Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

http://english.pravda.ru ^ | February 6 2012 | Mark S. McGrew

[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.

[patlin]

correction: The 14th does define citizenship as BUT it was not a citizenship amendment in that it was passed to increase citizenship

[patlin]

correction: The 14th does define citizenship as BUT it was not a citizenship amendment in that it was NOTpassed as a way to forevermore create an increase citizenship

[patlin]

laziness is sure a HUGE trait amongst cut & pasters from obot sites

[bushpilot1]

Are the Obots getting to you?

[patlin]

while you're working up the strangth to actually read the entire Madison speech, here's some other reading that throws an earlier post of your off the rails

St. George Tucker (from his works: Tucker's Blackstone)

by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively

[devattel]

bushpilot1 said:

Tell us Mr Rogers why did the Founders borrow words from Vattel to place in the Preamble of the Constitution?.

De Vattel was a crackpot, correct? Just have Mr Rogers state how much of a crackpot Mr. Franklin was when he borrowed much of the Declaration of Independence from the Law of Nations in 1776.

Then again, Mr Rogers, like most people in the United States, assume the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, one which is meant morph into post-modernism by the will of the new world order...

[patlin]

The descendants of the original citizenry received citizenship as a matter of course.41 The new comers to America, the immigrants who came in after the founding generation, themselves gained citizenship, by means of naturalization under laws enacted by Congress. Children born to them after they became citizens gained citizenship at birth, again as a matter of course. But what about children born to these naturalized citizens before they became citizens, while they were yet aliens?

Here, the answer was provided, clearly and positively, by Congress, as in its first session it enacted the immigration and naturalization “Act of 1790”.42 Immigration and naturalization, as Rep. James Madison then put it, was not a right but rather a “privilege”. In context, “privilege” denoted that Congress might properly limit immigration and naturalization to persons of commitment, to one who “really meant to incorporate himself into our society” and of a character sufficient to add to the “wealth and strength of community”.43 Character as thus stated included republican virtues as opposed to the servile, class-ordered mentalities—the “sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments”—then associated with the old world.44

Upon showing character and commitment, by compliance with the terms of naturalization, immigrants became citizens. And so did children born to them before they were naturalized. The 1790 Act provided that upon naturalization all of their children “dwelling within the United States shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Notice, these children are not made citizens by means of jus soli: It mattered not whether these children had been born in the United States or abroad. Rather, citizenship was attuned to jus sanguines. It turned on the connection of their parents to the United States, that they had become United States citizens.

____________________________________________________________

41 As explained in a thoughtful opinion:

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution . . . was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. Minor v. Happensett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874). 42 Act of March 26, 1790, entitled An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, 1 Stat. 103. 43 I Annals of Cong. 1150 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834). 44 Id. at1156 (Rep. Sedgwick). Sedgwick later defined republican virtue as “habits of temperate discussion, patient reasoning, and a capacity of enduring contradiction.” 2 Annals at 571. Sedgwick also would exclude exploiters, those seeking short term gain without long-term commitment. Id. The whole debate was consistent with modern notions about political communities. As explained by Michael Walzer, “Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be . . . historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality 61 (1983).

[patlin]

No, the living constitution ranks are merely a bug to be crushed. What is bothering me is we are now 4 years later and the real issue that allowed Obama to get elected still remains & that is the usurpation of the 14th which was not an act to create a new path to citizenship, but to define the paths that were already in place via A1 & A2.

[patlin]

here's a hint, go find it for yourself ...

Madison: "Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”

[bushpilot1]

“Then this is a day of independence for all the Munchkins and their descendants!”

lol

[sometime lurker]

I had read the whole thing, more than once. The quote you pull out does not say what you claimed: “birth location had no bearing on Smith being a citizen of S.C.”

[sometime lurker]

Reread your Tucker quote, and then read the entire essay. The portion you quoted is under the heading "3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics." So it is about which laws were abrogated and which were not. It appears you would like to read it as saying they all were, but that's not what it says. What it actually says, simplified:

by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished...

meaning that laws which bound the colonies to England and the sovereign were abolished, as were all royal perogatives. No surprise on any of this. To continue

... and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively.

Summarized for you: every rule and statute that was founded on monarchy, or that was inconsistent with democracy, was no longer valid in the United States. Of course, if you read the next sentence

This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments...

it is all very obvious. This is the same essay another poster tried to use just a small piece of without reading the whole thing. See post #345, for the answer to that.

[sometime lurker]

You appear to have taken this from http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, and the writer acknowledges that he can't recall where he got it from. He thinks it might be Rogers V Bellei, but I can assure you it isn't, especially with this in the opinion:

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

. So can you give a citation?

Done for tonight.

[patlin]

The section is Tucker's appendix that defines the different types of laws. “jus commune” = common - "jus sanguinis" law WHILE “jus corona” = statute law = "jus soli" of the king and it is under the later that feudal law of English subjectship came about. That nasty slave law that made all born on British soil subjects/slaves to the king which was totally opposite of original English natural born. But God does have a way of correcting things, as per the kings declaratory statute of 1350, natural born was once again placed back on its common law "jus sanguinis" foundation, that of blood, not of soil.

England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929)

You see, if one actually takes time to read thoroughly & study thoroughly, one doesn't find themselves with their foot in their mouth because one knows that NOT all the states were founded by the Brits and thus not all the states held to British feudal “jus corona” law which Tucker also expounds on. So, how's that foot tasting?

[patlin]

The quote is from a book on the history of citizenship in Britain & the United States by a British lawyer who teaches at Oxford & Michigan.

I do not quote from Leo’s site here on freepers, however I have provide much research to Leo. The only time I quote from Leo is at my website where I always attribute & link to Leo's site that which I cross reference from his site. I also have never agreed with Leo on the WKA decision because he refused to see what was right in front of his face as lawyers tend to do. Gee, it only took him 4 yrs to figure out what I have known my whole life, that only a citizen can birth a citizen because aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of US citizenship therefore they can not pass to their child that which they are not subject to. It's called common sense which most lawyers put last rather than 1st.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. What you are not entitled to is the privilege of falsely accusing people of "this two citizen parent" so-called "requirement" is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet." after having been shown demonstrable proof that this is not true."

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"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."

Natural born citizens aren't made by any legislative act of man. They just are.

[MamaTexan]

if you read the rest of what you quoted

Actually, I've read Tucker - in its entirety.

-----

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.

This is from his first conclusion. It concerns the States, not the federal government, which was the subject of the discussion.

-----

If you read your own Tucker quote, you'll note that he is applying it to municipal law

True, but that municipal law operates only within the municipal sphere of the federal government...Washington D.C.

-----

and specifically excludes those cases where jurisdiction is given by the Constitution.

No, it specifically excludes those cases where jurisdiction is NOT given by the Constitution:
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.

-----

His final quote that I posted fully illustrated the federal government never had the authority to nationally operate on common law as was contended.

Nice try.

[philman_36]

Summarized for you: every rule and statute that was founded on monarchy, or that was inconsistent with democracy, was no longer valid in the United States.
That was common law and why natural law was what the FF used, right?
Natural law held sway over common law.

[philman_36]

He thinks it might be Rogers V Bellei, but I can assure you it isn't, especially with this in the opinion: We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

I can find that quote in Rogers V Bellei having just read it again the other day...
@ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (about 1/2 way down in "V")

The reach of congressional power in this area is readily apparent:
1. Over 70 years ago the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668 -671 (1898). The Court concluded that "naturalization by descent" was not a common-law concept but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. The statutes examined were 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1677); 7 Anne, c. 5, 3 (1708); 4 Geo. 2, c. 21 (1731); and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21 (1773). Later Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, referred to this "very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray" and observed "that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute . . . ." Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S., at 660 . He referred to the cited English statutes and stated, "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence."
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
Or just use your "find" function for "jus soli". It's the only return.