Obama and Arnold naturalized in the same year, 1983.
Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by Pfesser
An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints....
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, ... Hatfield ... told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote....
He noted since Obama and his lawyer “failed to appear” and “failed to submit any evidence,” the determination by Malihi in the cases brought by his clients appears to be unsubstantiated.
Hatfield also explained that Malihi failed to decide the burden of proof.
“The defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional … If the defendant did, as plaintiffs contend, bear the burden of proof in these cases, then defendant can in no way be said to have satisfied his burden, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.”
He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.
While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that automatically conferred “natural born citizenship” on him, that “is an incorrect statement of the applicable law,” Hatfield said.
“The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett … is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen’ refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”
He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The job of the defense is not to prove that Obama is innocent, it is job of the defense to make the prosecution prove that he is guilty. Go prosecutors go!!!! DO NOT give up.
I love ANYTHING that is a thorn in Obama’s side
I hope this distracts the heck out of him, and costs him $$$$
You know, I wonder if Orly Ditz hadn’t introduced the birth certificate into evidence (saying it was a forgery), if the judge would have HAD to rule against Obama. If she hadn’t done that, he would not have even had any evidence, even bogus evidence, that said Obama was born in the US. Because Taitz introduced the forged birth certificate, that gave him the option to claim Obowmao was born in Hawaii, and thus rule as he did.
In Before the Disparaging Hussein Heads.....
Because foreign law doesn't matter when it comes to whom the US considers to be or not to be a citizen.
A bizarre thought came to me about this “natural born” issue. What about sperm donations...who knows where that originates? Naturally, the mother (sometimes a single parent) using the sperm donation would probably be natural born, but who and what is the nationality of the Daddy? Don’t suppose it would matter in a surrogacy situation, as the woman carrying the child is basically just hatching it. The “natural born” issue I am afraid is going to go by the wayside, being assailed as it is on all sides. Both Romney and Santorum have questions in this regard, as does Jindahl & Rubio if they have future Presidential aspirations, that I can think of offhand...not to mention the offender in chief, Obozo in the White House.
There are no prosecutors involved. It was not a criminal trial but rather an administrative hearing. The plaintiffs made specific charges - and failed to convince the judge that they were legal valid arguments.
There were 3 separate cases...
I was referring to a case that may be brought in front of a Federal Judge - not a Federal Administrative Law Judge.
But the law in this case says that the burden of Proof rested with Obama. It was up to him to prove that he was eligible. Not the other way around. No docs by him means that no proof was offered. This decision was rigged for one or several reasons. No doubt about it.
I thought Frank Marshal Davis was an American. At least by birth.
Actually it was Hatfield and Irion who submitted the forged BC as evidence and did not contest its genuineness. Orly contested the genuineness but did so incompetently, without certifying her “expert witnesses”.
But no judge could accept an internet image as if it was a genuine vital record; it simply doesn’t meet the legal standards for admissible evidence.
The State Department has updated the Foreign Affairs Manual again:
7 FAM 1292 Loss of Nationality and Minors i. (3) (CT:CON-361; 03-01-2011)
Interviewing a minor: When conducting the initial interview with a minor and during the renunciation procedure, you should have at least one other person present. The parents and guardians should not be present. As noted, the interview should take place in the presence of the consular officer and a witness, preferably another consular officer, another Foreign Service officer (nonconsular) or locally employed staff (LE staff). You should alswo explain that upon reaching the age of 18, the minor has a six-month opportunity to reclaim U.S. nationality. See FAM Exhibit 1291, A Sample Letter to Accompany CLN for Minor Renunciants, which should be provided to minor renunciants together with an approved CLN;
OK, I read the whole WND article and Hatfield says that he DIDN’T submit any birth certificate for Obama. There’s nothing like that in the record for his case.
Hatfield takes issue with Malihi combining these 3 cases again, even though it was granted at the request of the plaintiffs that they would be 3 separate cases. Malihi “considers” that Obama was born in HI to a US citizen mother, but neither Hatfield nor Taitz presented any evidence that would justify finding that as a fact.
Malihi is just pulling this stuff out of his rear end. “Judge’s knowledge”. One of the big differences between the sharia obeyed in Iran and the legal evidentiary requirements of the free world including the USA.
Because foreign law doesn't matter when it comes to whom the US considers to be or not to be a citizen.
False
It DOES matter. Read what the drafters of the 14th Amendment (the Senate Judiciary Committee) have to say about that:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Congressional Globe
From the judges decision:
“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”
The plaintiffs asked that the court decide solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence. They are the ones that shifted the burden of proof by asking the judge to decide purely on their evidence. The judge found their case without legal merit.
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.