Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

http://english.pravda.ru ^ | February 6 2012 | Mark S. McGrew

[Para-Ord.45]

Friday, February 3, 2012, for some kind of a bribe or because he was threatened, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi sold out his country and defecated on the constitution of The United States of America.

As an Administrative law judge in the State of Georgia, a case was presented to him to have Barack Obama removed from the ballot to run for President in the State of Georgia.

His actions have set precedence in American law that if a person is charged with a crime, the best defense, is to not show up for court. Law schools may now offer a course in "The Obama Defense".

Three separate legal teams presented evidence and witnesses to show that Obama is not eligible to run for President because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama produced no evidence, no witnesses and both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so.

Forget about what we think, whether he is, or is not a natural born citizen. Opinions don't count. Only evidence and witnesses count. But we're not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have.

Judge Michael Malihi violated a basic rule of legal interpretation in his ruling. He violated our earliest Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Constitution. He ignored evidence. He ignored witnesses. He ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the term "natural born citizen" means, one who is born in America to two American citizen parents.

As attorney Leo Donofrio points out on his website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

"...this Court is 'not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.' ...There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father's British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948.

All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot."

It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the constitution and legal precedent. He knows he's a crook. He knows he's a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.

He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.

[Kansas58]

You really don't know what you are talking about.

First, the 14th was just that, an AMENDMENT and is not an “extension of Congressional power” -— the 14th is a limit, a prohibition against the States, telling them that they MUST regard Blacks as Citizens. It was NOT “legislation”, but it IS part of the Constitution itself, amending and changing that document.

Also, Congress has declared many types of situations that grant birthright citizenship. The rules for citizenship, when born on foreign soil, have changed many, many times.

Nobody, anywhere, at anytime, has challenged the right and duty of Congress to set the rules for ALL forms of citizenship, and there are only TWO forms:

Natural Born or Naturalized!

[DiogenesLamp]

In fact, I am guessing that even a few Birthers might think you have gone over the edge a bit!

You started over the edge and have yet to creep back over on this side of it.

[Kansas58]

The vast majority of the country thinks you, and your legal theories, are crazy.
The vast majority of lawyers thinks you, and your legal theories, are not valid.
No elected official, anywhere in the country, supports your views.
The majority of conservatives do not agree with you.

You look rather silly questioning the sanity of anyone, on much of anything.

[MamaTexan]

You do not understand the process of law, you do not understand the rules of evidence, you do not understand much of anything, thus your very flawed opinions.

Being considered wrong and stupid by you is a badge of honor.

-----

Conservatives who fall for this Vattel stuff are sheep being lead to slaughter.

People who think the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in order to secure the blessings of Liberty for themselves and their posterity but giving total authority to the federal creation has no knowledge of history.

Not to mention plenty of people have posted sources for the assertion the Founders followed Vattel. I've even shown where the co author of the 14th Amendment recognized the 2 types of citizen...yet you ignore it.

-----

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth, and nothing else.

Repeating the lie won't make it come true.

[Rides3]

"Indians were considered to be foreign nations physically located within the USA."

Obama was born a foreign citizen in the USA. The Democratic National Committee OPENLY ADMITTED on their Fight The Smears website that Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his father.

[MamaTexan]

Natural Born or Naturalized!

You do realize you just contradicted your own post #215 where you said

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth, and nothing else.

Don't you?

-----

Also, Congress has declared many types of situations that grant birthright citizenship.

Which I've covered.

-----

Nobody, anywhere, at anytime, has challenged the right and duty of Congress to set the rules for ALL forms of citizenship,

Please show me the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the ability to determine the criteria for Natural born.

The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker

The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.
William Rawle

You quoted Tucker and Rawle earlier. Did you bother reading the entirety of their work, or were you just cherry picking?

[Rides3]

"Gray ONLY applies the 14th amendment to children of resident aliens ... or "every citizen or subject of another country while domiciled here" ... this covers slaves and permanent immigrants who have not yet naturalized. Gray reserves Minor's NBC definition for children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not a 14th amendment citizen. He MIGHT be a statutory citizen under the collective naturalization statute on Hawaii, contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ... if the Kenyan coward was ever brave enough to provide legal evidence in a court of law."

Exactly. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why would I? The plaintiffs agreed Obama was born in Hawaii. The judge agreed Obama was born in Hawaii. Therefore, the judge agreed that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen.

Again, not ALL of the Plaintiff's stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. ORLY stipulated that his place of birth was undetermined, and that no evidence to establish the truth was available.

The Judge's reasoning could be justified in light of the first two cases where they submitted that image file as "evidence" but Orly specifically argued that it was a forgery, and therefore not accurate. In the absence of a defense argument to the contrary, the Judge was wrong to use the "facts" of the first two cases to dismiss her evidence\argument in the third case.

I've maintained the position for the past 3+ years that this "two citizen parent" so-called "requirement" is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet. It has no basis in law or our Constitution and, as such, no court is going to buy it. In case after case after case, I've been proven correct. Nobody is buying this nonsense. Nobody.

If you think this was made up during the past 3 years, then how do you explain the evidence, some of which stretches back centuries which shows that the two Parent requirement WAS a requirement? Evidence such as this: (Alexandria-Herald October 1, 1811- Purportedly written by James Madison.)

Are we supposed to have a time machine to insert stuff like this in history? I assure you, had we a time machine, we would have informed the founders of what sort of mess that people such as yourselves would create, and beg them to be more explicit in their writings, as if they were talking to mindless children, because THAT is exactly the sort of people that are arguing about this today!

Next time you repeat that "this "two citizen parent" so-called "requirement" nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet." Claim, I am going to call you a LIAR, and I am not going to stop calling you a LIAR. I will seek out your messages, and every time I see one, I am going to call you a LIAR and link back to this message that PROVES you have been informed and presented with evidence that your claim is wrong. Now you either prove this evidence is fraudulent, (I have more) or you shut up with that accusation against birthers!

I will grant you the benefit of ignorance this one time, but say it again, and I will be on you like stink on Sh*t. You have been informed. Ignorance will no longer be acceptable as a defense. It is past the point where we should no longer tolerate blatant lies.

Admin Moderator, I am asking for a ruling here. Regarding the repetition of a proven lie; I argue that such is not the type of conduct befitting a member of Free Republic, and ought to be grounds for dismissal. What say you?

[Kansas58]

Madison WROTE the Constitution.
In a court case, long after ratification, Madison lamented that the States, and Congress, had not yet defined issues of citizenship.
You really are absurd.
Was the AUTHOR of the Constitution “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”???

That the founders were familiar with a French guy, named Vattel, does not mean that all of his views were controlling on every issue. In fact, the Colonies and the original 13 States followed ENGLISH COMMON LAW (not French law) and English Common Law supports MY position.

Beyond that point, no Supreme Court decision, based on Common Law, carries Constitutional weight when new, legislated law is at issue.

Simple legal logic.

I have read parts of the Koran (much of it was posed on Free Republic) -— that does not make me Muslim.

The Founders were familiar with Vattel, but they incorporated ENGLISH COMMON LAW which is entirely different from the Frenchman's ideas.

[MamaTexan]

So, when you want to win an argument, you claim that God is on your side, at it is over, huh?

Um....Natural Law is the Law of Nature and nature's God.

I posted a link to the legal definition of Natural Law earlier....or were you SO busy telling me how wrong and stupid I was that you didn't bother to pursue it?

n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.

2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.

Natural Law does not control every legal or political or Constitutional question.

No, but it does cover this one.

[Kansas58]

LOL you do realize that your own “authority” grants citizen making power to the States, which power was denied them by the Constitutional Amendments that came, there after?

You do not understand any of this.

And, no, Natural Born and Naturalized are the only two forms of citizenship, and nothing I have said contradicts this at all.

Congress, through simple legislation, has changed the rules for birthright citizenship several times. Nobody has ever even bothered to challenge the right and duty of Congress to make such rules and laws. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, requested that Congress (or the States, which could so legislate before the Civil War) make such rules.

A person who obtains citizenship, by birthright, is a Natural Born Citizen.

[Drew68]

Claim, I am going to call you a LIAR, and I am not going to stop calling you a LIAR.

If I had a nickel for each time birthers called me a liar, I'd have a lot of nickels. Meanwhile, no court anywhere in the country is buying any of this so-called "truth" the birthers are selling. Obama is still the President of the United States and birthers are no closer today in removing him on the basis of his eligibility than they were three years ago. Ping the mods if you want. This stuff was bunk three years ago when Chief Justice Roberts swore Obama in to office and it is bunk today, as Friday's ruling in Georgia once again clearly stated.

[Kansas58]

Again, you act as a tyrant, telling us what God wants?

The AUTHOR of the Constitution disagrees with you, completely.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, you are an idiot. Arguing with you will make people stupid.

[Rides3]

"It must, further, be asked of Birthers why they want the PR disaster of going into the “intent” of the Founders on citizenship, since the greatest political document in history STILL had to make compromises due to slavery and the Indians."

The actual historical facts are what they are. NOT every child born in the U.S. was a natural born citizen from the time of the Declaration of Independence, on. Some were specifically excluded, as you note. The fact that this was corrected nearly a century and more later with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 does NOT change the fact that NBS was NOT the same as NBC. To say that it was is extremely flawed logic. The Wong Kim Ark decision even confirms that by specifically NOT declaring Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen, as noted by both Ankeny v. Daniels and the GA judge. Do you consider the Wong Kim Ark decision to be a PR disaster, as well?

[DiogenesLamp]

Cite the Congressional legislation that overturned Minor and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

Talking to an idiot makes all parties dumber for the effort. I wouldn't waste my time with this guy.

[DiogenesLamp]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, clearly agrees with me.

No he doesn't.

Idiot.

[Para-Ord.45]

Publius/Madison, John Jay, multiple USSC precedents versus one “freeper” who thinks getting in the last post with penumbras and emanations aka we make this shit up as we go along means he wins.

LOL

Sad.

Wish these posers would simply skulk back to the HuffPo or DU whence they came.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you have trouble believing Orly sent this? I don’t, especially given her statements about Judge Clay Land, for which she was sanctioned. But time will tell - sooner or later her appeal will be posted somewhere else, perhaps on her site. Or the court will comment on it.

I have no trouble believing Orly could have sent such a thing. Orly is not a good spokesperson for the cause, but we go to war with the army we have, not the army we wished we had.

As I said of Homosexuals in the military, "I am not concerned with how well they shoot, or what other skill they may bring to the fight, I am mostly concerned with whether or not they are on our side."

Orly may not be able to shoot straight, but I have little doubt that she is trying to do what she thinks is the right thing. Living under communism would seemingly make one highly paranoid and full of dread regarding it's emergence in what was thought to be a safe haven. The realization that you have been followed by the plague would be akin to what she must be feeling.

Even so, I think she had better sense than did the the first two (more professional) lawyers in refusing to stipulate that the internet file image constitutes proof of anything. In that regard, she was smarter than they. Didn't matter, the judge used THEIR unverified facts to decide HER case.

[MamaTexan]

Madison lamented that the States, and Congress, had not yet defined issues of citizenship.

True. The issues of citizenship that fell within the authority of Congress...nothing more. Making a 'uniform rule of naturalization' is NOT the same thing as determining every aspect of every type of citizenship

-----

That the founders were familiar with a French guy, named Vattel, does not mean that all of his views were controlling on every issue.

Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law

.... and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.
View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker

-----

The Founders were familiar with Vattel, but they incorporated ENGLISH COMMON LAW which is entirely different from the Frenchman's ideas.

You might consider reading this part of Tucker;

Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States

Fifthly. … That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.
View of the Constitution of the United States

[all emphasis mine]

------

This merry-go-round has been loads of fun.

Shall we go 'round again?