Posted on 02/04/2012 7:39:14 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html . I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.
The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at puzo1.blogspot.com ...
Prayerfully, the Georgia SOS has some cajones and ignores the Judge’s recommendation and takes Øbama off the ballot.
_________________________________________
Yes its still up to the SOS
Maybe the SOS will ask the judge to explain how he reached his conclusion...
@ Georgia Secretary of State to Obama Atty Jablonski
Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.
No celebrations quite yet. Just more of the same...continue to distract, continue to try and convince everyone it's pointless and useless to continue 'cause a decision has been rendered.
We'll see what happens next. The ball is in SoS Kemp's court (pun intended) now.
Yes, I read your whole reply.
...useless to continue 'cause a decision has been rendered.
Just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Think about that for a minute.
...this court determined...
Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant?
“You said: “But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States.””
No, I did not. Mario Apuzzo wrote that. And he was being either dishonest or stupid.
In the section discussing the requirement to be a NBC, the judge wrote, “For the purpose of this section’s analysis, the following facts are considered: 1)Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama’s father was never a United States citizen.
Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the timeof his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.”
Having reviewed the evidence (or lack thereof) for Obama being born out of country in section 1, the judge now dealt with the complaint that stipulated that Obama was born in the US, but that he was still disqualified. The judge merely repeated what the plaintiff had agreed to beforehand, and then discussed why NBC would still apply to Obama (using the Indiana decision & WKA).
Insulting constitutionalist FReepers by painting them all with the broad brush label “birthers” and insinuating that we all agree on anything (we don't agree on everything) or that even a majority “put their hopes” on Taitz is patronizing and inaccurate...and undermines attention that should be paid to your legal points...some of which I agree with.
I believe that you are correct in asserting that not one bit of evidence was presented by Taitz and her witnesses that pointed directly to an Obama birth outside of HI. I believe that such evidence exists, but it wasn't in the GA courtroom last week.
Kemp is (R), unlike Malihi. Now I will be REALLY be disappointed if Kemp agrees with Malihi’s punt to Ankeny, having been reminded that Kemp said that.
But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law.
Truly sad!
“Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant? “
He CONSIDERED an argument made by the plaintiffs. He rejected it, writing:
“CONCLUSION
President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).
SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012.”
If I was the defendant, I’d be pretty happy. I’d have preferred the decision go the other way, but then, I’m not the defendant.
Remember, in the previous section of his decision, the judge wrote, “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt 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.”
You can’t ignore context.
I have not ignored the context. If anyone wants the FULL context, it can be found here:
A sitting President had his eligibility challenged. He offered a summary judgment, but the plaintiffs refused:
“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.”
They wanted Obama refused on the merit of their arguments. However, the judge decided the witnesses called were fakes without relevant expertise. He also said that the Indiana decision and WKA meant the existing law supports the idea that a NBC does not require citizen parents. He politely rejected the idea that the Minor decision was a ruling on the exhaustive meaning of NBC - which is painfully obvious to anyone who reads the entire paragraph in Minor.
The Plaintiffs insisted on a decision make on the strength of their argument, and the judge ruled them nuts. Their case was so weak that the defendant didn’t even need to show up in court to win. Think about that.
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.