Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by Pfesser
An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints....
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, ... Hatfield ... told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote....
He noted since Obama and his lawyer “failed to appear” and “failed to submit any evidence,” the determination by Malihi in the cases brought by his clients appears to be unsubstantiated.
Hatfield also explained that Malihi failed to decide the burden of proof.
“The defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional … If the defendant did, as plaintiffs contend, bear the burden of proof in these cases, then defendant can in no way be said to have satisfied his burden, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.”
He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.
While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that automatically conferred “natural born citizenship” on him, that “is an incorrect statement of the applicable law,” Hatfield said.
“The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett … is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen’ refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”
He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
From the judges decision:
“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”
The plaintiffs asked that the court decide solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence. They are the ones that shifted the burden of proof by asking the judge to decide purely on their evidence. The judge found their case without legal merit.
It would have been interesting if another plaintiff just challenged simply on the age requirement and nothing else.
The remedy to that would be easy - a certified, verified, on real security paper with a real seal BC - either flavor.
But they will not let those frauds into court. Or no real attorney would be caught presenting them in a court.
I wonder if Malihi ‘considers’ Obama over the age of 35 - since no evidence of even that requirement was presented.
I doubt there is any judge sitting who does not have family that he does not wish to see harmed. No judge is going to rule against the kenyan.
“But the law in this case says that the burden of Proof rested with Obama. It was up to him to prove that he was eligible.”
______
What law are you citing?
From the ruling I read, the plaintiffs were offered a default judgement when defendant blew off the subpoena but refused the victory and instead wanted the judge to rule on their evidence. The judge weighed their evidence and found it to be so weak that he found they had raised no authentic issues, ie. no reason for defense to answer such a weak accusation. This was stupid on plaintiff’s part. They had a victory in hand and threw it away.
Why do you keep claiming Obama is a naturalized citizen? If there was ANY evidence of that, he would be removed from office as ineligible.
Between the appeals on this case and the investigation report Sheriff Arpaio will release in 3-4 weeks, this is not over by a long shot.
Flick yer Bics, freepers!
Between the appeals on this case and the investigation report Sheriff Arpaio will release in 3-4 weeks, this is not over by a long shot.
Flick yer Bics, FReepers!
Okay, then here's my case: My great-grandfather immigrated from Italy 100 years ago. My grandfather was born here before my great grandfather became a US citizen. Under Italian law, Italian citizenship was passed to my grandfather, who never renounced it (since he didn't even know he had it), to my mother, and to me. If I come up with the documentation of that chain--birth records, marriage records, naturalization papers--I can get an Italian passport. So, I'm born in the US. My parents were born in the US. My grandparents were all born in the US. But under Italian law, I'm an Italian citizen. Are you saying that I'm not a natural born US citizen?
Okay, I know it's just WND, but worth putting in your files anyway.
Claims on Italian citizenship are only possibly valid for descendents down to the second degree. Your grandfather born in the U.S. could have inherited Italian citizenship from his Italian citizen father, and your mother could have inherited it from your grandfather, but you are past the second degree and are therefore ineligible.
More, here: Italian Governement: Citizenship FAQ
And here: Consulate General of Italy
Even a second degree descendent would have to serve in the Italian armed forces, become an employee of the Italian Government, or live in Italy for at least two years after reaching legal age to be eligible for Italian citizenship.
'Atsa' right.
D.C.
Who is entitled - categories
If you were born in the United States or a Country other than Italy you can be recognized an Italian citizen if any one of the categories listed below applies to you: 1) your father was an Italian citizen at the time of your birth and you never renounced your Italian citizenship;
2) your mother was an Italian citizen at the time of your birth, you were born after January 1, 1948, and you never renounced your Italian citizenship;
3) your father was born in the United States or a country other than Italy, your paternal grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of his birth, neither you nor your father ever renounced your the Italian citizenship.
Your mother was born in the United States or a country other than Italy, your maternal grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of her birth, you were born after January 1, 1948 and neither you nor your mother ever renounced your Italian citizenship;
4) your paternal or maternal grandfather was born in the United States or a country other than Italy, your paternal or maternal great grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of his birth, neither you nor your father or mother, or your grandfather ever renounced your/their Italian citizenship. Please note: a grandmother born before 1/1/1948 can claim Italian citizenship only from her father and can transfer it only to children born after 1/1/48.
Your grandfather naturalized as a U.S. citizen with his father. Naturalization as a U.S. citizen renounces any other citizenship.
Right. Obama has presented no proof of ANYTHING.
And how is somebody supposed to prove a negative? Of COURSE the burden of proof is on the candidate, just as Malihi implied when he told Obama that being an incumbent didn’t mean he didn’t have the requirement of being qualified. Being an incumbent doesn’t count as being qualified because a person can be incumbent without having proven anything, if nobody happened to challenge eligibility when they ran before.
Osama Bin Laden tries to get on the GA ballot. His pal, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) challenges it in court, presents an online image of a driver’s license for Bin Laden and says, “Bin Laden is ineligible because he’s over six feet tall!” The judge says it’s an irrelevant argument and therefore Bin Laden no longer has to prove that he’s eligible - and thus has to be eligible. Never mind that the driver’s license wasn’t valid and Bin Laden never presented anything that WAS valid to prove his eligibility. He’s off totally scott-free because his friend KSM biffed the court challenge.
Makes no sense at all, Harlan1196.
There is no way to shift the burden of proof when the LAW puts the burden of proof on the candidate. Regardless of what happens in the hearing, the candidate still has to prove eligibility BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE. Nothing those plaintiffs did has the power to change the law.
My grandfather was born in the United States and was always a citizen. He didn't naturalize, never had a green card, and was 23 years old when his father naturalized. Oh, by the way, that was a few months after my grandfather's brother was killed in Normandy. I guess to you he wasn't a citizen either when he died for this country.
Naturalization Oath
Maybe you can point to the part of your link that says your adult children are also naturalized by this oath.
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.