Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Obama Release Your Records ^ | Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 5:14 AM

[Red Steel]

Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State

Brian Kemp About Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Article II Super PAC Email

Greetings,

Kevin Powell and Carl Swensson's counsel, Mark Hatfield, early this morning sent his response to judicial errors of fact and law to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, in response to Judge Michael Malihi's decision in the Georgia ballot challenge.

Click this link to read Attorney Hatfield's response - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Below is the ending portion of Attorney Hatfield's 6-page rebuttal letter to the Georgia Secretary of State. Read the whole letter!

"Please note that the foregoing cited errors, omissions, and flaws in Judge Malihi's "Decision" are not intended to be exhaustive, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to raise other claims of error hereafter.

Mr. Secretary, as you deliberate on your final determination of Defendant Obama's qualifications to seek and hold office, I am requesting, on behalf of my clients, that you consider the posture of these matters. Defendant Obama has initiated the submission of his name as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Ballot. Likewise, in accordance with their rights under Georgia law, my clients have raised a challenge to the Defendant's qualifications as a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution. The Defendant and his lawyer tried, unsuccessfully, to have my clients' challenges dismissed. The Defendant was then legally served with a Notice to Produce, requiring him to appear at trial and to bring certain documents and items of evidence with him. The Defendant did not object. When the time for trial was imminent, the Defendant's lawyer wrote a letter to you in which he boldly criticized and attacked the judge and in which he stated that he and his client were refusing to come to court. The day of trial, after you warned him that his failure to appear would be at his own peril, the Defendant and his lawyer nevertheless failed to appear for court and failed to comply with the Plaintiffs' valid Notice to Produce. The Defendant thus not only presented no evidence of his own, but he failed to produce significant pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs were legally entitled. Inexplicably, Judge Malihi, after verbally acknowledging Plaintiffs' entitlement to a "default judgment," then entered an order fully favorable to the recalcitrant Defendant, and to top it off, the judge refused to even acknowledge Plaintiffs' attempts to have Defendant held accountable for his purposefully contemptuous behavior in ignoring Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce.

Doesn't this result sound unreasonable? Doesn't this result appear on its face unfair? Doesn't this result in fact suggest that the Defendant is above the law?

Mr. Secretary, I am respectfully requesting on behalf of my clients that you render a decision in this matter that treats Defendant Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot who fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and who disregards the authority of our judiciary. I request that my clients' challenges to Defendant Obama's qualifications be sustained and upheld.

Finally, in view of the rapidly approaching Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia on March 6, 2012, I respectfully request that you enter a decision in these matters on an expedited basis."

READ THE FULL LETTER DEBUNKING THE DECISION BY JUDGE MALIHI HERE. IT ALSO DEBUNKS CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS.

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

[Red Steel]

You may wish to read Professor of Law Polly Price's article, "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)"


Oh but the Founders didn't go with any English thoughts about English birthright citizenship statutes or Calvin Case or English Common law as to their intent behind the natural born citizen clause written in the US Constitution as they were believers of the Law of Nations written by Vattel.

James Madison wrote these notes seen below in 1830 about the Constitutional Convention of 1787. You'll notice in the red rectangular box, the number "3. Letters & writings constitutional"

What's the first phrase you see after the "Letters & writings constitutional" there Foggy?

Yes, we all see it's the "Law of Nations"

We also see nothing, no, nada, zip, zero, nor hide nor hair of any English Common law written, and of course nothing there about "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)." There is no connection whatsoever of Calvin Case, but again we all do see the major driving force behind the US Constitution which was the Law of Nations.

[bushpilot1]

“Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case (1608)”

Cannot locate this document in the Journals of the Continental Congress.

You guys use to this say this about Vattel. But we know this is a lie the fogbow and Dr.Fraud fabricated.

Vattel is listed and not under Swiss.

Can you tell us where this document is located in the Journals referenced above?

[jaydee770]

>>... It takes gross revisionism to suggest that a 1797 book guided the document written in 1787...<<

And it takes an inane, pedantic idiot to suggest that the founders intended to allow someone subsequently born with multi-citizenship to qualify as a candidate for the office of President. The intent was clear in Art. II when they used the carefully considered terminology, “Natural-Born-Citizen” — not “subject”, nor “naturalized, nor ambiguous “citizen” with no other qualifier. To even attempt to suggest otherwise invalidates your point of view and proves your malfeasance and gross intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing you or any other black-robed scoundrel or politi-slut can do or say to change that original intent. Sorry.

[philman_36]

I really dislike when portions of what is said is left off.

Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. Dismiss at 8-9. The other Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases contest all these facts.
Plaintiff Welden makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, with the one exception of the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.
If you can't see why each of these cases should have been decided separately, as one Plaintiff's counsel had been informed they would be, then I simply can't help you.

@Mark Hatfield response to Kemp Decision
Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?
He didn't "rule" that he was born in Hawaii, he "considered" that he was born in Hawaii.

[Mr Rogers]

“they used the carefully considered terminology, “Natural-Born-Citizen””

Yes...echoing the terminology used for 150+ years before them, with a meaning that was known to all Founders and all the new states.

Remember, in the first draft of the Constitution, NATURALIZED citizens were allowed to be President...NBC tightened it, requiring someone born in the USA.

[philman_36]

If I might ask something of you two in an attempt to clear this up...
When you say, MHGinTN, that @There are at least three types of citizen for the U.S.: naturalized, native by being born on American soil, and Natural Born... are you referring to someone like the American Indians who reside on reservations?

[philman_36]

Perhaps it would behoove you to read Tucker's @conclusions in
"OF THE UNWRITTEN, OR COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND; AND ITS INTRODUCTION INTO, AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE UNITED AMERICAN STATES."

[philman_36]

Will you recall this reply of yours after you read Tucker’s conclusions?

[philman_36]

Perhaps it would behoove you to read Tucker’s conclusions I linked to above as well.

[Mr Rogers]

No, because we are not discussing if English common law applies to the USA. It does not.

However, English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders. Their understanding of what a legal term meant was shaped by living under and using English common law every day of their lives.

They could have written, “born of citizen parents” instead of “natural born citizen”, and everyone would agree they were following Vattel. Or they could have required the President be a NATIVE, which would probably mean they were following Vattel. But instead, they used a term that all of them were well familiar with, having used it all their lives. And the meaning of that term is found by understanding the common law MEANING of NBS.

As WKA put it:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

[philman_36]

However, English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders.
A very telling comment.

In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

Principles and application. I can understand your confusion.
IMO your principles are suspect and your application of them is obvious.

[philman_36]

Perhaps, then, in light of your previous comment, @Justice Scalia's comments would be better suited.

[philman_36]

The phrase "the right to be confronted with witnesses against him" -- what did confrontation consist of in England?

As you say, "...English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders."
Beyond that, the language of law, our common law became uniquely American.

[philman_36]

Have a cup. It's on me.

[MHGinTN]

Draw two large circles. In one circle write ‘naturalized’; caption the second circle ‘Native born’. Inside the second circle draw two smaller circles; label one circle native born by parent or parents being citizens at child’s birth; the other label native born by being born on American soil. Now, where the first smaller circle and the second smaller circle overlap to create a third area, label that smallest area Natural Born citizenship. The question of Indian citizenship has been dealt with beyond the necessary, so I will not be drawn into another useless discussion for the amusement of anti-birther obamanoids reading along.

[philman_36]

I was just trying to help others come to a fuller understanding as others have endeavored to help me.
So I beg your pardon and I'll leave it at that.

[Mr Rogers]

“As you say, “...English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders.”

Correct. So if you want to know what is meant by a legal term they used, see what it had meant all of their lives under English common law. In this case, it means that a NBC can have alien parents, if born in the USA.

[MHGinTN]

Reservations are not strictly ‘American soil’. The fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to people living on American soil and many, perhaps most, born and living on American. There are exclusionary terms in the Amendments which cover ALL the classes of citizen and non-citizenship, if applied with wisdom and reference to the intent of the founders. Obamanoid agitprops will argue any niggling point to try and divert from common sense.

[philman_36]

You have vociferously argued month after month that @Vattel had nothing to do with US law on citizenship.
You say that English common law doesn't apply @No, because we are not discussing if English common law applies to the USA. It does not. and on that we agree.

As indicated by your first reply which I linked to you seem unable to grasp the concept that Vattel was adopted into American common law as you believe that it merely covers international law. On that I disagree.

@US law has never followed Vattel on citizenship, nor would Vattel have expected it to. Vattel wrote on international law, and made the point that what he was writing didn’t hold true in 1758 England.
Did Vattel not apply to England since England already had a body of law?

The common law of America is uniquely American and the Founding Fathers did indeed use Vattel to form our common law.

[philman_36]

I think you should read my reply at 119 and then get back to me.

[Mr Rogers]

“the Founding Fathers did indeed use Vattel to form our common law.”

No, they did not.

1 - Vattel argued that the citizenship of the child was determined by the citizenship of the father, regardless of birth location. That is not and has not been true in the USA. It also was never true of England.

2 - They DID use the phrase NBC - 10 years BEFORE anyone suggested that Vattel used it. And the French word translated NBC in 1797 was ‘indigenes’ - which is also an English word, thus needing no translation at all.

English common law does not RULE US law, but the legal terms used by the Founders - and they used NBC & NBS interchangeably - have their meaning rooted in English law. That is where ALL the legal terms in use in the colonies were found, and thus is the meaning used by the Founders.

Vattel’s rules on citizenship were NOT incorporated into American law. If it had been, our citizenship would be based on the citizenship of our father, and no one would then dispute that Obama Jr is a Kenyan.

[philman_36]

No, they did not.
All right then, if Vattel wasn't used then what was used in the formulation of our laws?

[MamaTexan]

No, they did not.

Yes, they did. You have been shown repeatedly with sourced quotes. Here is another:

I received yours of the 16th Inst. Relating to the Capture of Capt. Burnel. An Application is making to Government here to have him reclaim’d, as being taken from under the Protection of your Forts, contrary to the Law of Nations;
Benjamin Franklin To Charles Drouet, Paris, June 23 1777

Care to explain why Franklin was making and Application for release of a Captain because that capture violated the Law of Nations?

And I really hate to burst your 'translation' argument, but you DO know that many of the Founders were fluent in French, don't you? It's not like they couldn't read the original for themselves.

------

You also continually disregard Tucker as 'English common law'.

I suspect that is because his numerous quotes concerning Vattel, as even the lightest amount of research will reveal Tucker's history.

He annotated Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England specifically outlining their effects on US Law and was appointed by Madison to the US Supreme court.

Discounting someone considered the Father of American Law just because he doesn't agree with your position makes you look foolish.

[philman_36]

Come on, man, you should know this stuff and not take forever to reply!
Did they use John Locke's "Treatise of Civil Government"?
Did they use John Calvin's "Of Civil Government"?

What all did they use...now that I've given you some of the answers.

[Mr Rogers]

“Care to explain why Franklin was making and Application for release of a Captain because that capture violated the Law of Nations?”

Because that involved INTERNATIONAL LAW. Not US law.

“You also continually disregard Tucker as ‘English common law’.”

No. I point out, however, that English common law is the source of the legal terms used by the Founders, and the definitions of those terms - which is a statement that the court have always upheld.

What they have never upheld - because it would be incredibly stupid - is that a translation made in 1797 determines the meaning of a phrase written in 1787.

[MamaTexan]

Because that involved INTERNATIONAL LAW. Not US law.

A logical point. To take the logic further, why would the Founders use the Law of Nations internally, yet ignore its use internally?

The answer is, of course, they wouldn't.

Vattel's idea that 'natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens' was repeated decades later in Congress-

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
— John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

-----

because it would be incredibly stupid - is that a translation made in 1797 determines the meaning of a phrase written in 1787.

A Subject of the King was subject to the King's whims where a Citizen is his own King.....it's why we're 'Sovereign' citizens.

It can't be that that hard of a stretch to see that a subject in Vattel's work is analogous to Citizen to the Founders.

[MamaTexan]

why would the Founders use the Law of Nations internally externally, yet ignore its use internally?

[philman_36]

From now on every time I see your name on a thread I'm going to link to this thread and your lack of a reply for an hour on a question concerning the most basic information you should know like the back of your hand. You expose your own self for the ignorant ass that you are!

When you can't even show, for over an hour, despite prompt replies to my other questions, that you're aware of the works outside of Vattel that the Founding Fathers used in the creation of our Nation then I have no use for you and I will heap scorn upon you at every instance till you can't show your face on these boards without being mocked with ridicule and scorn by others! (if that's even possible)

@Mr Rogers Epic Fail just so it's convenient.
Highlight, right click, view selection source, copy and paste.

[philman_36]

Correction - @Mr Rogers Epic Fail

[4Zoltan]

"All right then, if Vattel wasn't used then what was used in the formulation of our laws?"

They based it on English Law.

"Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the terms, "ex post facto" related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite."James Madison, August 29, 1789, "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention"

Alexander Hamilton told as where to find the meaning of the terms in the Constitution. In a 1795 legal brief about direct and indirect taxes, he says, "where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

And there is Chief Justice Marshall,

“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, "the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States."

"As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833

And Justice Wayne,

"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, American statesmen were conversant with the laws of England, and familiar with the prerogatives exercised by the Crown. Hence, when the words to grant pardons were used in the Constitution, they conveyed to the mind the authority as exercised by the English Crown or by its representatives in the colonies. At that time, both Englishmen and Americans attached the same meaning to the word "pardon." In the convention which framed the Constitution, no effort was made to define or change its meaning, although it was limited in cases of impeachment."

"We must then give the word the same meaning as prevailed here and in England at the time it found a place in the Constitution. This is in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in 30 U. S. 280, and in Flavell's Case,@ 8 Watts & Sargent 197; Attorney General's brief.” Mr. Justice Wayne in ex parte Wells 1855

And Chief Justice and Former President of the United States William Howard Taft,

"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Chief Justice William Howard Taft, in Ex Parte Grossman, 1925

Of course, Justice Scalia,

"I think people are concerned principally about the use of foreign law in the interpretation of the United States Constitution. Even there I have to tell you I cannot say it is never relevant. Of course, the foreign law I think is relevant is very old foreign law. Very old English law—because what is meant by the terms of our federal Constitution depended upon what Englishmen in 1791 considered due pro­cess of law, what they considered to be cruel and unusual punishments, and so forth. So I use foreign law all the time. But it is all very old English law..” Justice Scalia, February 21, 2006, Remarks at American Enterprise Institute

and

"What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended” (A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 1997)

[philman_36]

They based it on English Law.
And? We're back to the principles and the language of law.
What other principles and language were they supposed to use?

Your quotes change nothing.

[Mr Rogers]

Good quotes, but philman_36 (and other birthers) have problems reading entire sentences, let alone paragraphs. It goes back to

The Fundamental Theorem of Birtherism:

If birthers could read, they wouldn't be birthers.

[philman_36]

BTW, this might help you out so you can give some context next time.

CARRIAGE TAX

The Constitution gives power to Congress to lay and collect the taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, requiring that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Here duties, imposts, and excises appear to be contradistinguished from taxes, and while the latter is left to apportionment, the former are enjoined to be uniform.
But, unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes.
If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and not liable to apportionment; consequently not a direct tax.
An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one: yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.

[philman_36]

See reply 128 on this thread.

[4Zoltan]

"Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the terms, "ex post facto" related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite."

James Madison, August 29, 1789, "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention"

"James R. Stoner, Jr. has identified four ways in which common law influenced the U.S. Constitution. Consistent with some of the discussions at the Convention examined above, he first observes that the common law provided some of the language of the document. He specifically cites the provisions related to habeas corpus, ex post facto laws, the provision that an individual be “natural born,” and the term “good behavior” (2003, 17). He believes that, unless otherwise stated, the presumption was that such words would continue to maintain their existing meaning." from “The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of American Founding”, 2005, Dr. John Vile

Dr. James R. Stoner Jr. is a Constitutional Law Professor at Louisiana State University. And he is associated with Glenn Beck University.

[patlin]

“philman_36: the Founding Fathers did indeed use Vattel to form our common law.”

Rogers: No, they did not.

Umm, hate to burst you bubble Rogers, but you are utterly wrong. If one actually goes to the congressional archives to see the list of books ordered placed in the congressional library, they will see that Blackstone was listed, used & cited for Article III, the judicial system as his was the best over all for setting up a system of courts. Blackstone simply was not mentioned as to citizenship as his views of subjectship & perpetual loyalty to the king were far too extreme. Blackstone worshiped the ground the king walked on. But for the record, here is proof Blackstone was not cited in regards to citizenship ...
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Farrand's Records, Volume 1

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=001/llfr001.db&recNum=465&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr001129))%230010466&linkText=1

bottom of page 437 & continued on page 438: “In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers—Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes without giving up their liberty”

[Harlan1196]

So show me where Hatfield contested the birth certificate. You mean to tell me that knowing that the other plaintiff stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii and had Obama’s birth certificate entered into evidence?

You have to play the hand you are dealt. Hatfield had a default judgment in hand and threw it away. The judge was going to recommend that Obama be taken off the ballot - hubris and legal incompetence is a bad combination.

[philman_36]

Do you know the difference between a hearing and a trial?

[Harlan1196]

A hearing is much less formal than a trial with the judge having more discretion. My experience with them is that the judge usually will get to the heart of the issue very quickly - it drives them nuts when some wannabe Perry Mason wants to turn it into the trial of the century. I am sure it was torture to him to watch Orly turn his hearing into a circus.

[philman_36]

Are the rules of evidence the same for a hearing as they are for a trial?
@Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24
@Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-1-1
As used in this title, the term:
(1) 'Competent evidence' means evidence which is admissible.
(2) 'Cumulative evidence' means evidence which is additional to other evidence already obtained.
(3) 'Direct evidence' means evidence which immediately points to the question at issue.
(4) 'Indirect evidence' or 'circumstantial evidence' means evidence which only tends to establish the issue by proof of various facts, sustaining by their consistency the hypothesis claimed.
(5) 'Preponderance of evidence' means that superior weight of evidence upon the issues involved, which, while not enough to free the mind wholly from a reasonable doubt, is yet sufficient to incline a reasonable and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than to the other.
(6) 'Presumptive evidence' means evidence which consists of inferences drawn by human experience from the connection of cause and effect and from observations of human conduct.
(7) 'Sufficient evidence' means evidence which is satisfactory for the purpose.

1 A It's the birth certificate that I downloaded from
2 the WhiteHouse.gov website. It's a birth certificate
3 professed to be of Barack Hussein Obama II.

I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

[philman_36]

@Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-2-4Where either party introduces part of a document or record, the opposite party may read so much of the balance as is relevant.

Kind of hard to do that if you're not in court, isn't it.

[philman_36]

@III. Welden’s CaseA It's the birth certificate that I downloaded from
2 the WhiteHouse.gov website. It's a birth certificate
3 professed to be of Barack Hussein Obama II.
4 Q And do you see an item on line 8 -- I'm sorry,
5 excuse me -- on item 11. Can you read that?
6 A Yes, item 11 says the birthplace is Kenya, East
7 Africa.
8 Q And that's referring to --
9 A That is the birthplace of the father.

[philman_36]

@Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-3-2When, in a legal investigation, information, conversations, letters and replies, and similar evidence are facts to explain conduct and ascertain motives, they shall be admitted in evidence not as hearsay but as original evidence.

I would be concerned if I were Jablonski.

However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial.

[Harlan1196]

So you are arguing that birth certificate is not a forgery when it comes to proving that Obama’s dad was born in Kenya but is a forgery when it comes to proving that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Do you really think the judge's mind works like yours? Either the birth certificate is valid or it is not. And when on top of it, Welden’s attorney stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii then you get the verdict you got.

[philman_36]

I'm just showing you the rules of evidence. And since you didn't answer the question I'll ask it again...

Are the rules of evidence the same for a hearing as they are for a trial?

[Harlan1196]

You know that in that context, Law of Nations does not refer to a book title? It was the term used in the 18th century to refer to International Law. Vattel wrote a book on 18th century international law.

[philman_36]

Here's one for you...
@Georgia Code - Evidence - Title 24, Section 24-1-2The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth. The rules of evidence are framed with a view to this prominent end, seeking always for pure sources and the highest evidence.

[Harlan1196]

So then it makes no sense to stipulate Obama’s birthplace and submit a copy of his birth certificate. It was the plaintiff's evidence after all - it is not the judge's place to correct their mistakes.

You seem to have this image of judges going out to seek only the “purest” sources. I take it you have no practical experience with the judicial system. Judges are busy people - they are not going create work for themselves.

[Harlan1196]

I can understand your reluctance to answer my question. Why answer a potentially damaging question when we can dive into legal miniutia?

If the BC was a forgery as many maintain, then it was not possible to prove that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, correct?

[MamaTexan]

You know that in that context, Law of Nations does not refer to a book title?

The Founders did not capitalize non-proper nouns.