

Daniel Webster said the same and he directly referenced Vattel.


137 posted on 02/06/2012 9:08:45 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Can you give me a link to the Expatriation Act of 1868?


138 posted on 02/06/2012 9:09:51 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I have encountered crooked, biased, and prejudiced judges. Not any personal effects but observations in the course of employment. As such I have reason to believe judges can err if not unintentional and/or be crooked by purpose. Today most judges come from the ranks of lawyers and I’m not the only person in the USA who put lawyers at the bottom of the integrity pole.


139 posted on 02/06/2012 9:10:18 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Then from whence does such authority derive? ... Since you've learned to link it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide support for your conclusions

I'll be interested to see that link also, where man has the authority to change that which God created ... the "natural" increase of any given society.

140 posted on 02/06/2012 9:11:22 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 641-652 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson