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 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 641-652 next last
To: bushpilot1

“US Supreme Court Justice Daniel directly quoting Vattel:”

Yes...quoting from the Dred Scott decision, which was overturned when the 14th Amendment was passed. Nice of you to notice that Vattel was used to support slavery.


361 posted on 02/07/2012 5:04:31 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; sometime lurker
The plaintiffs in the cases (aside from Orly) agreed that 0bama was born in Hawaii.

It looks to me like they were trying to establish who the Father was.

18 Q Showing the witness what has been marked for
19 identification as Plaintiff's 1. Are you familiar with that
20 document?
21 A Yes.
22 (The document referred to was
23 marked for identification as
24 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1.)
25 Q What is it?
1 A It's the birth certificate that I downloaded from
2 the WhiteHouse.gov website. It's a birth certificate
3 professed to be of Barack Hussein Obama II.
4 Q And do you see an item on line 8 -- I'm sorry,
5 excuse me -- on item 11. Can you read that?
6 A Yes, item 11 says the birthplace is Kenya, East
7 Africa.
8 Q And that's referring to --
9 A That is the birthplace of the father.

How is that agreeing "that 0bama was born in Hawaii".

Seen this?

@However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial.

362 posted on 02/07/2012 5:07:24 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
How is that agreeing "that 0bama was born in Hawaii".

He moved the document into evidence. He was intending to use it to show that Obama's father was not a citizen, but once the document is in evidence, it's in evidence, and the judge can use any part of that document to support a finding.

363 posted on 02/07/2012 5:12:59 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Even when nobody stated that it was "the real McCoy"?
The testimony was "...professed to be of Barack Hussein Obama II."
Since the Defendant didn't offer up the original document for comparison that was all that could be offered to the court.
364 posted on 02/07/2012 5:17:53 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Ridiculous logic twisting words to meet a desired radical outcome.

Birthers are radicals, and do not respond to reason or established law.

Madison clearly said that Congress needed to act, to better define citizenship.

Madison also said, clearly, that LOCATION of Birth was controlling in America.

(However, Madison would also, I am sure, agree that Congress had the right to establish rules for Censorship for those born on foreign soil to American parents.) James Madison, from the Floor of Congress, 22 May 1789 "It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony." --- Madison clearly states that Congress has the RIGHT to establish laws concerning Citizenship! http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives

365 posted on 02/07/2012 5:32:41 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker; Lurking Libertarian
From Hatfield's Response...
Simply put, a review of the record in my clients' above -captioned cases reveals no evidence of Defendant's place of birth and no evidence of Defendant's mother's citizenship at the time of Defendant's birth. My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of Defendant Obama's purported birth certificate in these cases.
366 posted on 02/07/2012 5:37:38 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
DL wont care, but you might:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives

It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that, colony.”

James Madison, in a speech from the floor of Congress, 22 May 1789.

367 posted on 02/07/2012 5:44:55 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
True. But this was an administrative hearing to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The SOS can't rule that Obama is on the ballot as to some plaintiffs but not as to others; Obama is either on the ballot or not. In making his recommendation to Kemp, Malihi was entitled to consider all of the evidence before him.

If you notice, in Kemp's order accepting Malihi's recommendation, Kemp specifically rules that the 3 cases are consolidated. Kemp was obviously aware of this issue and wanted to protect himself from judicial reversal.

368 posted on 02/07/2012 5:47:56 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; sometime lurker; tablelamp
A running meme or setting the tone of the debate? Who knows.

@Irion and Hatfield conceded that he was born in Hawaii because the Minor 2 citizen parent theory is based on being born in the US. February 04, 2012

369 posted on 02/07/2012 5:55:04 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
If you notice, in Kemp's order accepting Malihi's recommendation, Kemp specifically rules that the 3 cases are consolidated. Kemp was obviously aware of this issue and wanted to protect himself from judicial reversal.
Well let's just look at that footnote...
Judge Michael Malihi previously consolidated the above-captioned challenges for the purpose of issuing his initial decision. Those candidate challenges remain consolidated for the purpose of issuing this Final Decision.

And Hatfield responded to that problem...

...I am writing to respectfully point out several significant flaws in Judge Malihi's findings and conclusions.
Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.
The adverse impact upon my clients of Judge Malihi's erroneous issuance of a single "Decision" as to all Plaintiffs is which were "considered" by Judge Malihi ("Decision," p. 6). Specifically, Judge Malihi found as "fact": 1) that Defendant Obama was born in the United States; and 2) that Defendant Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of Defendant's birth. Both of these "facts" found by Judge Malihi constitute a second significant flaw in the judge's ruling and serve as the stated factual basis for his erroneous conclusion that Defendant Obama is eligible for the presidency.

370 posted on 02/07/2012 6:09:14 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Absolutely - I have quoted this for DL and others many times. They just don’t want to accept it.


371 posted on 02/07/2012 6:39:43 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker; Kansas58
I have quoted this for DL and others many times. They just don’t want to accept it

We don't accept it because time & time again we have posted the "rest" of this long speech of Madison which shows what you post is taken out of context in order to support your flawed theory. Madison went on to state that is was because of Smith's parents membership/allegiance to the society that gave Smith his membership/allegiance to that soceity. According to Madison, birth location had no bearing on Smith being a citizen of S.C.

372 posted on 02/07/2012 6:52:31 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: patlin; sometime lurker
First, the Citizenship status in the case in question was only a secondary reason for my original posting of this quote.

My primary intent was to show that James Madison, Father of the Constitution, clearly believed that the US Congress and the States (prior to the 14th) COULD pass legislation concerning all forms of Citizenship.

This case is GREAT for that purpose, as Madison CLEARLY states that more legislative guidance is needed, in a case that you radical Birthers clearly accept as a case of NBC!

Birthers have questioned my honesty and attribution frequently. Now, YOU seem to stipulate its veracity but challenge its meaning.

Now, to YOUR argument, which I was not making in the main here: Madison clearly states that the birth to two Citizens was NOT necessary to note, but that this WAS the claim of the person involved in this matter.

You lost, on this one.

You lost badly.

373 posted on 02/07/2012 7:05:52 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: patlin
According to Madison, birth location had no bearing on Smith being a citizen of S.C.

Can you point out exactly where in the speech Madison said precisely that?

374 posted on 02/07/2012 7:11:03 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The translator of the 1797 edition was? When did he pass away?

Was the translator in the colonies? Did the translator meet any of the Founders? John Jay, Jefferson, Franklin?

The manuscript was not completed in 1797..how could it? The translator died years earlier.


375 posted on 02/07/2012 7:27:28 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Mr Rogers the slavery issue has nothing to do with this debate.

Keep the debate to Vattel and natural born citizen. Get out of the weeds.


376 posted on 02/07/2012 7:32:32 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
My primary intent was to show that James Madison, Father of the Constitution, clearly believed that the US Congress and the States (prior to the 14th) COULD pass legislation concerning all forms of Citizenship

Prior to 1790, the states alone held all power over citizenship, born & naturalized. After the Constitution was ratified, the core power of naturalization was held by the US congress however, states were free to loosen the laws, they could not however make them stricter, thus some states allowed for aliens to naturalize sooner than the guidelines set forth by the US Congress. Smith's citizenship was determined prior to the 1790 when the 1st federal law of immigration & naturalization was passed, thus the US constitution had no power over his citizenship.

Also, Madison was “one” man and he did not write the constitution. If you want to really know the history behind US Constitution & citizenship, you need to study James Wilson as he actually penned the Declaration and was on the committee that drafted the final copy of the Constitution. And while Madison may have been important, he did not have the legal background of James Wilson who was appointed to the 1st Supreme court & who founded the 1st “American” law school in Pennsylvania.

377 posted on 02/07/2012 8:49:11 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Where your quote ends, keep reading the congressional record of Madison’s speech by actually continuing onto the next page. It will slap you in the face when you reach it.


378 posted on 02/07/2012 8:51:45 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Don’t evade. I repeat, point out where in the speech he says “birth location had no bearing on Smith being a citizen of S.C.”


379 posted on 02/07/2012 8:55:49 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; Mr Rogers
bush, actually the 14th has everything to do with slavery and protecting the rights of the freed slaves in that the states could no longer deny them citizenship. The 14th does define citizenship as it was not a citizenship amendment in that it was passed to increase citizenship. It is at it's core a protect amendment and thus the reason the courts have usurped it beyond belief to create protections for non god given rights that it was never meant to protect. Membership in society is a God given right as no man can exist on his own.

Thus, you are beating a dead horse with Vattel. Vattel was only one source that supported natural law, but if you read the congressional records, others such as Locke who also wrote on natural law was far more influential. That & the fact that the meaning of “natural born” as it was at the core of English law, prior to the king expanding it with his feudal law, is exactly the same as Locke's, Vattel’s & all the other writers of natural law of nations that Congress used for reference.

380 posted on 02/07/2012 9:06:03 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 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