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]

KUDOS, I hadn’t seen that quote in a long time. Thanks for resurrecting it for us.

[Drew68]

Can you even conceive the notion that this "argument" was discussed at places other than FR or the Internet?

So why did it remain a secret here until November 2008?

This has already been proven wrong. Shall I provide the link?

There were plenty of posts discussing parental citizenship regarding a Panamanian-born McCain. There were plenty of posts discussing parental citizenship regarding a "Kenyan-born" Obama. There were plenty of posts discussing dual citizenship in regards to Philip Berg's lawsuit.

As far as the "Vattel definition" that said Obama was ineligible by virtue of his foreign father even if born in the United States, I doubt you can find more than 2 or 3 posts, maybe a half dozen tops (but I doubt that many) prior to November of 2008 --and these posts generated little if any further discussion on the matter. After Donofrio, there'd be dozens of posts each day by birthers who claimed to have known about Vattel the whole time because they learned about it grade school.

The point is that except for a small handful of tossed-aside posts (out of thousands of posts on this forum each day), nobody was discussing Vattel on Free Republic until Donofrio in November of 2008. Then everybody was discussing it.

[patlin]

Mayton comes up a lot and although I also do not agree with his outcome, he does bring a hint of truth to the table and that is the key to any ruse ... one must mix enough truth with the lie to make their case palatable. It goes right back to the wheat & the tares. Not until the wheat is properly established so it will not be damaged, can the tares be collected and removed. IOW, until we have a congress with enough true constitutional conservatives like our founders, can we start exposing the tares for who they are and begin to strip them & their lies from the congressional fold in order to reestablish true constitutional citizenship.

Getting back to Mayton & the likes, in the end they will eventually fail because they all rely on “race” to make their case by making statements such as Lee did in that CRS paper in which she states that prior to the 1866, “ALL” blacks were not considered citizens. This is simply an outright lie. There is plenty of history proving that at the state level blacks had risen to elected positions as well as high appointed positions. You just couldn't find it in the pro-slavery states. Thus by clouding over this fact, they continue to oppress black history in order to promote their social injustice.

[philman_36]

So why did it remain a secret here until November 2008?
That's a good question. Perhaps because FR is known to have a troll populace. Perhaps nobody wanted to get hit with a "tin foil hat" accusations.
You know how it is.

[sometime lurker]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think Dean Hoskins is, but here's what the force behind the Birther Summit had to say about it:

At this point in the proceedings, and in light of the basis of much of the third case, I believe an attorney who either understood the law, or who had an actual interest in succeeding with that case, would have at least voiced an objection to attorney Irion's stipulation of the birth certificate, even if, for no other reason, than to have the objection entered into the record. However, the third attorney made no such objection.

So Orly voiced no objection at the time this was entered into evidence. Since I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how much that makes it harder for her challenge the finding in the future.

[sometime lurker]

I am sad for you, DL. When we discussed things in the past, up until the last exchange, you were concerned with accuracy (as was I) and our exchanges were always civil. I am sad to see you name calling with such vitriol. If we excoriated every person who posts something we have already seen, these threads might be very bare, including of both of us.

New people join in from time, on both sides. I haven’t seen statements like this directed by you at those on your side who post well known quotes.

I hope and pray for a return to civil disagreement on these threads.

[sometime lurker]

Interesting. Thanks for tracking down Flores Villar v the United States.

[sometime lurker]

How about you show me or give a link to what you want me to see on what Scalia says about common law.

For your reading pleasure, from Justice Scalia's debate with Breyer:

If you have that philosophy, obviously foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like "due process," the "right of confrontation" and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it's all old English law.

and

I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase "the right to be confronted with witnesses against him" -- what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time.

[philman_36]

The opening statement is merely a declaratory statement in regards to who the 14th is meant to protect.
Isn't that opening statement really what the heart of the debate is?

So then the 14th Amendment itself doesn't automatically "create" or "grant" US citizenship to anyone. And someone who is born in America whose parent, or parents, aren't already citizens of some sort (either natural born or naturalized), would be declared a citizen under USC 8 (TITLE 8), CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, § 1401
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Have I got that right? I see that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has come up yet again.

[sometime lurker]

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.

And this is where we'll never agree. Firstly, because many phrases in the Constitution were taken from Common Law, and "natural born" was one of them.

And second, because many people have different ideas of what laws are set forth by God, and what God wants of us. My ancestors were slaughtered because some people thought "God wanted it." Hugenots were slaughtered by the Catholic population, some egged on by priests who thought "God wanted it." Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics in Ireland in the 1600's, some because "God wanted it."

Forgive me if I don't trust your interpretation of what God wants, or what are God's laws. [My religion dictates that the mother's religion controls, not the father's.] In this particular case, I'll trust rather to the Founders, the Constitution, and over a century of interpretation by the courts.

[sometime lurker]

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.

Interesting, but early jurists and historians seem not to agree with you. We have discussed this before, referencing Tucker, Joseph Story, William Rawle, etc. Jus soli confers a right - that of citizenship; citizenship in the United States seems to me a most desirable thing, and I treasure mine. This theory would make it seem you believe it a burden.

[sometime lurker]

To bring it all back to the original post of the thread, do you believe that Judge Malihi is a cowardly traitor? Or do you believe that he thinks he is doing the right thing, but is ignorant of the law? Or do you believe that he knows the law and precedent, and is following them, but that those are wrong?

[IrishPennant]

I believe he is an Iranian muslim POS.

[philman_36]

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.
Wouldn't the testimony fit that bill?
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.

And let me ask you 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.

Why didn't Jablonski and Obama just show up in court with the original documents as ordered (as any other citizen would be required to do) and prove beyond a doubt that he is a natural born citizen instead of not showing up while trying to "back door" electronic files to the very person who sat in judgment over the case and risk potentially hazarding the case through the potential of biasing Kemp in his client's favor?

It just beggars the imagination!

Bad lawyering often yields bad results.
Bad lawyering didn't hurt Obama, did it.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I believe he is an Iranian muslim POS.

Any evidence of that?

I read on the internet-- before the hearing-- that he was an Iranian Jew. I don't know either way, except that "Malihi" is a Farsi name, and "Michael" is a much more common name among Jews than Moslems.

[philman_36]

Interesting. Thanks for tracking down Flores Villar v the United States.
It was so simple to find that I don't see how you couldn't have found it yourself.
Simply entering @Flores Villar gets 4 million returns and the very first return is that very case.

[sometime lurker]

When I put it in I got the case, but not the text of the case.

[patlin]

So then the 14th Amendment itself doesn't automatically “create” or “grant” US citizenship to anyone ... Have I got that right? I see that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has come up yet again.

Let me try this another way. The 14th in and of itself creates “NOTHING”. It merely protects the person's rights as citizens under A1 & A2 that the US Constitution provides for. Declaratory simply means as defined elsewhere thus go look there for the meaning elsewhere which we all know is found in A1S8C4 & A2S1C5. A1 & A2 hinge on “subject to the jurisdiction” which is citizenship jurisdiction via the oath requirement of A1S8C4 for all naturalized citizens. If it wasn't the binding phrase, it would have been stated differently or left out entirely. Born citizens are not required to take this oath because they never owed allegiance to any other nation however, naturalized citizens were thus they must take an oath renouncing such prior allegiances.

It might help you to do a study on the different forms of jurisdiction. One of the prominent SCOTUS cases on citizenship discusses the differences, it just escapes my mind at this time which one it is. But regardless, there is plenty of reference that can be found on the internet discussing the different kinds of jurisdiction and jurisdiction over citizenship is very limited in its scope. It is limited strictly to the political sector as only citizens are bound by the system politically while every breathing body is bound to the laws of public peace & discord whether they be local, state or federal.

Thus the reason the courts use the ruse to say they can not rule because it is a political question. It may be that, but the Constitution also makes it a valid Constitutional question of citizenship and in all cases, the Constitution aspect is to trump any political aspect that may be attached to the case.

[philman_36]

Your link didn't work so how about this?
@Full written transcript of Scalia-Breyer debate on foreign law
I would rather get a little more context... JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't know what it means to express confidence that judges will do what they ought to do, after having read the foreign law. My problem is I don't know what they ought to do. What is it that they ought to do? You have to ask yourselves, Why is it that foreign law would be relevant to what an American judge does when he interprets -- interprets, not writes -- I mean, the Founders used a lot of foreign law. If you read the Federalist Papers, it's full of discussions of the Swiss system, German system. It's full of that. It is very useful in devising a constitution. But why is it useful in interpreting one? Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don't think it changes since then. Now, obviously if you have that philosophy -- which, by the way, used to be orthodoxy until about 60 years ago -- every judge would tell you that's what we do. If you have that philosophy, obviously foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like "due process," the "right of confrontation" and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it's all old English law.
All right, if you have that theory, you can understand why foreign law is irrelevant. So he will never convert me. I just have a -- (laughter) --

And I can't believe you left of the first sentence of what Scalia said in your second quote much less put partial quotes for both when you could have put his whole statement up!

JUSTICE SCALIA: I wouldn't -- I don't use British law for everything. I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase "the right to be confronted with witnesses against him" -- what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn't so for every provision of the Constitution.
The one you mentioned -- what does sovereignty consist of? -- that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears.
So that's why I would use English law -- not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England. That's not the reason.

[patlin]

And this is where we'll never agree. Firstly, because many phrases in the Constitution were taken from Common Law, and “natural born” was one of them.

Until you understand what common law is in order to define what common law actually is, your responses are nothing but ignorance. You can capitalize “C”ommon “L”aw all you want, but it will not help your pleading. Every nation has common law that is common to that nation. Every locality in a nation has common law that is common only to that locality within the nation. In each instance there is type of jurisdiction.

A citizen of one state is not under the citizenship jurisdiction of another state in the sense that one can not legally cross a border and vote in an election in a state in which they are not a citizen of just because they are a US citizen. However, all who are in the state, whether permanent or temporary, are subject to jurisdiction of the laws of peace & discord. Citizenship is a politically narrow jurisdiction. And that is where you fail in your pleading.