Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihiís Decision...
Natural Born Citizen ^ | February 3, 2012 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

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 ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birther; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-131 next last
To: philman_36

“@What does “considered” mean?”

Since you obviously don’t know, I cannot help you. I suggest use of a dictionary, or perhaps a remedial English class.


41 posted on 02/04/2012 12:35:23 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Doc Conspiracy
Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose.

Snip...The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.
That's all in one paragraph. Did you not read the whole paragraph?

42 posted on 02/04/2012 12:37:41 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I'll paraphrase what you said up thread...

I didn't ask the question, Mario Apuzzo did.

43 posted on 02/04/2012 12:40:50 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Let's get the whole thing in...

Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, (here is where you start the quote you posted with quotation marks, despite the sentence having started earlier than you've indicated) 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.

What's that?! He decided the matter on the merits and not the merits and evidence? There must not have been any evidence since he states quite clearly that the matter was decided on the merits alone.

44 posted on 02/04/2012 12:59:12 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
BTW...
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.
That reply in no manner addresses the question I asked.

Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant?

One of two choices...considered or decided, not @Yakety Yak, don't talk back.

45 posted on 02/04/2012 1:27:20 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony.

By deciding this matter on the merits...

46 posted on 02/04/2012 1:29:47 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“That reply in no manner addresses the question I asked. “

Yes, it does. You are just too stupid to figure it out.


47 posted on 02/04/2012 1:35:42 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If that’s your story I suggest you stick with it.


48 posted on 02/04/2012 1:37:58 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

That is right. The plaintiffs had such a terrible case that they lost without the defendant even offering an argument, or showing up.

Your beliefs have so little legal merit that you couldn’t win even when your side was the only one presenting ‘evidence’. That is pretty pathetic.

I wish Georgia had ruled Obama ineligible, but apparently your side has even less merit than I believed. How sad is that?


49 posted on 02/04/2012 1:39:01 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Here's a clue...the Decision ends on page 3.

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.

Those are the last sentences on page 3.
Footnote 1 on page 2 is most interesting... This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell

Page 4 begins with...I. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al

Yep, decided on the merits of the arguments, not upon any evidence.

50 posted on 02/04/2012 2:32:37 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Here's a clue...the Decision ends on page 3.
Well, technically, it's 10 pages long. Pages 1-3 and page 10 are the real important ones.

Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section II applies to all Plaintiffs.

51 posted on 02/04/2012 2:36:58 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
As I've repeatedly said, until the 14th Amendment is corrected to mean born owing only one allegiance, and that being to the United States per the 1868 Expatriation Act, all efforts to uphold A2S1C5 are futile. One doesn’t clean up manure by spraying the area with deodorizer 1st. Until the manure is taken away, no deodorizer is going to have any lasting affect.
52 posted on 02/04/2012 2:38:18 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
What was it that you once told me about dicta?
Oh, yeah...

@The opinion IS dicta.

53 posted on 02/04/2012 2:54:40 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: danamco; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Check out # 3 , # 4 , # 5.

Thanks,danamco.

SP Alert.

54 posted on 02/04/2012 2:57:35 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Also check out Seizethecarp's comments on this thread.

.

55 posted on 02/04/2012 3:00:03 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You say potato,
I say potato.
I say opinion,
Synonym of decision.
56 posted on 02/04/2012 3:10:20 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange
You mean there is a race horse without a head running loose at Sportsman's Park this week?
57 posted on 02/04/2012 3:14:15 PM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

SNIP >>> Their case was so weak <<<

... that the judge RUSHED the Plaintiff’s time to enter evidence into the court record, because of the pending default judgement.

You DO remember that exquisite bum rush technique don’t you?


58 posted on 02/04/2012 3:21:28 PM PST by freepersup (Hi, I'm Michael Jablonski, and right about now my you know what is tighter than a tree's rings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freepersup; All

FYI

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2012/02/iranian-origin-judge-rules-obama.html


59 posted on 02/04/2012 3:23:54 PM PST by FARS (Be Healthy, Happy and Thrive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

You mean the evidence that he obviously concluded was being submitted by nuts?

When someone tries to argue that Minor gave a formal and exclusive definition of NBC, it is really hard to take them seriously. Frankly, the plaintiffs were doing fine until they tried to make arguments...


60 posted on 02/04/2012 3:25:06 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson