Skip to comments.Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen
Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Really? I don't know precisely what evidence she presented but any court that wouldn't accept someone like Mara Zebest as an expert on Adobe Software needs to be dissolved.
Some things are just obvious when presented too, whether they are presented by someone who has devoted his life to something, or by his secretary. So when the secretary shows enlargements of characters that were all supposed to have been produced by the same typewriter key that obviously were not, it seems absurd to me to reject out of hand what the secretary has shown.
you don’t remember Loren Collins?
He’s a fogbow that got zotted!
not Lawrence - he was named after his mother.
Why insult weasels? LorenC is just an immature, foolish little punk who revels in acting like a jerk.
humblergunner had some choice and apt words for Loren the other night, and I quote:
“Since that topic has nothing to do with the subject matter, what it’s gained you is a reputation as a lying piece of garbage.”
Iow, Loren, like ever other fogger, is a lying liar...surprise surprise. /s
No wonder they adore and all but deify Obama—he’s the only one who can beat them at the lying game.
Thanks, Loren, for reminding me why I became a conservative. I don’t like liars—and liberalism and its defenders are nothing w’out its/their lies.
Thanks also for reminding me why I stopped visiting fogbow. It was interesting for about a day, and then entertaining/funny for a couple of days more. After that the stench of lies and ignorance became overpowering and I haven’t been back. ‘Fear the fogbow’ - right. If you had one honest, intelligent person over there such a slogan wouldn’t be so hilarious. As it is, it’s just pathetic (though in a humorous sort of way).
That would be great, but it's wishful thinking. A man can be expected to stand against the forces which will be arrayed against him if he has someone backing him up with the law, but by himself? I would be astounded that he would be willing to do so.
I think we may have discovered an avenue of victory though. If Obama won't show up or present evidence for any of these hearings, next time we take a default judgement, and let THEM sue to overturn it. (Providing we can find another state to try this in.)
What do you think of the job Obama has done so far?
That's easy. Any court system that could conclude the 14th Amendment bans prayer in School, gives women a right to kill their offspring, and creates anchor babies, obviously can't be too competent at interpreting the constitution properly. Throw in Kelo v New London, the exclusionary rule, and the ridiculous expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause, and you've pretty much made the case that the ONLY people who shouldn't be allowed to interpret the constitution are the ones who are doing it now.
As William F Buckley said:
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
Regarding the issue of "natural born citizen", anyone can research it and discover it's true meaning and purpose. Those trained in the lawyerly profession are schooled into a "rut" of thought from which most of them cannot break. The same sort of problem exists in the scientific community and is referred to as "intellectual phase lock."
Only a person who is willing to take a fresh look at the issue without preconceived notions is able to make an objective analysis. The Robed Priests of academia and the courts are too steeped in their own dogma and rituals.
So to answer your question, any relatively intelligent person is likely more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly than are those people who have been taught to live in a rut.
As Ronald Reagan said:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, its just that they know so much that isn't so "
Are they related? I've read Jill Pryor's essay on the subject, and I was unimpressed. She drew conclusions from a lack of information, not an abundance. Very Unscholarly in my opinion.
Analogy: Catholicism => Reformation => Protestantism.
And actually, the Age of Reason is another example where western civilization emerged from the “intellectual phase lock” of feudalism. The United States was founded in large part as a consequence of that. It would appear to be time for a repeat.
Your argument is an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Court decisions get overturned all the time. That’s why courts of appeal exist.
Going even deeper, the law is ultimately political. Historically, there’s an ever-repeating cycle where the law gets so out of synch with the people that the people decide they need to hit the reset button, which can be as gentle as changing how they vote, or as harsh as bringing out the Guillotines.
The current disagreement over the definition of NBC is becoming just as much of a political argument regarding what the law should be as opposed to merely a legal argument over what the legal profession claims it is.
Lawyers can be and have been overruled by the people many times in the past.
[Native Americans], without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1857
And over the years other methods of Indians obtaining citizenship were recognized:
1. Treaty provision (as with the Mississippi Choctaw) 2. Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887 3. Issuance of Patent in Fee Simple 4. Adopting Habits of Civilized Life 5. Minor Children 6. Citizenship by Birth (The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) 7. Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces 8. Marriage to a U.S. citizen 9. Special Act of Congress.
But Indians were never born US citizens until 1924.
And therein you miss the point. The European men who had Children in this Nation were presumed to be here for the purpose of staying and becoming citizens. The Children who are born here of any European parents were automatically granted citizenship upon birth. The Children of Indians were automatically excluded from citizenship upon birth.
If the rule upon which birth citizenship is based is that of being "born on the soil" then why were Indians treated differently?
You don't seem to be able to grasp that this is evidence against your "birth on the soil" rule. It is, in fact, proof that the "born here" rule was never regarded as the standard by which the citizenship of offspring was based. It was the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in ADDITION to the "born here" rule, which held sway as demonstrated in Ex Parte Reynolds.
Yep and that is why the LOCATION is so imperative in this argument.
It does not matter what his father’s status was and that is why they lost. No surprise at all.
Who is getting worked up? I mentioned before the fact that I would not be surprised if the Judge ruled against us. I took a bit of chastising for doing so, but I considered it a distinct possibility. I am ACCUSTOMED to the courts getting things WRONG. Ban on Prayer in Schools, Abortion, Homosexuality a protected class, Exclusionary Rule, Commerce Clause expansion, etc. Yeah, the Courts get stuff wrong a lot of the time. Why would you expect a rotten tree to yield good fruit?
It appears that you agree with me that you will not get what you want in the courts so what is your plan B?
It is not a foregone conclusion that a court cannot come to a correct outcome. Courts are often like magic puzzle boxes. Figure out the correct sequence of moves, and you can unlock it.
As for Plan B? That's Easy. "Revolution."
The Nation as currently constituted is in the early stages of economic pre-shocks. The tolerance of idiocy in our Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) have reached a point where all the social and economic structures which have been built will likely at some point come crashing down upon us.
In the after math of this social\economic upheaval, what is left of the stable portion of the nation will be able to turn out the vile and corrupt that have destroyed us, and replace in their stead people who will not put up with the stupidity of the last 100 years.
We are about to go the way of the Roman Empire, and for the same reasons. Excess Spending, Easy Citizenship, and debauchery in our government. It would have been nice to be able to hit the "Reverse" switch, but after the crash, we will be able to fix a lot of the things that caused it in the first place.
Exactly! Born on the soil was NOT the only requirement. Indians were excluded for so long because they were NOT considered members of the family. (Except those who naturalized.)
Yes, I agree. We are approaching an Economic collapse, brought on by the toleration of Liberal Economic policies and Liberal "evil" social policies. Those of us who survive the economic collapse will be able to push for a new reformation.
In the book "Don Camillio and his Flock" the Communist Mayor of the Village was fond of saying "...Come the Revolution!" I have lately been thinking that perhaps we should all be looking forward to a Revolution. It is time to turn out the debauched intellectuals who are bringing us to ruin both socially and economically.
Is that pencil necked geek lorenc?
If only Lizabeth Salander were real... the things that hugger is hiding on his harddrive would likely land him in prison.
These fools are such idealogues, they BELIEVE Obama is legit. No matter how much historical evidence is handed them, their JOB is to discredit it. Maybe it is time to discredit them.
I second your recommendation. Structure is one of the best books I ever read. I saw Kuhn speak once in person. He was more difficult to follow in that venue than in his books. It was a memorable experience, though, and I’m glad I had that opportunity.
Some things are just obvious when presented too, whether they are presented by someone who has devoted his life to something, or by his secretary. So when the secretary shows enlargements of characters that were all supposed to have been produced by the same typewriter key that obviously were not, it seems absurd to me to reject out of hand what the secretary has shown.”
This is a common fallacy. Many people may have extensive experience in certain areas. That does not make them an expert for all questions. I've gotten much more “expertise” in this question myself late in my career as fate wound up steering me into certain aspects of safety and environmental law defending businesses.
Liberal environmental groups routinely do exactly what Orly is doing. It's a mistake that comes in either of two primary flavors: (1) representing run-of-the-mill people with axes to grind as “experts,” and (2) finding sympathetic people with meaningful backgrounds in one field who they lure over the line into another field. I have found they tend to do this for two reasons as well. First, not being versed in technical matters, they tend to be gullible. That is, it's not so much deliberate misrepresentation (although you occasionally get that)as that they honestly don't know the diffference. Second, they believe so wholeheartedly in their cause they can't objectively evaluate the case they are trying to make.
You would think they'd learn (and again, a few do), but when one believes so completely in a cause, I've observed it continues to cloud their augment. They respond exactly as Orly does. To them, it's not that they prepared a poor case and presented it poorly. It's that I and the uncaring businesses I represent are evil, corrupt Republican SOBs, the judges have all been bought off, etc.
Sound familiar? It's not that attorneys like me deliberately want to mock your beliefs. It's just that we've seen this pattern so many times, from both sides. I've been subjected to all the insults by the other side, and I've had to drop clients who have the same failing. They can't give up their belief about what the facts and the law ought to be instead of facing what they are. Thus, there's nothing I can do for them, and I'm not just going to take their money for nothing.
Given her poor skills, her constant lack of professionalism in court, and the hopeless nature of the briefs she writes, I find Orly unethical in the extreme, particularly in the way she solicits money from the gullible on a pipe dream. Far from being “Lady Liberty” she is the very worst type of lawyer—an incompetent ambulance chaser. And if that offends you, I'm sorry, but every ambulance chaser has a line of BS about how nobly they are serving some cause.
In this case, Mara Zebest is not a forensic digital image analyst. The act of scanning a document into a PDF introduces digital alterations into it, so she is certainly correct that the image has digital alterations. That's a point any novice computer user could verify. But those alterations don't mean either the image or the underlying document are forgeries. She does nothing to demonstrate that they are, because, not being a forensic digital image or document analysts, she presumably doesn't know how they go about doing that. Her experience with Adobe is irrelevant to the court. In particular, her conclusion that she believes the certificate image in question was created on Photoshop means nothing. Her “belief” is irrelevant given that the PDF data identifies the actual program used to create the PDF, and it ain't Adobe. And that Obama released a copy of the document that the state of Hawaii stands behind. The full faith and credit clause trumps the idle musings of an Adobe professional straying well outside her field of expertise.
my thoughts exactly...
Let me guess: You're a lawyer?
How do I know this? I know it because you are full of sh*t. You see this is my business too. There are anomalies in the scan that would never be introduced by a simple scan. The smoke blowers say this is because of things the Adobe Software automatically introduced because of how it set up on the machine that was used. Zebest is precisely an expert in Adobe Software. Your argument is akin to suggesting that she (probably) doesn't know much about theoretical physics and since all of this involves the interactions of sub atomic particles, she has nothing to bring to the table.
A lawyer would argue that the sky is not blue because there are many shades.
I meant to also include....depending on who their client, or what their agenda is.
I should not have used the term “evidence” relating to the possibility of Barry having been born in Canada. More appropriate terms are “indicators” and “liklihood”.
There are indeed a many indicators which point to it being likly that Barry was born in Canada.
A Canadian birth would not necessarily have left a paper trail. In those days having an unwed pregnant daughter was cause for considerable shame for a family, and those young girls were more often than not ‘sent away’ under the pretext of being needed to help an ill auntie or somesuch, whereas in actuality arrangements were made for the girls to be hidden away in ‘homes for unwed mothers’. Western Canada was a rich source of such homes. Many were operated by the Catholic church, but some were private. It would be naive to think all - or even most - of the ‘private’ homes functioned openly. They were in the business of providing expensive disgression and privacy for whomever could afford to pay the price. That disgression and privacy would have included adoption arrangements, complete with a birth certificate for whatever appropriate location. Just as today illegals pay for bogus [stolen] social security numbers.
IF Barry was born in a Canadian private ‘home’, in a relative’s home, or even on a park bench - no registration of Canadian birth would have to take place. There would not have been a Canadian birth certificate for an under-the-radar birth, and thus no paper trail. The undocumentated birth would not have been so for very long, because all it would have taken was for grandma Dunham to trot herself into the Hawaii Dept. of Health and vouch to the State that her grandbaby was born the other day - in a Honolulu city park, under the fronds of a giant fern beside the road, and voila! - she’s handed a Certification of Live Birth, and suddenly baby Barry [who is living with his mama in Seattle where she’s attending the Univ. of Washington] is a fully legal person, born in Honolulu Aug 4, 1961.
So Canada might not have had any leverage over Barry re: the pipeline - he’s unhindered in his quest to destroy our nation.
A flashback - I’m thinking I read somewhere - quite a while ago - that one of the first things Barry did as president was...suggest? demand? request? order? the Canadian government to seal any records relative to him. do you have any such recollection?
The rest of your post - I concur with your evaluation. We’re scr**ed.
Ah...Thanks for posting all this. More pieces to delve through, trying to figure out how they fit together in the puzzle of hisOneness.
Atty. Van Irion to Appeal Judge Malihi’s Decision: Court Ignored Basic Rules of Interpretation
“The one point of good news from this ruling is that we have FINALLY gotten a court to rule on the merits of our argument. This may seem like a hollow victory, but it isnt. Before this everyone that has brought a challenge against Obamas eligibility has been dismissed on procedural grounds. Nothing is more devastating to the rule of law than a judicial branch that refuses to do its job. Before this case we had courts across the country telling Americans that they had no right to enforce the Constitution. That was absurdity at its most extreme. Liberty Legal Foundation found a case that we believed would at least get a ruling on the merits. We hate the ruling we got, but at least we got a ruling. Now we can appeal that ruling. The appeals process now will focus on the definition of “natural born citizen” rather than procedure for the first time since the issue of Obama’s eligibility was raise in 2008.”
I told you that. No guesswork was required.
“I know it because you are full of sh*t.”
I attempted a civil explanation of a legal result that by your own admission you do not understand. You response clarifies that you have no actual desire to understand.
The two ways the people hit the reset button is by electing the leaders you want and working with them to change the law. The only way to change anything is by putting energy into beating Obama at the ballot box and getting the legislature to pass an amendment to define “natural born citizen” as someone born here to two citizen parents, not they way it’s defined by the law as it stands. These court cases are getting nowhere.
I cannot disagree with your assessment.
Guessed right, huh Pal?
Check out the other responses I got, and might still get.
I've been making my living in the digital world for 40+ years now but you know more about this than I do. If you don't see this as a problem, then I suggest you are clueless.
It’s obvious that “tablelamp” and other assorted re-tread fogbowers want our side to give up on courts, and “go for the ballot box” only. Why would that be? I can thnk of several reasons.
Georgia Ballot Challenge News
February 3rd, 2012
Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden vs. Obama - Judge Michael Malihi’s Final Order - Georgia Ballot Access Challenge - 2-3-2012
We caught up with Swensson/Powell’s counsel, Mark Hatfield, late this afternoon to get his initial take on the ruling. Here is what he stated obviously we are disappointed w/the decision, but there are a couple of items in the ruling that we are looking at. First, the Judge never made any ruling on who has the burden of proof even though he indicated in chambers prior to the hearing that making the determination of the burden of proof laid with Defendant Obama.” He went onto state “the Judge has a record of placing the burden on the candidate, but didn’t do so in this case.” Another point Hatfield made was the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in Arkeny elevates the Indiana case above the Constitution” while also noting the Judge ignored the Minor court in Minor v Happersett, a ruling that clearly defined natural born Citizen, established precedent. When asked about next steps Hatfield stated “we are going full bore and taking it up on appeal.
Here’s the thread:
Clueless or has specific motivations.
I want to know too.
There were a number of 20th Century SCOTUS decisions on revokation/ renunciation of citizenship, including Afroyim v. Rusk and several others.
good news and thanks for the ping!
And Joe Arpaio ain’t giving up, either!!!!
No - Indians were never deemed to be Americans. They were to be members of sovereign Indian nations. Hence the requirement to be naturalized as American citizens.
Again, you aren't getting the point. The CHILDREN of Indians were not granted automatic 14th amendment citizenship. Yet the CHILDREN of other "Sovereign Nations" were granted citizenship.
If the rule is "birth on the soil" then why did it apply to the children of European Nations, but not to the children of Indian Nations?
Obviously "birth on the soil" was not the deciding factor. I bet you still do not "get it."
Speaking as a long-time FReeper (who very much wants to see Obama out of office) and as a lawyer, I don't want to see time and money wasted on the eligibility issue, because no court will ever uphold the two-citizen-parent theory. It reminds me of the tax protestor websites, where people post elaborate arguments about how the 16th Ammendment was never validly ratified or about how "income" doesn't include pay for ordinary work. Interesting arguments, but they will never prevail in court.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
If anyone cares about the meaning and intent and simple English of the Constitution, your words are “we’re already in hell so let’s make ourselves comfortable”.
Yeah, the courts we have now - cesspools.
It isn’t that they don’t “get it”.
And this is a point which needs to be shouted from the Mountaintops! The courts WILL do what the people demand when the people get sick of their bullsh*t. I think it's way past time we put the fear of God and the People into some of these presumptuous bastards. The courts need to be reminded that they answer to US!
From the link above. Another, incredibly odd data point.
“A photograph of Lia shows her holding a monkey doll and wearing clothes given her by Madelyn Dunham, Obamas maternal grandmother, when Lia visited Hawaii for three months. The visit apparently was in 1971, the year Obama left Indonesia permanently.”
In 1971 we have:
a) Obama starting school on the first day supposedly in late August or September.
b) Obama flying alone from Indonesia to Hawaii.
c) Obama and SAD/S flying together from Indonesia to Hawaii in mid-October.
d) Obama newly found step-sister ‘visiting for 3 months’ in 1971.
So far...nothing seems glue together. The story line acts as if Hawaii was an hours drive away from Indonesia. Not thousands of miles away on the other side of the international date line.
I think ‘step-sister’ was created to help with the Lolo / Stanley Ann divorce statement. The divorce does not specifically name the children. But it indicates 1 older than 18 and one less than 18. That would be Obama and Maya. Unless this ‘newly found’ step sister is claimed to the unnamed child over 18.
The Indonesia years remain problematic. And when you bring up Indonesia the Obots tend to get really annoyed.
Yes, that's why I said the 20th century courts had forgotten about the part of Ark that I quoted. The idea of not being able to renounce a child's citizenship is relatively a new invention. Ark had no problem understanding that it could happen at the end of the 19th century.
No, actually I don't think would have been a good strategy. If Obama sues to overturn a judgment, it means he's arguing against the state. At best the state would only have a superficial interest in defending this on appeal. The better option is for skeptics and challengers to appeal where more evidence can be presented and the weakenesses of Ankeny can be attacked. Malihi may have done this issue a favor because he left open Obama's bona fides.
This is the one area that exposes a real weakness in Justice Gray's decision in Ark. Gray also wrote the decision in Elk v. Wilkins, and he had to fudge around his OWN precedent, which he did by saying:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law) ...
So, all he does is say that the Indians have a "peculiar relation" to the National Government to avoid admitting that he did NOT apply to them his own so-called "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." The Indians were here BEFORE we had a "national government" ... did the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth OR the common law make them Natural-Born Subjects?? The answer to that question is obvious and it proves yet again that jus soli was not and could not have been the basis for the founders understanding of the term "natural-born citizens."
Elg dealt with an Indian who had been born in Indian country and only later moved to a state. At that time, many of those Indians didn't regard themselves as being "within the country," and in a very real sense, they weren't. Until the 20th Century, the Government dealt with Indian tribes through treaties, not by legislation. All through the 19th Century, many Indian tribes were at war with the United States Government. Indians born in Indian country were not then regarded as citizens because they were, in a very real sense, hostile aliens.
The Court's awkward language was a reflection of the fact that the U.S. Government officially claimed the legal right to rule over the Indians, but was still in the process of achieving control de facto. Once that was accomplished, Indians became citizens.
because no court will ever uphold the two-citizen-parent theory. It reminds me of the tax protestor websites, where people post elaborate arguments about how the 16th Ammendment was never validly ratified or about how “income” doesn’t include pay for ordinary work. Interesting arguments, but they will never prevail in court.
Well then why have the courts t4ried so hard to avoid getting the issue heard on its merits and making a decision? They have made decisions about the income tax, so let them make a decision about two parents ..no they are avoiding evading and just plane sidestepping the issue. I guess it isn’t as clear cut as you want it to be. We have a right to know, Jindal and others have a right to know if they are eligible...to say otherwise is Anti-American and anti-Freedom. I guarantee if we stop paying taxes until they make a decision, we will get one ASAP.
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.