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 ...
Which only means that they never went into an Italian consulate and renounced their citizenship.
Here's another site that explains the documentation required:Italian Dual Citizenship
“uninterruptedly maintained”
In the US English language that is the adjective “born”.
A standard definition of “born” means having that charactistic “FROM BIRTH” - not “AT birth”.
The Italians may not drive cruise liners very well but the know what it takes to be a citizen.
But so did the founders.
a natural born Citizen could also be classified as a ‘natural Citizen’ and a ‘born Citizen’. Had the ‘term’ been something unique in the Consitution it would have been all capitalized - “Natural Born Citizen”. But it was not. So we merely need to look at the adjectives.
And ‘born’ means ‘from birth’.
When Obama left for Indonesia he was considered Indonesian - by the US. To leave Indonesia he had to be claimed by his father in 1971. So then he become Kenyan. But dear old dad was not taking him back to Kenya - so he is dumped on Grandma and Gramps. Who then dump him on Frank Marshall Davis for ‘mentoring’.
When he reaches majority he can reclaim his US citizenship - he did retain that right to reclaim it. But legally - he lost it during the Indonesia years. His namesake father was likely used to eliminate the Indonesia ties but that made him a Kenyan in 1971 or early 1972.
So he is not a ‘born Citizen’ since he failed to retain the citizenship ‘FROM birth’. And thus he is not a ‘natural born Citizen’.
Indonesia and 1971....the wormhole of Obama’s citizenship.
So guess what happens when a plaintiff rejects a default judgment and asks the judge to rule based purely on the merits of their arguments and evidence? The defendant is now out of the picture - he has no burden whatsoever. Their case now has to stand completely on its own - the defendant's case has already been judged.
So, in order to be a natural born citizen, and thus eligible to serve as President, you have to be able to trace your lineage back to an original citizen from 1776 (or 1788, if you want to go by ratification)??
How? Under what law did Obama lose his US citizenship by going to Indonesia?
Which only means that they never went into an Italian consulate and renounced their citizenship."
----------------
Incorrect
Italians have only been able to keep their Italian citizenship (in some but not all cases) when voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship since 1992. Your great-grandfather and grandfather naturalized way before that and consequently lost their Italian citizenship.
Since 15 August 1992 the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship no longer leads to automatic loss of Italian citizenship. Italian Government Citizenship FAQ
My grandfather, my mother and I didn't voluntarily acquire US citizenship. It was bestowed on us at birth.
Your great-grandfather and grandfather naturalized way before that and consequently lost their Italian citizenship.
Again, my grandfather never naturalized as a US citizen. He was born a US citizen, and his father's naturalization, when my grandfather was 23 years old, had no effect on his status in any way.
If what you are saying is true, then any candidate can get out of the requirement of the law by simply staging this scenario.
Nothing Obama or the plaintiffs did changes Georgia statute. The candidate MUST be qualified for the position he seeks.
The judge ruled sheerly on “judge’s knowledge” - without ANY EVIDENCE that Obama is qualified. There’s no way any plaintiff could prove a negative.
You try telling a cop, after he’s told you to get out your driver’s license and registration, that he has to prove that you don’t have a driver’s license or proof of registration, and see how far you get. Even take him to court, refuse to show up, and have the judge tell him that it’s now his burden to prove that you don’t have a driver’s license and registration.
It’s just plain absurd. If you’re gonna drive on the road it is your responsibility to be able to prove that you have a license. Nothing the cop does or doesn’t do changes that requirement for you. If your pal showed up and said, “Hey, I know he has a driver’s license because I saw an internet image of it” it wouldn’t change that you have a legal responsibility to be able to document the positive existence of your license.
The law itself is the bugger that will not allow the requirement to simply go away because of lawyerly pussy-footing around. Even if all the lawyers biffed everything, the law would still be the law. And it says that the candidate HAS TO BE QUALIFIED. There is no getting around that.
I think you’re just trying to waste my time. I know lawyers are real good about showing that blue isn’t really blue and truth isn’t really truth. It’s sophistry, a magical way of phenangling words so that “the candidate SHALL be qualified for the position he seeks” really means something else. But that whole piddling around bit just stinks to high heaven. The law means what it says and says what it means. And Malihi was very clear about what it meant when he denied Obama’s Motion to Dismiss: it meant that if Obama was going to be on the ballot he was going to have to qualify, without just claiming he had already done it when he hadn’t presented any legal evidence to anybody.
To this day he hasn’t presented any legal evidence to anybody and the law still says what it says and still means what it says.
How was your great-grandfather in the U.S. for more than 23 years before becoming a U.S. citizen?
And if your mother never applied for her Italian citizenship, she wasn't an Italian citizen - not to mention the fact that she probably never met the additional requirement of serving in the Italian armed forces, becoming an employee of the Italian Government, or living in Italy for two years after reaching legal age. There would have been no Italian citizenship for her to maintain.
He was a resident alien. He came to the US in 1913 and became a citizen in 1944, shortly after one of his sons was killed in Normandy. My grandfather was born in 1920.
And if your mother never applied for her Italian citizenship, she wasn't an Italian citizen...
I realize that you're trying to hang on to any thread here, but there's a wide variety of sources that say you're wrong.
Italian Citizenship from: MOTHER - GRANDFATHER - GREAT GRANDFATHERNothing there about my mother serving in the Italian army.Mother - Grandfather - Great Grandfather: Your maternal grandfather was born in your native country, your maternal great grandfather was an Italian citizen at the time of his birth, you were born after January 1st, 1948, and neither you nor your mother nor your grandfather ever renounced your right to Italian citizenship. If citizenship is acquired by birth in your country and you meet all these conditions, you qualify for Italian citizenship jure sanguinis"link
You don’t get it. Obama lost - the judge offered a default judgment. The plaintiffs rejected it.
Mr.Rogers:”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.”
There are criminals walking free in this world all the time. The reason they’re still walking free usually falls into a couple categories:
1. They have successfully eradicated or hidden any evidence to their crimes.
2. No one has the desire or will to bring them to justice.
3. They have enough power or wealth to avoid justice by manipulating the legal system or perhaps by intimidating possible witnesses to their crimes.
In the case of Obama, it seems that most all of the above apply.
It would be impossible to prove one is eligible as a natural born citizen if the citizenship status of the father is unknown. Thus, the burden of proof, which is on the one seeking office, could not be made. Not eligible.
Hague Convention.
US does allow parents to relinquish their children’s citizenship and when it is done it IS recognized by the US.
It is true that a child does not lose their RIGHT to reclaim this citizenship if they so choice when they reach majority. Indonesian law did not recogize dual citizens. When SAD marries Lolo Soetoro AND moves to Indonesia the Indonesian government considers her and her child citizens of Indonesia. With the 1965 marriage when Obama was only 3 years old and the action of removing Obama from her US passport in 1968 when he was only 6 or 7 SAD is admitting - he is not a US citizen.
She had to do that for his own safety in Indonesia. It was done in 1968 - right after her and Obama II moved to Indonesia.
Indonesian law allows for a child to renounce their citizenship when the child is adopted. One of those laws is when a natural father reclaims their natural son. And that is what happened in December 1971.
Getting back to 1961 in the records is likely difficult. It is likely difficult for the Hawaiian officials. Assuming Obama changed identity/guardianship/citizenship at various times the records are likely seal, spun and mutilated. The wormhole of 1971 probably results in sealed records - meaning no one has really seen the ‘original’ BC for a long, long time.
How does anything the plaintiffs did or didn’t do change whether Obama has qualified for the position he seeks? Either he’s qualified or he isn’t. No lawyer or judge can bargain away the people’s right to have a candidate who is actually eligible for the job. That right of the people is firmly anchored in Georgia’s statute and can’t be nullified by tricksy lawyerly garbage.
Obama has presented ZERO legal evidence of being qualified for the job. There is no way a judge can legally say he is qualified UNLESS THAT DECISION IS BASED ON “JUDGE’S KNOWLEDGE” - a decision based on something besides actual probative evidence.
The State Department (as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act) disagrees.
It doesn't matter if Indonesia recognizes dual citizenship, since U.S. law governs U.S. citizenship. Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies several ways that a U.S. citizen can lose citizenship. All of them require an intent on the part of the citizen to renounce citizenship, and most require that the citizen be at least 18 years old. The only way a minor citizen can lose citizenship is by making a formal declaration of renunciation.
But when you reject it and ask that the entire case be judged solely on the merits of your argument - not Obama’s defense but solely on the plaintiffs argument - then things like this happen. The only pertinent fact to determine eligibility was where Obama was born. When one defendant stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii and the other does not challenge that fact, then they have done Obama’s work for him. That is what stipulated means - that particular fact is accepted by the court as true.
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.