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]

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.

Perhaps @RASUL V. BUSH (03-334) 542 U.S. 466 (2004)

I like playing this game with you.

[IrishPennant]

Any evidence of that?

Nah...sorry. I read up on it via the partition between the handicapped toilet stall and the the little short man's urinal at the Flying J Truck Stop just outside of Cookesville, TN yesterday.

I etched in that I wanted sources, but have not traveled back through yet.

Personally, I do not expect a prompt or accurate confirmation, so I edit my earlier FR posting by saying "In My Humble Opinion" he is an Iranian, muslim POS.

[philman_36]

Nah, that ain't it. You said...
One of the prominent SCOTUS cases on citizenship...

[philman_36]

That ain't it. You said...
One of the prominent SCOTUS cases on citizenship...

[patlin]

Nah, not it but I will check it out as I have never read that one before. The case I am referring to is a pre 14th Amendment case or close thereto, but definately prior to WKA. Call me prejudice but I like reading & studying the works of old dead guys the liberals tend to loathe, lol.

[sometime lurker]

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.

Nice, and totally besides the point. You claim you understand common law because "it's in your blood." I'll stake my claim more on reading and understanding. And when you wander too far outside the point, I'll no longer answer.

[philman_36]

The case I am referring to is a pre 14th Amendment case or close thereto, but definately prior to WKA.
Okay, I'll look tomorrow. I'm done for tonight.

Call me prejudice but I like reading & studying the works of old dead guys the liberals tend to loathe, lol.
Funny that, me too! I've read so many of them that at times I get them jumbled up in my mind.
Getting a clear understanding of them and explaining them to others is, to me, the hard part and you do that rather well IMO.

[Kansas58]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_syndrome

The hoarding of rubbish?

[sometime lurker]

I find it sad. DL was an honorable sparring partner on these threads. I prefer my discussion civil no matter what side one takes.

[Eastbound]

Absolutely right, DL. But how else could they have solved the black problem when the word, " Citizen" was already defined in the Constitution without re-writing the Constitution? My guess is they decided to name the freed slaves as 'citizens,' lower case. Of course, the word, citizen, henceforth became applied to both black and white and all colors in between and allowed free Citizens to change their Citizenship from a free Sovereign of a state to a federal citizen. All we had to do was to sign up for federal welfare or any number of federally funded programs for when we started applying for the benefits of federal programs it automatically changed our status from freeman to slave.

Surprisingly, the 14th Amendment only applies to those to whom the feds have jurisdiction over. They never did and still don't have jurisdiction over free Sovereigns.

It's practically impossible to live in America without using some of the benefits of federal funding, but it's possible to escape paying the penalty of losing your Sovereignty and free status by claiming exemption outlined in the U.C.C. ('nuff said about that.)

[philman_36]

Scalia dissent -
By spurious reliance on Braden the Court evades explaining why stare decisis can be disregarded, and why Eisentrager was wrong. Normally, we consider the interests of those who have relied on our decisions. Today, the Court springs a trap on the Executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to the oversight of the federal courts even though it has never before been thought to be within their jurisdiction–and thus making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime detainees.

Was the spurious reliance on Ankeny by Malia another instance where stare decisis was disregarded?

[philman_36]

...and why Eisentrager was wrong.
And Malihi sure didn't explain why Minor was wrong either.

[philman_36]

Shoot! Was the spurious reliance on Ankeny by Malia Malihi...
Scalia - Malia
I should drink more coffee before I get here.
At least I got it right the next time I used it.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

And how is that supposed to help your argument? This was the time of transition from "subjects" to "citizens". The founders wanted to dispense with the old term which implied ownership by the King, and spur usage of the new term which stands separate from Monarchy. Thomas Jefferson himself erased the word "subject" and wrote over it the word "citizen."

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

Well, as long ago as 1776, Thomas Jefferson was inadvertently using the word, but thought better of it. What was that, 5 years earlier?

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’.

Under a King, the term would always have been "sujets naturel", but Vattel was writing about a Free Republic, and the very Premise of his work was the absence of a King.

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”.

Getting rid of the word "subject" was the entire point of getting rid of the King as a form of government. Why would he suggest the existence of a Republic, and then add the concept of subjugation for it's members?

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

Nonsense. They are synonyms. What would "naturel" mean if Not "natural born"? Hmmm???

It is like saying that the word "car" cannot be translated as the word "automobile." I have already demonstrated to you how "sujets naturel" translated to "natural born subject" in 1781, so you cannot legitimately argue that "naturel" won't translate to "natural born."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

And this is one of my GREATEST criticisms of the legal system. The Administration of the law ought not to depend on the skill of an attorney. It is not supposed to be a weighing of facts with impartiality, and every officer of the court ought to be concerned about one thing only. GETTING TO THE TRUTH.

It is a testimony as to how corrupt our system is when one side seeks to obfuscate, and the other side attempts to compel. That so many decisions should hinge on hair splitting and technicalities is proof in my mind that the system needs to be overhauled.

The way the legal system works nowadays is nothing but sophistry. One's guilt or innocence should be the only concern of the court, not how clever is your lawyer.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Dean Haskins loathes and detests Orly Taitz. I would not put great stock in what he says regarding her. Apart from that, much of her case was BASED on proving that the document is a forgery. How can you argue that she made no objection to the document when she called in witnesses and conducted slide shows to DEMONSTRATE that the document was fraudulent?

To contend that she didn't object to the document's legitimacy is a non sequitur.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

I cannot stand him. Even Squeeky Fromm wasn't that stupid. It is not about him showing us things we've already seen, it is how he pops off in his ignorance, and doesn't bother to learn what he is talking about before popping off. It is as if he entered a room in which adults were talking, Firing off his Guns like Yosemite Sam, interrupting the conversation and saying he's right and everyone else is wrong because he's the "The roughest, toughest, rootinest, tootinest, fastest gunslingin' cowboy this side of the Pecos!"

He is a loud mouthed, and IGNORANT idiot that is so absolutely certain of his righteousness and with very little reason for his surety. He is a two year old child in terms of intellectual capacity, and he is whiningly insistent on what he wants. (To be right)

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.

That is just the LAST thing he did. Before you showed up recently, this little turd has posted all sorts of non sequiturs. He is the Yogi Berra of this discussion. Everything he says is stupid and contradictory. His argument is "I am right because I am! "

Nothing he writes is worth pondering. It is just a source of NOISE in an area where the Signal to Noise ratio is already pretty terrible. His thoughts are nothing but interference in attempted communications between more knowledgeable people, and yet rather than him sitting back and soaking up the arguments, he waxes louder in his ignorance. He has the certainty of a fool, and like a fool, he has no reason whatsoever to be so certain.

Again, this is what he looks like to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

As a follow up, I remember what it was he said that convinced me he deserves no respect whatsoever. He said something to the effect that "Congress can change the meaning of the constitution by passing laws!"

Anybody who believes that is too stupid for words, and certainly not worth any further consideration. They do not even understand the basic fundamentals of our system of government, and they should instead be discussing "Sesame Street" not Federalism.

[Mr Rogers]

“Nonsense. They are synonyms. What would “naturel” mean if Not “natural born”? Hmmm???”

Here is a hint - you can be a NBC delivered by caesarian section.

He defined what he meant by ‘naturel’ - by saying ‘or indigene’. What does indigene mean?

I’ll give another hint - it doesn’t mean the legal term NBC or NBS, used interchangeably by the Founders.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

I suspected that was why you are so clever and obstinate at the same time. :)

Exodus 33:5
For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee.

Isaiah 48:4
Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

Odds are that you live in an Coastal Urban Environment, which leans heavily Democrat. Your Demographic votes Democrat 85% of the time. Odd that you find the conservative viewpoint interesting. :)

Never fear, I am a friend, though you might not like me very much.