Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

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.

More proof Mr Rogers is not honest in these debates. He barked many times Vattel is limited to the Swiss. Mr Rogers must attack and discredit Vattel’s influence on the Founders to prop up his radical agenda.

“Professor Gilmore’s Notes on Vattel and the Constitution.”

“The expression “fixed constitution,” constantly used by James Otis and Samuel Adams, apparently derives from Emer de Vattel” The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition - Page 263

“This is the doctrine of Vattel. General Pinckney, in the South Carolina Convention, when this clause of the Constitution was under discussion, after quoting Vattel to this effect, goes on”

“Seventy years later, Vattel clearly distinguished between the constitution and the legislative power, which depended on the former and was inferior to it. Vattel wrote— as quoted by James Otis in 1764: “For the constitution of the state ..” Conceptual change and the Constitution/

“it is unquestionable that a Nation which finds its very constitution unsuited to it has the right to change it.”

“Vattel proposed that the nation, though a “whole people,” may act through “a majority of votes”

Federal union, modern world: the law of nations in an age of ... - Page 49

If repeating proven lies was a firing offense on FR there wouldn't be any birthers on this forum.

People may occasionally repeat something which is false, but that is not the same thing as lying. LYING is intentionally repeating something which is known to be false. If someone is demonstrated to be LYING, then they ought to suffer sanction for it. Making a mistake does not rise to that level of intent.

How about asking for a ruling about calling other freepers idiots, like you've been doing?

The Truth is always an appropriate defense. I can demonstrate on a preponderance of the evidence that anyone to whom I have referred as an idiot, most likely meets the vernacular definition of same.

To demonstrate my willingness to be diplomatic, I will agree to stop referring to people on your side as Idiots, (and the like) if they will stop saying ignorant sh*t. Deal? :)

Besides, your supposed "proven lie", isn't. It's the truth. Nothing you've dished up proves otherwise.

You must not have read my response clearly, else you have a comprehension problem. I did not say he was a liar. I said if he repeated that accusation after I have shown him proof that it is not true, I will thereafter call him a liar. As of the moment, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

We all make mistakes.

Here is what it says:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”...

Instead of relying on a misinterpretation, why not just go by what the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the object of the 14th Amendment was when specifically discussing the insertion of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause in the 14th Amendment during the Congressional debates?

That would be:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Congressional Globe

That's primary source FACT, right there. The Senate Judiciary Committee's website describes the crucial role the Committee played in the drafting of the 14th Amendment:
History of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

If anyone would know what was actually intended by the ratification of 14th Amendment, that would most definitely be Trumbull, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was specifically meant to EXCLUDE anyone owing allegiance to anybody else. Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth, a FACT already admitted to by the Democratic National Committee.

This is a 14th Amendment case in which they do cite WKA however, they distinguish native-born from native by the fact of the nationality of the parents at birth. Elg & Steinkauler were born to parents, after the parents had naturalized, thus the parents although former aliens were US citizens at the time of the child's birth and thus the children were born with a single allegiance. However, then the court goes on to define “jus soli” where a child is born a dual citizen and there is not mention of the presidency. Had the two been equal, there would have been no need to define the later dual citizen. Thus the court clearly is saying that the 14th does define A2, but then they fall into the ruse and purport that it also means something else. But the fact is, the lower court ruled that Elg was indeed a “natural born” citizen and the SCOTUS upheld that ruling thus upholding that the 14th does define A2 natural born citizen. Here is the short version, link provided for further reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Perkins v. Elg

No. 454

Argued February 3, 1939

Decided May 29, 1939*

307 U.S. 325
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.

In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States

Page 307 U. S. 330

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:

“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of

Page 307 U. S. 331

the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be ‘right reason,’ and I think it is law.”

Page 307 U. S. 350

(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

Kindly show where Vattel's idea that citizenship followed parentage alone held sway in the US. Oh...that is right. It doesn't.

"That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583...

...The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

“In his Droit des gens (1758) Vattel offered a clear definition of a constitution ...”

“The classic text that influenced the drafters of the American Constitution was de Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’”

From dual to cooperative federalism: the changing structure of ... - Page 114

“In one chapter of his book, “Nations or Sovereign States,” Mr. Vattel declared that, “Every Nation which governs itself,” Political Sovereignty: The Supreme Authority in the United States - Page 74

“St. George Tucker, in what became the early republic’s predominant text on the Constitution, applied Vattel’s arguments to the American case to make precisely these points.” Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century - Page 286

” The first passage to be quoted enumerates the essentials of a State or Nation stated in terms of Vattel, then and now a good ... is too plainly and expressly declared in the constitution” Judicial settlement of controversies between states of the ... - Page 106

Tell us again Mr Rogers how Vattel is limited to Swiss law.

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.