Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt)
It's not my argument, it's what's in the record. If I understand the legal process correctly, she would have had to say "I object" when the document was admitted into evidence. Apparently, she didn't.
Does “gulag” strike a cord? One doesn't throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, they place it in it when the water is still cool. We are the frogs, the courts are the water & the media controls the tempurature so the frogs don't jump out before they are cooked.
You never did answer my question - do you think the judge is a cowardly traitor?
There is a subtlety here that you are not grasping. Being born here of citizen parents makes you a citizen by nature, whereas in England, being born while your parents were passing through the country would make you a "subject" (servant) of the King, whether your parents wanted it or not. It is an Obligation of Perpetual allegiance that is THRUST upon you. The King may thereafter call you up into his Army, or try you for acts against England which you may commit at some future date, all based on the fact that you may have been born there. Indeed, I have read of exactly this sort of thing happening. You can find examples of it if you really want to see them.
Jus Soli is an excuse to GRAB allegiance from People, whether they wish to give it or not, and is therefore a principal of Regal Law based on the previous feudal system of Ownership by the Feudal Lord.
Your response seems to indicate that you had not considered this before. That is surprising, because you usually seem quick enough to grasp a salient point. (At least well enough to argue it's opposite. :) )
As for Tucker, Story and Rawle, St. George Tucker also supports our side. Story I have not looked into greatly, but I recall reading quotes from him that also support our side, while Rawle is explicitly on YOUR side.
I did do some checking into Rawle. His step father was a British Loyalist during the war, and Rawle was educated in law in London and abroad. It is no surprise that he should come away from his legal training with a confused perspective on what it is to be a "natural born" American citizen. His British training did him a disservice in this regard, and it unfortunately contributed to his promulgation of erroneous notions in the guise of his writings on the subject. How much damage was done by his influence we can only guess.
As Patlin has posted at her website:
Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”
(1776)When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
(1787)We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Deu 17:14 “When you come to the land which YHVH your Elohim is giving you, and shall possess it and shall dwell in it, and you shall say, ‘Let me set a sovereign over me like all the gentiles("goy" or "ger") that are around me,’ 15 you shall certainly set a sovereign over you whom YHVH your Elohim shall choose. Set a sovereign over you from among your brothers ("ben"), you are not allowed to set a foreigner("goy" or "ger") over you, who is not your brother("ben")
Now considering that no less than a 3rd of the signers of either of the above mentioned founding documents were preachers, one can safely assume they knew who their "posterity" was & who YHVH meant by "brother". A brother is a "ben", one of blood not a "ger", a naturalized foreigner. A "ben" is not a "goy", a resident ro temp foreigner/sojourner.
(March 4, 1789) “The Conventions of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added ...
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives...
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ...
signed by FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House (Lutheran Preacher whose father founded the Lutheran church in America)
I think it is safe to assume we know what “GOD” the founders were referring to, the only “GOD” of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. You should venture over to the "Library of Liberty” online and read a few of their sermons. They are quite revealing as to the mindset of the founding fathers & framers of the Declaration, Constitution & Bill of Rights. These men knew the difference between NBC & NBS and they fought a bloody war to get rid of NBS.
The United States, after some initial uncertainty, acknowledged the right of citizens to renounce their birth allegiance. So I agree with you there, that in international law, one may renounce, not controlled by the nation of birth’s law.
What I do not agree with is that conferring American citizenship by birth is “grabbing” allegiance from an unwilling person. It still strikes me as a somewhat odd view of the value of American citizenship. I have yet to hear of anyone complaining of their allegiance being “grabbed” by obtaining American citizenship at birth. (And while there certainly were English abuses, as Calvin’s Case shows, there were great advantages to being an English subject, and it was considered desirable by many over being an alien or denizen.)
Further, that would not be a matter of “natural born” or the version of some on your side, “citizen at birth, but not natural born.” In your theory, either would be “grabbing” allegiance, so no distinction.
Once again, the courts over two centuries have not upheld this bizarre idea that citizenship at birth was an imposition on the newly made citizen. So it’s an interesting theory, not one the courts have ever endorsed, or I predict, ever will endorse.
No, I don't. I even said as much somewhere earlier in the thread.
Or do you believe that he thinks he is doing the right thing, but is ignorant of the law?
Yes. I believe this is an aspect of his decision. I think MOST Lawyers and Judges are ignorant on this aspect of the Law.
Or do you believe that he knows the law and precedent, and is following them, but that those are wrong?
This argument overlaps with the previous one. The Precedent of Wong Kim Ark is not necessarily wrong, though an argument can be made that it is. It depends on how you interpret it. It may be argued that the court held Wong to be a "citizen" but not a "natural born citizen." It is otherwise argued that the court saw no distinction between the one thing and another, though they conspicuously did not use the term "natural born."
Whether Wong Kim Ark was correct or not does not alter the fact that subsequent lawyers and judges have applied it in a manner insisting on the most liberal interpretation of it, and this belief system has become pervasive throughout the legal community.
Judge Malihi is the unknowing victim of this legal "precedent" rut. So is the nation which grants citizenship to birth tourists and anchor babies.
The original Diogenes did not tolerate fools either. He was contemptuous of them. For some people, there is no point to civility.
You seem to claim God wants only paternal descent of citizenship. I stand by my statement - I don’t trust your interpretation of what God wants. Nor do your quotes convince me that you are the correct spokesman to interpret this.
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.
This is where I start skipping over your comments again. Your point is nonsensical.
So Orly didn't say the Magic "open sesame" words? And we should take the legal system seriously? This is just more proof our current legal system is deserving of contempt.
It wasn't even HER case! How could she "object" to what was entered in someone else's case? The first two attorneys were quite insistent that she be separate from them.
Seriously, you are going to have to work on this explanation. The judge simply made a mistake in applying the evidence from one case (where it wasn't even claimed to be accurate) to another, separate case. Were it anyone but Obama, everyone could see how ridiculous it would be for a Judge to rely on "internet evidence."
Yes I did, I'm just answering messages in sequence. I got to your question earlier. In case you missed it, I do not think the judge is either a coward (at least no proof is in evidence of such) or a traitor. I think he is a person who, like most attorneys, shares a common misunderstanding of this aspect of the law. I also think he was unwilling to question his preconceived notions, and therefore was unwilling to examine the evidence contrary to his beliefs.
It's not my interpretation, it is what the original Hebrew that God gave His children says. (Zeph 3:9) But don't rely on me, the founders were very wise & many were also studied in Hebrew. It might behoove you to actually study the guys to learn who they were and what they were taught from their youth.
Did Common Law Really Grant Automatic US Citizenship Upon Birth Regardless Of Parentage? Part II
So, how do we define the difference between ‘citizen’ & ‘natural born’ citizen? Liberal constitutional scholars and progressive legalese rely on English common law that was in place prior to the revolution. Their interpretation is that if you are born of the soil, you are a natural born citizen and they wallow in diluted elitism by citing historical foreign law & case precedent, when in fact there is plenty of American law & legal case history for one to learn from. Now, as I have said before, to think that the founding fathers & patriots fought a bloody war only to adopt the same definition of citizenship that they were oppressed under by the English Monarchy is to believe that there never was a bloody war to gain freedom from it. The feudal form of government that the British adopted did not allow for natural rights for all citizens. All rights were granted to the people by the government of the Monarchy, the Monarchy was the sovereign not he people. In the very 1st US Supreme Court decision (Chisholm v. Georgia) written by Chief Justice John Jay, we find our 1st clue as to the type of citizenship the founding fathers adopted for the new nation:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
Chief Justice John Jay was also the person who sent this historical letter to George Washington the summer of 1787 before the constitution was finalized:
[Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.]
So, if the people are the sovereigns, not the government, then where did the definition come from? For that we go to the very 1st commentaries on US law, Lectures on Law by Justice James Wilson, 1791. In the lectures Wilson expounds heavily on early philosophers and the different forms of government from the earliest of times that have been recorded. When he finally gets to discussing the laws adopted by the Continental Congress and ratified by the states, he writes:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Natural law did not always elude that of the Monarchy though. Early definitions of ‘natural born’ subject confined it to children born to parents, both of whom were ‘natural born’ subjects
Thus if we go back to Dt 17:14-15 and YHVH's use of the word "sovereign", we get the definition of who is a sovereign. British subjects were never considered sovereigns. Accordign to British law the king was considered the one & ONLY sovereign; thus NBC does not mean the same as NBS as you proffer.
...but if memory recalls correctly the judge never actually ruled on obama’s birth status in the actual decision.
Hmmmm, I've read it rather recently and I don't recall at teh moment either. I'll look.
Does “gulag” strike a cord?
I've already reserved several dances from those I expect to see there along with myself. I prefer a waltz.
There is NOW. *WE* Pioneered this concept. Prior to us, the Idea was completely unlawful.
What I do not agree with is that conferring American citizenship by birth is “grabbing” allegiance from an unwilling person. It still strikes me as a somewhat odd view of the value of American citizenship. I have yet to hear of anyone complaining of their allegiance being “grabbed” by obtaining American citizenship at birth. (And while there certainly were English abuses, as Calvin’s Case shows, there were great advantages to being an English subject, and it was considered desirable by many over being an alien or denizen.)
Your argument is this. Because it's valuable, everyone should want it, and therefore imposing it is no burden on them.
That it is valuable may be true. Some people feel that way about Christianity, and thought it was perfectly reasonable to impose it on others. This entire argument belies the fact that someone might not appreciate it's value, and might not want it regardless. :)
In our History, there are only two ways known to decide the citizenship of offspring. By being born to a citizen and inheriting their citizenship, or by being born somewhere, and being told that you are part of that land. One is natural, the other is an imposition to those who may not wish to be a part of that land. It does not matter that the land is rich and fertile, and that everyone SHOULD want it, it matters as to whether or not that is where their heart lies. (It's called freedom.)
I have a friend born in Alaska. I have other friends born in Japan. Those lands are not part of their life, yet if they were tied to them (as in the feudal system) then they must necessarily remain there, or in some way be forever held accountable by what transpires there. THIS is the aspect of jus soli which you do not appreciate.
Further, that would not be a matter of “natural born” or the version of some on your side, “citizen at birth, but not natural born.” In your theory, either would be “grabbing” allegiance, so no distinction.
Ah, but a characteristic of our citizenship is that you can renounce it if you wish. The English Common law of jus soli, upon which you say ours is based, does not permit the renunciation of allegiance to the sovereign. Your ties of soil bind you to his land. You are trying to argue that we accepted the one part of this law, while at the same time rejecting the other part. A rather inconsistent aspect of the principle, don't you think?
Once again, the courts over two centuries have not upheld this bizarre idea that citizenship at birth was an imposition on the newly made citizen. So it’s an interesting theory, not one the courts have ever endorsed, or I predict, ever will endorse.
It is not citizenship at birth which is an imposition. A Child follows the condition of it's parents. If they are French, you cannot suggest the child must be German. That the courts have never seen jus soli citizenship at birth as an imposition may very well be due to the fact that we don't have it as a requirement, as did the English. In this nation, you are able to dispense with all strings of attachment between this government and yourself, and so an attachment that is so easily thrown off cannot be regarded as an imposition, but the law upon which your theory was based disallowed this idea, at least until Queen Victoria permitted it back in the later 1800s.
All of this ignores the point. Jus Soli is a concept based on feudal law, not on the natural law the founders were familiar with. (Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Vattel et al.)
As it was based on Feudal law, it would have been thrown out with the rest of those Feudal aspects and anti-republican doctrines.
Thanks for providing the links and info though, it never hurts to familiarize oneself with more aspects of this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.