Posted on 02/09/2012 9:10:05 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
On February 3rd a much anticipated decision was issued by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, recommending that Secretary of State Brian Kemp allow Barack Hussein Obama to appear on the state ballot as a candidate for President.
Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president.
Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself.
And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law.
Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:
1.) “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (1) p3
In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision, as Barack Obama provided nothing, either in documentary or verbal form. Yet Malihi states “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…” (my caps) (1) p6
From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.
2.) “The Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive.” (1) p7
Ankeny (misspelled throughout the decision by Malihi) was a 2009, Indiana case brought by two plaintiffs who claimed Obama was not qualified to be president on the same grounds as used by at least one plaintiff in the Georgia case...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Both points are valid. Malihi just used a sharia standard of evidence (none needed) to give Obama a favorable ruling, which is also bad precedent.
If people realize that it is a ruling allowed by sharia rather than by US judicial standards, it will help people realize where all this is coming from and where it is headed.
Those who have no problem with this legal evidentiary standard are supporting the same kinds of things that sharia has allowed all over the world. This isn’t just some tee-hee stupid “birther” issue. This is about whether we LITERALLY allow judges to make up their own “facts”.
I’ve said elsewhere that in order to bring attention to the ridiculousness of this precedent, Georgians should post birth certificates, driver’s licenses, medical licenses, etc online under the names of Mickey Mouse, Daisy Duck, etc and then show those images on their laptops whenever anybody asks for documentation. If any GA state entity refuses to accept the laptop image the person - under the name they are claiming - should sue GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - for allowing Obama to use a computer image of an alleged vital record but not allowing Daisy Duck to do the same.
So I am not disagreeing with what you’ve said about it being a terrible precedent. I think Malihi should be made to lie in the bed he’s made, so it can be soundly scoffed and nullified.
I’m just expanding on it to say that the evidentiary standard Malihi used is the same one used to stone women to death and steal property from Coptic Christians in Egypt (etc ad nauseum) without any evidence other than “judge’s knowledge”. And if we allow it here - even if in a case that people want to mock, call racist, or whatever - it plants an acorn that WILL grow into that full-blown tree.
Why, if Democrat judges have to start relying on laws and ethics to make decisions, that’ll kill the Democrat party. They won’t stand for any of this laws and ethics baloney.
There were no other attorneys in the case. Jablonski was not there, and neither Taitz nor Hatfield were parties to Irion’s case.
The standard for the probative value of a HI document in a state other than HI is that it have the authenticating marks - namely, the raised seal and certifying statement. When in that hearing did Malihi feel the raised seal on Obama’s birth certificate?
I feel the same way. I pray every day for divine intervention. The congress is being held hostage by this administration. Something's got to break.
There is a pattern of behavior that repeats. The judge is sympathetic, the judge makes supportive statements, the judge sets a future date for the decision. The date arrives and the judge's 'Evil Twin' walks into the court and to the total surprise hands down a ruling that is opposite from everything that the 'Good Twin' said before.
You are dead on - I missed the point!!!And, your patient (and excellent) explanation makes me understand that not only was Malihi's ruling a bad precedent, his use of sharia evidentiary standards make this an outrageously horrible legal precedent!!!
I’ve said elsewhere that in order to bring attention to the ridiculousness of this precedent, Georgians should post birth certificates, driver’s licenses, medical licenses, etc online under the names of Mickey Mouse, Daisy Duck, etc and then show those images on their laptops whenever anybody asks for documentation. If any GA state entity refuses to accept the laptop image the person - under the name they are claiming - should sue GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - for allowing Obama to use a computer image of an alleged vital record but not allowing Daisy Duck to do the same.
This is BRILLIANT!!!!! I L-O-V-E IT!!!
I have wondered many times here what it will take for America to come to its senses and put a stop to what is happening? Where is our sense of outrage?? And, when are we going to realize that the rot and corruption in our country has reached such a level that we can no longer correct it at the ballot box?? That ship left decades ago!!
If we do not seize the opportunity to retake control of our government, we will regret it to the end of time!!
It was an obvious set-up.
The Judge ignored his own Subpoena and ignored the fact that the lawyer never bothered to show up.
I can’t helkp but wonder what would happen if you or I ignored a subpoena and had a lawyer that didn’t show up.
I agree that either someone got to the Judge or he played a game with us.
The least that should have happened was the Judge tell the SOS that he could not make a Judgement as there was no defendant to appear, and leave it up to the SOS.
That would be another way that Georgians could bring out the ridiculousness of what just happened: mimic Obama’s behavior and if the result isn’t the same then sue the State of GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Some murder case should try it just for kicks, since they’d have nothing to lose anyway. Have people who are subpoenaed just not show up. And then if the judge slaps a contempt charge on anybody, sue them for violating the 14th Amendment.
That would be another way that Georgians could bring out the ridiculousness of what just happened: mimic Obama’s behavior and if the result isn’t the same then sue the State of GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Some murder case should try it just for kicks, since they’d have nothing to lose anyway. Have people who are subpoenaed just not show up. And then if the judge slaps a contempt charge on anybody, sue them for violating the 14th Amendment.
“.....The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:....”
Dude (or Dudette/Dude-it, whatever applies), if you were being paid by the hour for your postings on this subject, you will probably among the “One Per-centers” based solely on your posting effort this year.
Kansas, your Swift link goes to a page on Madison. Swift (if your citation is accurate) is entitled to his opinion. The Supreme Court did NOT cite that opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
And then your Madison quote doesn’t say place of birth is the ONLY criterion of allegiance. It’s probably why in the very next sentence he says “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” Birthright and ancestors means that Madison thought jus sanguinis was important as well as place of birth.
YOU HAVE NO CASE!
Most conservatives ignore you.
Most conservatives are embarrassed by you.
A few of us are trying to help you face the facts, but you have more love, it seems, for those who refuse to even engage you on this nonsense.
You are wrong. You have had your case eviscerated by legal experts, frequently.
You have absolutely no one on your side, with any authority whatsoever.
However, when this is all pointed out to you, all you do is shoot the messenger.
This is, of course, why you are ignored by the vast majority of conservatives.
The fact that one of the attorneys entered a copy of Obama’s BC into evidence doesn’t mean a thing!! It could have been a crayon drawn BC for all the weight of factual evidence it carried as to Obama having been born in Hawaii!!!! It was NOT an original BC. And as long as originals are said to exist, only they can be presented as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. At least one of the plaintiff attorneys subpoenaed the original BC and Malihi ruled the subpoena must be honored. Had it been and an original brought to the court as evidence, Malihi could have used it for his factual claim that Obama was born in Hawaii.
1. Madison makes clear, in a case where even radical birthers agree on the Citizenship of the person involved, that more guidance from Congress would be helpful in the definitions of citizenship. In other words, Madison, Father of the Constitution, makes CLEAR that Congress can define BOTH Naturalized and Natural Born CITIZENSHIP!
2.) Madison says, clearly, that we need to go NO FURTHER, in this particular case, than to show that the person in question was born on United States soil.
Madison's opinion is much stronger the writings of Vattel.
Madison KNEW THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS.
The Frenchman, Vattel, can not and would not know the intent of the Founders.
“If birthers could read, they wouldn't be birthers”
HERE? Your own legal genius submitted the “evidence” so you have no real reason to object.
The Judge was free to accept what was admitted by the petitioner, period, without protest from opposition counsel for Obama, who was not there anyway.
It would have been OBAMA’s job to protest any evidence presented by opposition counsel.
The fix is in for all of the elites. When will all realize that this country is a banana republic.
Well, no, there's nothing in this passage that says this at all. It's certainly not in the quote you posted.
2.) Madison says, clearly, that we need to go NO FURTHER, in this particular case, than to show that the person in question was born on United States soil.
... which was immediately followed by saying Smith based his claim on his birthright. He later says in the same speech: "If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature." The only ties of nature that made Smith a member of the society was through his parents.
Madison's opinion is much stronger the writings of Vattel. Madison KNEW THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS. The Frenchman, Vattel, can not and would not know the intent of the Founders.
A) Nothing here says anything about natural-born citizenship. B) It shows that Madison was rejecting the common law that would have otherise made Smith a natural-born subject with perpetual allegiance to the crown. C) Madison says only that Smith is a citizen:
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.
The judge said that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs had no probative value, so it would be a contradiction to use that evidence to say Obama was born in Hawaii.
But you might be surprised what a people can do for themselves when they have the blessings of the Almighty. Perhaps the prayer should be for God to use his people to accomplish when they can't do for themselves.
Just a little matter of including God in on the planning stages.
Maybe we should set a time when all Freepers and their friends and families can all pray the same prayer. We should, perhaps, start with prayer suggestions. Anyone?
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.