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 ...
Think Norman Saxon.
You seem to want to make a lot of threads about me.
Your source doesn't appear to agree with you.
The term 'Anglo-Saxon' did not become common until the eighth century, when people on the continent started using it to distinguish between the inhabitants of Britain and the Saxons who remained in northern Germany.
This backs up my point as well as the quotes from Ben Franklin, such as this one:
Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
Is the "race" component supposed to be because Franklin used the term "swarthy" to describe the complexion of the non-English Europeans such as Russians and Swedes??
LMAO! Surely you are joking. YOU are trying to make them all about YOU. Nobody cares about your Italian heritage and you aren’t president and you are not are you running. Go back and read your own past posts. Troll.
I wish someone would have asked BP1 if *he* wanted the presidency restricted to certain whites, or if he was simply convinced that’s the way the Framers wanted it, and it hadn’t be constitutionally modified/corrected yet. There is a difference. I know BP was a stickler for originality/original intent. Also, it’s strange he never gave any prior indication of being a racist or a bigot. None at all. Odd he would wait so long, and then let fly (so to speak). Usually racists have a harder time concealing it, and let hints slip here and there. I never saw any of that w BP.
I haven’t tracked all of BP’s posts, so I can’t speak for what “indications” there might have. I can definitely see where allmendream and perhaps philman have chosen to characterize BP’s posts into saying something beyond what was actually written. Taken out of the full context, it would be very easy to misconstrue BP’s personal intent.
A paper passport application from the Passport Office, which came as the result of a lawsuit that is in the public record - including the document itself within that public record - was dismissed by Malihi is being non-probative.
That document is as close to certified as you’re ever gonna get without an actual raised seal and certifying statement on it, and yet Malihi rejected it. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution says that the acts and records of a state have to be given full faith and credit from other states’ judiciaries when properly authenticated according to the standards that Congress would set; Congress set the standard as having the proper raised seal and certifying statement.
If Malihi rejected that document that is certified within the record of an actual court case - which seems to me to be an even HIGHER evidentiary standard Malihi used for that document than the Full Faith and Credit Clause allows - then good luck trying to pass off a supposed vital record that’s not even on paper.
Somebody sent me a computer image of a Columbia University student ID for Obama, saying he was a foreign student. If Irion had given that computer image, or the Kenyan BC, or any number of other computer images, and had stipulated that they were factual evidence, would Malihi be legally bound to accept them as probative - as you’re claiming he had to do for the internet image that Irion DID offer?
The claims you are making would be totally laughable if we weren’t dealing with people using the same logic in US courts as are used to stone women to death in Iran without a scrap of evidence except some elusive, hidden, non-scrutinizable “judge’s knowledge”.
I am not ready to bow to sharia standards and it sickens me that you seem more than ready to do just that.
Thanks, edge. I haven’t followed this thread closely enough to get into the nitty gritty, but I will say this. I feel I knew BP pretty well. We posted to ea other, but we also sent PMs. I never saw a racist bone in his body, or anything that could even be tertiarilly construed as bigotry. What I saw was a true patriot who cared profoundly about the Framers’ intent, and who did everything he could to discover it and communicate it.
Speaking of communication. BP, if you happen to read this, please forgive me for what I’m about to say. However, in my most earnest opinion, you are not the world’s foremost communicator. You are THE person I’d want on hand in a life-or-death crisis, because you’re the type who could keep a cool head and act w lightning speed while others panicked. If, however, I wanted a critical letter written, one that had to be phrased just right in every word, you’re not the person I’d come to. I noted, over the period of our long association, that your big pictures ideas were great, but your ability to accurately and unambiguously communicate them somewhat less so. Again, forgive me but I am speaking w unvarnished honesty here.
I just hope a good man wasn’t banned due to less than stellar communication skills. In a case like this, would there be any harm in putting the question directly? I.e.: ‘BP, do YOU think only WASPs should occupy the Oval Office, or are you merely offering the results of your research, however accurate or flawed it and/or your interpretation may be?’
He was a good FRiend. I will miss him.
Obama’s birth certificate was accepted because the lawyer was competent and he also stipulated to it's authenticity.
Do you realize how unhinged you sound with this Sharia law BS? I don't think you would know Sharia Law if it bit you in the butt. How about you actually quote the pertinent sections of Sharia Law?
Show me from the transcript where Irion certified any birth certificate as evidence, above and beyond anything Orly did with the documents she submitted.
Malihi gave no reason for rejecting the written evidence submitted by Orly. He merely said it was not probative. ON what basis? He never bothered to say why he rejected the probative value of each piece of evidence.
Nor did he EVER cite any probative document as the source for his “belief” or “consideration” that Obama was born in Hawaii. If he was making the case that you claim he’s making, then point out to me what words he used to actually make the case that there was a probative “birth certificate” which proved Obama’s birth facts. Quote me the words from his decision where he claims that; that would be the CENTRAL claim of his entire decision so it should be pretty easy to find.
Provide that, and then we can talk. Without it, you’ve got no leg to stand on.
Malihi’s statement that he “considered” Obama to be born in Hawaii and it being his “belief” that Obama was born in Hawaii are admissions that he has nothing besides “judge’s knowledge” to substantiate what he is claiming.
If you have a problem with me bringing up the whole “judge’s knowledge” standard that Malihi used in this decision, take it up with Malihi. Maybe you can get him to explain what probative evidence from the record he based his “belief” and “consideration” on.
What was Plaintiff’s exhibit 1 in Welden v Obama?
Transcript here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb
“At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses 2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the
testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)—(9). The weight
to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10). The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’
allegations. 3 Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or
fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of
their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved). None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”
If she had properly qualified her experts then her evidence would have been ok.
Obama’s birthplace was not an issue for Hatfield and Irion. They contended that Obama was ineligible because of his father. Obama did not have to answer non-existent charges. He had no obligation to say “I know my birthplace is not an issue but here is my BC anyway.”
When one lawyer stipulates that Obama was born in Hawaii and the other does not challenge it or provide evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, then what reason would the judge have to question the BC that was presented? To question it would be to suspect that Irion committed a felony by knowingly representing false information as true to make his case. I guess the judge thought Irion looked like a honest man and took his word for it.
Is the "race" component supposed to be because Franklin used the term "swarthy" to describe the complexion of the non-English Europeans such as Russians and Swedes??
I don't know. The person you need to ask that question of has been banned. I don't speak for anybody but myself.
That's an interesting dodge. Didn't you just post some links to BP's Ben Franklin quotes?? What exactly was your point?? And I have no idea what you think the Norman Saxon thing is supposed to prove.
Didn't you just post some links to BP's Ben Franklin quotes??
Why yes, I did. If you had read what I wrote on the other thread you would see that all I was doing was giving more context than that which was given in a small snippet of an essay.
What exactly was your point??
Well now that you know why I posted the link and gave more context than a snippet you should be able to see that I had no point, nor was I trying to make one beyond...don't place as a "comprehensive" quote something that it isn't.
And I have no idea what you think the Norman Saxon thing is supposed to prove.
My point there was to show that if the non-Anglo Saxon European aspect were to be followed then the descendants of the French/Normans/Gauls (minus the Gaulic/Germanic tribes of that time) who are non-Anglo Saxon Europeans would never be eligible for POTUS.
I'm a mutt/mongrel/cur in every sense of the word.
So as long as Irion “looked honest”, Malihi would have had to accept the Kenyan birth certificate.
Harlan, do you really expect anybody to take what you’re saying seriously?
Everything you’re saying reinforces my point: that Malihi decided this based on his own whims - that is “judge’s knowledge”.
Malihi couldn’t “an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of
their qualifications” - and yet he claimed to make an objective threshold determination of OBAMA’S ELIGIBLITY without ANY knowledge of his qualifications.
Double standard. The fact that he obeyed legal evidentiary standards for Taitz’ WITNESSES (though he also discounted the written documents submitted, one of which was from the Passport Office, which is supposed to have some probative value...) shows he knows what the law is. The fact that he didn’t do the same for Obama shows that he knowingly violated legal evidentiary standards.
He didn’t use “judge’s knowledge” to decide Orly’s case. He did use it to decide Irion’s.
It’s not lawful, and it stinks to high heaven. You’ve refused to answer my questions but even what you’ve said shows Malihi’s corruption.
So what was Plaintiff’s exhibit 1 in Welden v Obama?
Transcript here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854233/Georgia-Welden-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb
And again, I still don’t know what your point is. Somewhere along the line, you had a reason for posting things, but that reason never made it to your computer keyboard.
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.