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.

[philman_36]

Following my rabbit down the hole... @On the Legal Obligations of Illegal Aliens
In my (perpetually-ongoing) research regarding the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,[1] I came across this interesting tidbit from one of my intellectual antagonists:[Birthright] citizenship [under the Citizenship Clause] is reserved for those of a sufficient affiliation with the nation, which case law to date has identified as those born to citizens or to immigrants lawfully and permanently residing within the United States. The same as citizens, the latter pay taxes, are subject to military service, and are under a duty of loyalty. These commitments being the case, it is fair that these persons gain birthright citizenship.[2]
(emphasis in the original)

[2] William Ty Mayton, Birthright Citizenship and the Civic Minimum, 22 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 221, 253-254 (2008) (footnotes omitted). Similar assertions have been made on the floor of Congress. See, e.g., 153 Cong. Rec. H2287 (daily ed. Mar. 7, 2007) (statement of Rep. Bilray) (“The subject to the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment does not only mean that you can be arrested. It means that you must, according to the common law, be totally obligated. You must be able to be tried for treason and be forced into the military.”).

Somebody seems to have found his work somewhere. Maybe it's a "pay for" article.
Having read the article from which the above is excerpted, I consider his interpretation of the Citizenship Clause to be incorrect, but I won’t get into that now.

[philman_36]

By researching “out of the box” that’s how.
You're slaying me! LOL

[DiogenesLamp]

“Vattel was written in French”

True enough, and he never used the French term for NBC, which was ‘sujets natural’...

It took a bad translation made 10 years after the Constitution for anyone to find NBC in Vattel.

I will assume your comment is the result of ignorance rather than a willful attempt to mislead. I will set you straight on this. The following is a partial text of a translation from French to English which was written in 1781. (6 years before the convention.) I direct your attention to Article III in both the French and English text. Note the translation of "sujets naturels" is "natural born subjects."

Now let us have enough of hearing this false claim.

[patlin]

I wonder how long it will take lurker to come back with a rejection of the use in the quote of “international law”?

What they fail to understand & why the lawyers have all failed is because a Republic is a type of government whose foundation must be based on international law in order for the states to maintain their individual sovereignty. The federal govt was formed to promote ease of movement between these individual sovereign states and thus international laws common to all were needed. Thus the reason the founders left to the states the right to determine their born citizenry, but to keep rif-raf from entering the country to plunder the citizenry, as well as put in place that which would eventually bring about an end to the slave trade, they set forth the guidelines for immigration.

I oft think of the quotes from the founders where in they say, if you do not like the laws of the state you are in or if that state does not fit your economic needs, you have the right to move to a state that is more suitable for your needs & happiness. Well, where can we really go now? I see no difference as every state is now subject to the federal govt rather than it being the other way around. And thus through the dumbing down of citizenship by “fiat” law or by just plain ignoring the law, we truly are a nation without borders and the states are merely states in name only as Justice Field in the WKA warned us would happen because of the usurped phrase in the 14th that some purport to mean that the federal govt has authority over the states in ALL citizenship matters and that all citizens are US citizens 1st & state 2nd.

“are citizens of the United States & of the state wherein they reside”

The fact is, the founders simply never ventured into the area of birth as it was common law of all nations(international law) set forth by God, that children follow the nationality of the father.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

The document was entered into evidence under the taint of forgery. The Judge should not be able to rule that a print out of an image file is legitimate proof of anything. This is nonsensical. If this was the standard of proof allowed, someone should have trotted out one of those Kenyan birth certificates floating around on the net.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ridiculous

That is an apt description of ANY conversation with you. I have NO respect for you. I consider you to be a childish fool, and I will not waste my time pondering anything you write. My first impression of you was that of an ignorant loud mouth, and you have written nothing subsequently to convince me (and I suspect a lot of other people) otherwise.

Go bark at the moon.

[philman_36]

That paper is very popular and is cited in many modern books & law reviews on the history of citizenship
Well since I can't seem to find it online, and even though I see numerous instances of it in footnotes, I have to ask...how does it read? Good, bad...trash can liner?

On to other things...
Therefore, as Supreme Court Justice Waite, in Minor v Happersett, as well as Justice Grey, in Elk v Wilkins concluded, there are but two paths the citizenship, either by birth or by statute. Children who are born to an alien father/mother on US soil, are citizens by statute, not by birth.
I completely agree with your second sentence. USC 8 (statute) governs aliens and naturalization.

So here is where you need to lead me by the hand...
If birth and statute are the "only" two ways to citizenship then where does the 14th Amendment fall? It's not a "statute" as it's an amendment to the Constitution.
Why did even Justice Waite have to first consider whether or not Minor fell under that amendment in ascertaining her citizenship status?
Is it that the principle of "jus solis" alone is the determining factor in order for the 14th Amendment to apply?

[patlin]

It's amazing how much more the Brits(at least the intellectually honest ones) know about American history, especially in the area of citizenship. Now if the intellectually dishonest American ones would just take a moment to realize that one can not understand the minds of the founding fathers without first understanding their heritage, ie, the foundation of England as well as the individual settlements & colonies of America, then maybe they wouldn't remain in ignorance.

I am a descendant of the revolution, therefore the history of America is deeply seeded in my blood. My relatives that fought in the revolution were not only British, but also French who came & settled in America over a 100 years before the revolution. Thus those who claim that America's original founding is British, are speaking out of ignorance. Thankfully we have founders like St. George Tucker who preserved this knowledge even though his works are also totally usurped.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

And this is why I absolutely cannot stand YOU! Here you are, like a dog with a dead bird in it's mouth, wanting to come and drop it in your masters lap as though it were a present, all the while oblivious to the fact that it has been beaten to death, and he doesn't need it.

There is not a single person arguing this issue on this thread who is not aware of this cite, yet you come into this discussion with your pathetic little arguments and pretend to know what you are talking about. You have come to a gun fight with a squirt gun! Everyone else in this thread is leagues ahead of you in both knowledge and wisdom. Sometime Lurker is VERY WELL Familiar with James Madison's defense of William Smith.

Again, YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD THAT IS OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT THIS!

You are like the little child that brings a checkers game to a Chess tournament and wonders why no one wants to play with you. You make up for in persistence and LOUDNESS what you lack in knowledge and understanding. Your opinion is not worthy of consideration by anyone in this forum. SHUT UP! GROW UP! Come back when you are more knowledgeable and less stupid.

Sometime Lurker, I'm glad this guy is on your side. Were he on mine, I would have to frag him myself. He is like YOUR version of Orly Taitz!

[philman_36]

Some text for you...@Flores-Villar v. United States (09-5801)

I found this...interesting. (emphasis not in the original)

The United States counters this argument by focusing on the validity of the gender classification as it relates to the substantial government interest in reducing the risk of statelessness—the primary interest Congress sought to advance through the differential statutory scheme. The United States adds that both parties agree that statelessness is an abhorrent condition that renders individuals vulnerable and without legal rights. The United States notes that traditionally, the United States applies a jus soli standard of citizenship, while many foreign countries apply a jus sanguinis standard. According to the United States, the issue of statelessness arises when a person is born in a jus sanguinis country, yet is unable to obtain citizenship because most jus sanguinis countries will ignore maternal transmission of citizenship if the father legitimates his parental relationship to the child. In addition, the United States contends that the legislative history of Sections 1401 and 1409 demonstrates that Congress was primarily motivated by statelessness concerns in creating differential residency requirements for men and women.

Snip...

The United States claims that Congress could have eliminated the possibility of statelessness by enacting a jus sanguinis law to supplement the Fourteenth Amendment’s jus soli rule, but specifically chose not to do so. The United States notes that Congress, in formulating the residency requirement, was reconciling competing interests of preventing statelessness and ensuring that foreign-born children with parents of differing citizenships have sufficient ties to the United States to merit citizenship. Thus, the United States contends that Congress balanced these interests while recognizing that children of unwed mothers were more susceptible to statelessness than all other citizen parents. Moreover, the United States posits that unwed mothers and unwed fathers are not similarly situated because the mother is the only parent able to transmit citizenship upon birth in jus sanguinis countries, and is thereby subject to greater risk of statelessness if non-citizen father legitimates his relationship to the child In addition, the United States contends that the balance Congress struck is rationally related to the unique statelessness risk faced by unwed mothers, and this legal reality demonstrates that unwed mothers and unwed fathers are not similarly situated.

What was that I posted again?
Judgment: Affirmed by an equally divided Court on June 13, 2011. (Kagan, J., recused).

[TheOldLady]

Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono

Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!

Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

[DiogenesLamp]

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

It doesn't prove what you want it to prove. Prior to 1776, all the States were British Colonies. That is the time period to which Madison is referring. He also says that Had South Carolina had a law which defined Citizenship more clearly, there would have been no need for the congress to ponder the question.

This is tacit acknowledgement that a Positive Law will override the "Common Law", though it cannot override "natural law." (as described by Locke, Grotius, Puffendorf and Vattel.)

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Indeed, Madison's very next words are an appeal to jus sanguinus.

Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that, colony."

[philman_36]

@Flores-Villar v. United States (09-5801)
Question presented
Whether the court’s decision in Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), permits gender discrimination that has no biological basis?

I guess I should have posted that in my other reply with the text I placed.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think this part needs to be emphasized in the context of this discussion. From St. George Tucker:

...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

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s great stuff. Do you have a reference link?

[aruanan]

...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

You emphasized the wrong parts. That is, you're overlooking the 3 operative phrases, without which your emphasis becomes a pretty good example of the fallacy of emphasis.:

...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, [1] founded on the nature of regal government, [2] in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, [3] 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

This means that all rules of common law and statutes of England that do not fall afoul of these three qualifications were not absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively.

[Mr Rogers]

“Now let us have enough of hearing this false claim.”

Not false. It was one of your birther buddies who posted a translation made of French documents for both English and American use, AFTER the Constitution (which your translation was NOT), and it showed the British translation was NBS, and the American one was NBC.

At the time you discussed (1781), prior to the US Constitution, NBS was pretty much it.

That, of course, was true of VATTEL as well, writing in the 1750s. Since NBC did not exist at the time Vattel wrote - there being no USA or US citizens, Vattel could have, at best, written about NBS - which would have been, as you admit, ‘sujets naturel’.

But Vattel did NOT use the phrase, which defined citizenship in England and the Colonies. A correct translation of Vattel would be, as in the prior translations, “the native, or indigenous”.

“naturel” and “indigenes” do not translate NBC or NBS.

[philman_36]

The United States claims that Congress could have eliminated the possibility of statelessness by enacting a jus sanguinis law to supplement the Fourteenth Amendment’s jus soli rule, but specifically chose not to do so.

Did I answer my own question?
@Is it that the principle of "jus solis" alone is the determining factor in order for the 14th Amendment to apply?

[DiogenesLamp]

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...

... 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.

It is the contention of our side that characteristics of British Subjectude, such as perpetual allegiance and jus soli claims by a nation, are manifestations of Monarchical and Fuedal law, and are exactly what Madison referred to as anti-republican doctrines. Therefore, they are that part of English Common law which was rejected by the creation of our government and the principles of our founders.

As I have mentioned before, if you wish to claim people as servants, jus soli works great for adding to your labor force, but it is unsuitable for granting citizenship in a country based on the principles of freedom, as anchor babies and birth tourism aptly demonstrate.

Again, it is our contention that an exclusive jus soli interpretation of citizenship is one of those Monarchical left-overs (founded on the nature of regal government) which was swept away by the creation of our nation.