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)
Courtesy of @http://obamaballotchallenge.com/atlantaobama-eligibility-hearing-transcripts
Not from the Decision as was tried earlier by somebody else.
What`s that ports analogy or colloquialism I`m searching for...
Oh yeah, Skunk or, Skunk Rule.
FR needs a skunk rule to allow topic posters to delete comment posts by those who`ve been intellectually eviscerated yet persist in wanting to post last thinking that counts as a victory.
Sad to see the penumbra emanations trolls continue to ignore all the facts and cling to their manufactured propositions like the blind man touching the elephant`s tail and screaming at us because we can never accept his premise it is a mouse.
Like a terminal cancer patient there comes a point where there`s nothing one can do for them.
I find one instance of Hawaii.
2 A This is the divorce records for Stanley Ann Dunham
3 and Barack Obama, Sr.
4 (The document referred to was
5 marked for identification as
6 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 4.)
7 Q Those were from the State of Hawaii?
8 A Yes, they were.
I find no returns for Hawaii.
The plaintiffs in the cases (aside from Orly) agreed that 0bama was born in Hawaii.
I guess you're just going to have to point it out to me.
That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.and earlier:
We may fairly infer from all that has been said that the common law of England stands precisely upon the same footing in the federal government, and courts of the United States, as such, as the civil and ecclesiastical laws stand upon in England: That is to say, it’s maxims and rules of proceeding are to be adhered to, whenever the written law is silent, in cases of a similar, or analogous nature, the cognizance whereof is by the constitution vested in the federal courts; it may govern and direct the course of proceeding, in such cases, but cannot give jurisdiction in any case, where jurisdiction is not expressly given by the constitution.If you read your own Tucker quote, you'll note that he is applying it to municipal law, and specifically excludes those cases where jurisdiction is given by the Constitution. Nice try.
My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet.YSo you now claim to have established conclusively that the letter was by James Madison? Your proof?
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.is followed by
The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens.and from the original case Benny v Obrien:
Allan Benny, whose parents were domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power...Therefore Allan Benny is a citizen of the United States in virtue of his birth here of alien parents, who, at the time of his birth, were domiciled in this country.”
I guess you're just going to have to point it out to me.
Don't worry, I'll still be waiting for you.
Will do. Later.
"The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment [to the Act] so as to make citizens of all people born in the United States who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens;' but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer."
Welden, pages 5-6. Welden moved the internet scan of Obama's birth certificate into evidence. Once it was in evidence, all of it was in evidence.
Yes. However, the rules of punctuation have changed in the last 200 years.
The same way the Sun rises in the East every morning, in spite of what positive law requires or prohibits. A person is either alive or dead, a natural citizen or not, regardless of the law.
“Chief Justice Fuller quoting Vattel:”
That would be here, in the DISSENT of WKA:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
Yes, the LOSING side quoted Vattel even then...
Got it. Thanks LL.
“Vattel was written in French”
True enough, and he never used the French term for NBC, which was ‘sujets natural’...
It took a bad translation made 10 years after the Constitution for anyone to find NBC in Vattel.
Might be my error, as I can prove it was one of the other plaintiffs, but I’m not sure if it’s both. On the linked cases, see Welden exhibit #1, “Birth certificate, Barack Obama II”. By entering it in evidence and not contesting it, the plaintiff was agreeing to its validity. The second case, Farrar, apparently used the divorce decree to show BHO sr. wasn’t a citizen. I don’t have time right now to check the decree and see if it has a birthplace on it, so I may be wrong about that case. (If so, Mea Culpa on both, but I stand by one stipulation.)
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.