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]

...a pretty good example of the fallacy of emphasis.:...
Would you say that my use of emphasis at reply 450 was a good or bad example of proper emphasis?

[Rides3]

...and from the original case Benny v Obrien:

Allan Benny, whose parents were domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power...Therefore Allan Benny is a citizen of the United States in virtue of his birth here of alien parents, who, at the time of his birth, were domiciled in this country.”

Obama's father was not domiciled in the U.S. His passport and immigration records always listed his domicile as a foreign country. For example, I can physically BE in London, Paris, Beijing, etc., but my domicile would still be the U.S., as listed on my passport and visa(s), as applicable.

[philman_36]

...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

Your snippet comes from @Tucker's Blackstone: Note E
OF THE UNWRITTEN, OR COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND; AND ITS INTRODUCTION INTO, AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE UNITED AMERICAN STATES.

The whole paragraph...

And here we may premise, that 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, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, 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. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.
And then there are the conclusions... From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:
First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; 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.
Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.
Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.
Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.
Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.

Snippets don't cut it.

[aruanan]

That looks pretty good. It’s not emphasizing certain words, which, taken alone, convey a meaning different from the one conveyed by the sentence as a whole.

[philman_36]

That looks pretty good.
Thank you.

[patlin]

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?

I'll come back to that later

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?

Let's start by 1st addressing what the 14th Amendment was drafted for by going to the end of the 1st clause of it:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Does the above say anything about increasing the citizenry? NO. What it tells us is that the rights of those born or naturalized, and both who are equally subject to the political jurisdiction(laws of citizenship) are not to be deprived of the freedoms that come with that citizenship. Thus the 14th is not a law for creating citizens, it is a law to protect the rights of the already existing citizens as defined by A1(naturalized) & A2(born). The opening statement is merely a declaratory statement in regards to who the 14th is meant to protect.

Why did Justice Waite have to first consider whether or not Minor fell under that amendment in ascertaining her citizenship status?

Here is the quote from Waite's opinion:

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position...

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself, we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” ...

that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of

Page 88 U. S. 167

friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever ...

Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”[end quote]

From here Waite goes back to A1 & A2 of the Constitution because it was never questioned who the citizenry of the US was, but there was a dispute as to how it applied to the states. Some states allowed women to vote, some did not. Some states allowed blacks to vote and some did not. The reason being, the states were given constitutional power over all aspects of voting, including determining who could vote & who couldn't.

But what was the real crux of the Minor case? It was a 14th Amendment rights, not citizenship case. There was no doubt that Minor was a citizen and Justice Waite walked that out very meticulously via his expounding on A1 & A2. But the crux of the case fell on the plaintiff claiming that the 14th gave her the right to vote. Minor claimed that since she was not allowed to vote, then that meant she was being denied her right citizen. But alas, voting was not a right under the US Constitution.

One must also keep in the forefront of their minds that this was the beginning of the socialist progressive women's lib movement that would eventually lead to the decay of the family as one unit that we are faced with today. This socialist movement brought forth the 19th amendment which I personally feel needs to be abolished because it is a tool by which societies are destroyed rather than held together. Justice Wilson in his commentaries expounds on the importance of elections and how the character and knowledge of a voter either keeps a nation together or tears it apart and how a house divided is not a stable foundation in order to keep a nation united.

Thus did the court have to determine if Minor was a U.S. citizen according the the U.S. Constitution in order to make a determination of 14th Amendment rights, yes. And the court decided correctly by going to the parts of the Constitution that the 14th defines. The court then went on and ruled according to the 14th, that suffrage was not a Constitutional right protected by the 14th Amendment, thereby leaving in tact the intent of the founders of the 14th as it was meant to be. A protection Amendment, not an amendment to create an increase in citizenship by creating a new class of citizens. Born & naturalized were put in the 14th to declare what persons under A1 & A2 the US constitution is bound to protect and what those protections are which are life, liberty & property. It is merely an amendment that directly points us back to the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Zman516]

First Hillary defiled justice by “not remembering”...and got away with it.

Now the Kenyan takes it to the ultimate desecration of justice by not even showing up...and winning.

Corrupt courts indeed.

[DiogenesLamp]

Prior to November '08, there are thousands of posts on this forum discussing Obama as being born in Kenya and not more than 2 or 3 total disqualifying Obama on the basis of his father (and these posts generated little if any further discussion). This argument didn't take off until Donofrio created it. Suddenly, you all knew this all along and, in fact, learned it in civics class! Nobody discussed it prior to November '08? Why is that? Obama's narrative had been well-known since he entered the political scene yet it was all but ignored on this forum until Donofrio made it an issue after the election.

I'm not sure whether I have explained this to you or not. To me, the answer is so obvious that an explanation ought not be necessary, but I take it for granted that not everyone has my powers of astuteness and insight, so may need a little help from time to time in understanding something.

When Obama appeared on the scene, all I heard was Kenya this, Kenya that, and i'm sure pretty much everyone else has the same memory.

It is WELL KNOWN among the American population that the 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in this nation, and so when the notion of an Obama candidacy came up, many people were puzzled by it because it had been thought for a long time that he was born in Kenya. (I know that's what *I* thought.) Even Chris Matthews thought he was born overseas.

But didn‘t Hillary dump on Obama a few days ago for playing up his Indonesian roots? So, what is she up to here? Is she pushing how great he is for having been born in Indonesia, or what, or simply reminding everybody about his background, his Islamic background?

I will point out that Chris Matthews voices no objection to the idea of a President who was born in Indonesia.

The point is, even the very well connected Democrat Chris Matthews, at the very center of a Media Universe, thought Obama was foreign born.

Given that this was the view had by much of the public, when Obama produced that yellow little rump document with no information on it and even the birth certificate number blacked out where it couldn't be seen, people smelled a rat.

Obama's behavior made questioning his PLACE of birth the most interesting and talked about aspect of the campaign for awhile, because it was obvious to even the dullest among us, if he couldn't establish a place of birth WITHIN the territorial boundaries of the United States, it was a slam dunk disqualifier, and here he is presenting this weird little document from a state which will issue birth certificates to foreign children.

What happened was like a crowd gathering around to watch a raging building fire, while next door, someone was burning leaves. The Birth certificate issue sucked up all the oxygen in the room regarding his qualifications, and it was only after it had been beaten to death for months that very many people started bringing up the other aspects of the eligibility issue.

I will point out, that few really bothered discussing his eligibility until the summer of 2008 because it would have been moot had he not won the nomination. My personal impression of the time was:

"Look at those stupid Democrats! They are going to nominate that guy without realizing he isn't eligible, and as soon as he is cinched to be the nominee, our side can come along and challenge his eligibility, and he will be kicked off the ballot, and the Democrats will have to scramble to find a new candidate with very little time left!"

What ignorant little me didn't realize at the time was that OUR candidate wasn't born in the United States, and HE had an eligibility problem almost as bad as Obama, and therefore HE (nor the party) would not raise this objection.

[DiogenesLamp]

...you might want to go back and read replies #362-370 and not walk into a hole that someone has dug. In inaccurate, encompassing statement is what you are responding to.

You are right. Your posts have informed me as to my error of understanding. I will not repeat that mistaken information in the future. Thanks.

[patlin]

No linky, it’s out of a book

[DiogenesLamp]

The issue was not one of Georgia law; it is a question of federal constitutional law. An Indiana decision on a federal issue is not binding precedent in a Georgia court, but it is certainly persuausive precedent that a judge is entitled to consider.

I beg to differ. Each state is responsible for it's own eligibility requirements. (bear in mind, we are electing electors, not the President directly.) It is also my understanding that Georgia had a specific statute regarding the eligibility of candidates, and that was used to get this hearing in the first place.

In any case, the courts have become such that a judge feels entitled to consider anything he d@mn well pleases! As someone once said, it is the exercise of raw judicial power.

Pulling Obama's PDF from the internet is utter bullsh*t. The Judge should have refused to consider anything as evidence EXCEPT for a certified copy of the real thing with some sort of chain of custody. If a judge was looking at a case for any OTHER person, do you think he would accept an internet document as proof?

[philman_36]

No linky, it’s out of a book
I was close...Maybe it's a "pay for" article.
I did ferret out where it came from though, didn't I.

[philman_36]

Thanks.
My pleasure.

[DiogenesLamp]

I did address this above. This was not a conventional lawsuit, in which a judge could rule that the defendant owes money to plaintiff A but not to plaintiff B; it was an administrative hearing for the purposes of making a recommendation to the Secretatry of State, who has to decide whether Obama is on the ballot or not. Kemp could hardly rule that when Farrar goes to vote, Obama will not be on his ballot, but when the other plaintiffs vote, Obama will be on the ballot. Malihi was entitled to consider all of the evidence anyone put before him when he made his recommendation to Kemp, and Kemp was entitled to consider Malihi's recommendation when he made his decision.

It ignores the point that an internet document is not proof of anything. No actual proof of birth within the Country has been demonstrated.

And you heard it here first: the Georgia courts will uphold Kemp's decision, and SCOTUS will not review the case. You can take that to the bank.

Oh, I have little doubt of that. The Judiciary is so stuck in a rut that they cannot even examine anything outside their preconceived notions. There has always been a Liberal ratchet effect in the Judiciary. It always moves left, it never moves right. When Judges change laws, they always change them leftward, and then they are called "precedent."

And then all subsequent judges are stuck in this new, made up "rut."

[Kansas58]

In other words, not only has your cause failed in Court.

Not only have you failed to get a single elected official to support your side of this argument.

Not only have you failed to get a single elected official to support your weird, silly theories of law.

Not only have you failed to get single noted conservative leader or talk show host or editorial writer on your side (Save WND) -—

You have also FAILED to refute what I have posted:

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, says clearly that ONLY Birthplace mattered, in the case in point, and James Madison ALSO says, clearly, that Congress has the power to legislate the law and provide further guidance on citizenship issues.

YOU LOST!

I not here to make you feel good about yourself.

I am not here to make anyone like me, I do not care what you think of me.

I AM HERE TO HELP PREVENT GOOD PEOPLE FROM BEING SUCKED IN TO YOUR FAILED STRATEGIES AND SILLY IDEAS!

The Conservative movement does not belong to you. Your strategy is an obvious failure, and you need to be outed for the failure that you are.

Nothing personal towards you, but simply a statement of fact, meant to protect others from your false, failed, harmful, wasteful opinions.

BTW, yes, James Madison was only one man, but he was a Founder.

As such, Madison carries far more weight than the Frenchman, Vattel, who was not one of our Founding Fathers!

Vattel is ONE MAN, and Vattel is NOT controlling on this matter, not at all.

[patlin]

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?

What you are referencing is the Flores-Villar v. United States. Any claim of statelessness is merely a ruse to further usurp the Constitution & US citizenship laws. No child has ever been left stateless, A single mother may have had more hurdles to overcome prior to bringing the child back to the US after birth on foreign soil, but that child was never left stateless because it took the seed of a male to conceive that child. IOW’s, don't be promiscuous unless you are willing to tackle the consequences, especially when you are on foreign soil.(see: http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-the-law-of-statelessness/ )

The other ruse is claiming that “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to soil. It does not, it refers to political jurisdiction under A1(naturalized) & A2(born). According to international law of nations, every person on the planet is subject to laws of the nation they are in regardless if they are a citizen or not however, not all in the nation are subject to political jurisdiction. Only the citizenry is subject to that which political laws govern. This was a HUGE deal when MI & MN wanted to become states. At the time, they allowed anyone to vote, citizen & alien resident. Not until they dropped those practices were they afforded statehood which then afforded their legal citizenry as defined by A1 & A2 the status as US citizens and the right to protection of the US govt when they traveled abroad.

[philman_36]

I see Mayton came up here as well...
@Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents (page 3)

I've got to go cook dinner. I'll be back l8r.

[Kansas58]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

It ignores the point that an internet document is not proof of anything. No actual proof of birth within the Country has been demonstrated.

Had Obama offered an internet version of his birth certificate, I would agree with you. But one of the plaintiffs offered the document and asked that it be admitted into evidence, and did not ask that it be admitted for only a limited purpose. Bad lawyering often yields bad results.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

I did not erase the references to monarchical laws, I just regarded them as yada yada for the purposes of the point I was trying to make. (That the common law regarding citizenship was displaced.) In any case, In a subsequent posting, I emphasized the Regal Law aspect of the quote.

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.

No argument here. The nature of citizenship is at the heart of it a deviation from the Monarchical concept of subjectude.

That's it for me folks. I'm done for now.