Posted on 02/04/2012 5:43:26 AM PST by broken_arrow1
President Obama's name should appear on Georgia's 2012 presidential ballot, in the official opinion of Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia's Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH), issued on February 3. Judge Malihi's decision is the result of hearings held January 26 on three separate actions brought by several Georgia residents. Under Georgia law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp had referred the challenges, filed last November, to the OSAH for a recommendation.
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against the party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding...Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiff's request.
Two of the challenges, represented by attorney Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation and Georgia Rep. J. Mark Hatfield, did not focus on Obama's place of birth or the infamous birth certificate. Rather, Irion and Hatfield contended that Obama, with his non-US citizen father, is not a "natural born" citizen according to the rule of statutory construction in the interpretation of the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent. (Further explanation of those assertions is contained in a comprehensive amicus brief submitted to the court, prepared by attorney Leo Donofrio.)
In his sweeping denial of the Plaintiff's challenges, however, Judge Malihi did not mention the principle, and instead relied on the 2009 case of Ankeny v Governor, stating that "[t]he Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Because the plaintiffs actually said that for the purpose of the hearing they agreed that Obama was born in Hawaii. So the judge took them at their word and said that Obama was born in Hawaii.
People need to learn that there are different class’ of “citizens”.
In the previous chapter, a handy matrix was developed to organize the key terms which define the concepts of status and jurisdiction as they apply to federal income taxation. In particular, an alien is any individual who is not a citizen of the “United States**”. The term “citizen” has a specific legal meaning in the Code of Federal Regulations (”CFR”) which promulgate the Internal Revenue Code (”IRC”):
Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.
[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]
What, then, is meant by the term “United States” and what is meant by the phrase “its jurisdiction”? In this regulation, is the term “United States” a singular phrase, a plural phrase, or is it both?
The astute reader has already noticed that an important clue is given by regulations which utilize the phrase “its jurisdiction”. The term “United States” in this regulation must be a singular phrase, otherwise the regulation would need to utilize the phrase “their jurisdiction” or “their jurisdictions” to be grammatically correct.
As early as the year 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court was beginning to recognize that the term “United States” could designate either the whole, or a particular portion, of the American empire. In a case which is valuable, not only for its relevance to federal taxes, but also for its terse and discrete logic, Chief Justice Marshall exercised his characteristic brilliance in the following passage:
The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States* than Maryland or Pennsylvania ....
[Loughborough v. Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317]
[5 L.Ed. 98 (1820), emphasis added]
By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall’s singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term “United States” can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:
The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
This same Court authority is cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”:
United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:
1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:
2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:
3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
[emphasis added]
Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:
It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of “United States.” The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term “United States**” is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.
[A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
[emphasis added, italics in original]
It is very important to note the careful use of the word “sovereign” by Chief Justice Stone in the Hooven case. Of the three different meanings of “United States” which he articulates, the United States is “sovereign” in only two of those three meanings. This is not a grammatical oversight on the part of Justice Stone. Sovereignty is not a term to be used lightly, or without careful consideration. In fact, it is the foundation for all governmental authority in America, because it is always delegated downwards from the true source of sovereignty, the People themselves. This is the entire basis of our Constitutional Republic. Sovereignty is so very important and fundamental, an entire chapter of this book is later dedicated to this one subject (see Chapter 11 infra).
The federal zone, over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, is the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions belonging to Congress, and a limited amount of land within the States of the Union, called federal “enclaves”.
The Secretary of the Treasury can only claim exclusive jurisdiction over this federal zone and over citizens of this zone. In particular, the federal enclaves within the 50 States can only come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress if they consist of land which has been properly “ceded” to Congress by the act of a State Legislature. A good example of a federal enclave is a “ceded” military base. The authority to exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves originates in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (”1:8:17”) in the U.S. Constitution. By virtue of the exclusive authority that is vested in Congress by this clause, Congress shall have the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States**, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article l, Section 8, Clause 17]
[emphasis added]
The power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislative authority over its territories and possessions, as distinct from the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves, is given by a different authority in the U.S. Constitution. This authority is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (”4:3:2”), as follows:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States**; ....
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2]
[emphasis added]
Within these areas, it is essential to understand that the Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations which restrict its power in the areas of land over which the 50 States exercise their respective sovereign authorities:
... [T]he United States** may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution .... In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States***. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States**, has made those guaranties [sic] applicable.
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[emphasis added]
In other words, the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, either to the territory or to the citizens of that zone, or both. Remember, this is the same Hooven case which officially defined three separate and distinct meanings of the term “United States”. The Supreme Court ruled that this case would be the last time it would address official definitions of the term “United States”. Therefore, the Hooven case must be judicially noticed by the entire American legal community. See Appendix W for other rulings and for citations to important essays published in the Harvard Law Review on the controversy that surrounds the meaning of “United States”, even today. In particular, author Langdell’s article “The Status of Our New Territories” is a key historical footing for the three Hooven definitions. To avoid confusion, be careful to note that Langdell arranges the three “United States” in a sequence that is different from that of Hooven:
Thirdly. — ... [T]he term “United States” has often been used to designate all territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extended. [a tautology] The conclusion, therefore, is that, while the term “United States” has three meanings, only the first and second of these are known to the Constitution; and that is equivalent to saying that the Constitution of the United States*** as such does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it, — a proposition the truth of which will, it is believed, be placed beyond doubt by an examination of the instances in which the term “United States” is used in the Constitution.
[Langdell, “The Status of Our New Territories” ]
[12 Harvard Law Review 365, 371]
[emphasis added]
Note carefully that Langdell’s third definition and Hooven’s second definition both exhibit subtle tautologies, that is, they use the word they are defining in the definitions of the word defined. A careful reading of his article reveals that Langdell’s third definition of “United States” actually implies the whole American “empire”, namely, the States and the federal zone combined, making it identical to Justice Marshall’s definition (see above). Therefore, because it contains a provable tautology, the second Hooven definition is clearly ambiguous too; it can be interpreted in at least two completely different ways: (1) as the federal zone only, or (2) as the 50 States and the federal zone combined (i.e., the whole “empire”). Tautologies like this are rampant throughout federal statutes and case law. For example, consider the following provision from Title 18, where federal crimes are defined:
Section 5. United States defined
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
[18 U.S.C. 5, emphasis added]
[note the tautology]
So now, what is “sovereignty” in this context? The definitive solution to this nagging ambiguity is found in the constitutional meaning of the word “exclusive”. Strictly speaking, the federal government is “sovereign” over the 50 States only when it exercises one of a very limited set of powers enumerated for it in Article 1, Section 8, in the Constitution. In this sense, the federal government does NOT exercise exclusive jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union; it does, however, exercise exclusive jurisdiction inside the federal zone. This exclusive authority originates from 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution, as quoted above.
When Congress is legislating for the federal zone, the resulting legislation is local or municipal in scope, rendering it “foreign” with respect to State laws. When Congress is legislating for the entire nation, the resulting legislation is general or universal in scope. The U.S. Supreme Court explained the difference very clearly in 1894 when it analyzed a federal perjury statute with this distinction in mind:
This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States*, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are not part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.
[Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894)]
[emphasis added]
Now, apply sections 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution to the jurisdictional claims of the Secretary of the Treasury for “internal” revenue laws, as follows:
The term “United States**” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States**. It includes the states, the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States**, the territorial waters of the United States**, the air space over the United States**, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States** and over which the United States** has exclusive rights, in accordance with interna¬tional law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.
[26 CFR 1.911-2(g), emphasis added]
[note the tautology again]
Here’s the tautology, in case you missed it:
“United States” includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights.
This is very much like saying:
A potato is a plant that grows in a potato field.
[Speech of Vice President Dan Quayle]
[1992 Campaign Spelling Bee]
No one wants to stand out and pay the price, when liberals walk off with all the accolades and the goodies anyway.
“Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.”
Correct. The NWO gang has so deeply entrenched themselves into our government that I fear there is no stopping them at this point.
Prepare, CW2 is coming!
She did not follow Georgia law and basic court procedures to certify her “expert” witnesses as actual experts in their fields. The judge therefore declare that they were not credible and disallowed their evidence and testimony.
This is a consistent problem with Orly - she doesn’t understand how the law and courts actually work.
FIY
Lucyt call the troups and put in back room.
Well that’s the point right. The defendants didn’t show...so if you are the plaintiff and you are presented with that situation you can ask and you will receive a summary judgment.
Bingo, won, case over!
These idiots with their preponderance of arrogance wanting to show the world the evidence they had blew it.
They won the case and then they decided to lose the case.
Incredible...stupidity is what stupidity does.
Who from the defense disputed they were experts?
The court allowed them to testify as experts. If they were not experts it’s up to the opposing side to point it out to the court before their testimony or it’s grounds for an appeal after.
Anyone who was seriously expecting that the decision would go any other way, was completely delusional.
The fix is in......... And our republic is screwed, unless We the People do something about.
A friend of mine`s wife, ``Mrs. X,`` was born in San Francisco.
Her mother was a Mexican citizen, a non-USA citizen alien resident, but Mrs X`s mother was married to an American, her father, born in Los Angeles.
``Mrs X``, whom I knew very well, campaigned in the northern California district of El Cerrito, El Sobrante and Richmond for local candidates.
She herself was barred from running for public office because her mother was not an American citizen.
But she campaigned tirelessly for other candidates and became campaign manager for several candidates.
Her brother also was in the identical situation.
Her sister was born in Mexico, married an American, but had to register every year as an alien resident.
Thus, if researchers would ponder thgrough records of candidate rejections in local elections, this would appear many times as precedent of `natural born` eligibility.
Splitting?
Yes, and again over slavery. This time that of a Black POTUS and his mixed subjects.
Problem is the Constitution is being totally destroyed.
If this is allowed to continue, the Rule of Law is gone. If that happens there is only 1 option. Which I will not discuss.
All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html
I watched the hearing and Orly did a horrible job. It was like she had never even been in a courtroom. If she is going to proceed she needs to sit through a few trials and actually learn how to swear in witnesses, submit evidence etc... I’m sure she was nervous but there is no excuse for not being better prepared. That being said, I think the way forward is to take the Obama equation out of it. Somebody with the same type of upbringing as Obama (one foreign parent, one citizen parent) needs to qualify to run for office in a district where the judges are more likely to actually listen to the evidence. Have the person sued off the ballot (a regular person will not have the Obama goon squad protection) and set some damned precedent like the liberals are always doing. When that person is ruled ineligible, then it would be easier to show Obama is ineligible because of his similar circumstances. Quite obvious to try this really.
So if they would have said he was foreign born (like Orly did), the judge would have taken them on their word?
Hey, aren’t your buddies at Fogblow and Politijab missing you, you know the “sane people”
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS221US221&q=drew68+politijab
Are you try for your second zot here?
Come on—is anyone surprised?
This was probably another setup by 0 so he can have this O.V.E.R AND D.O.N.E. clearing the way for more illegal actions.
Really—who steps in after he’s gone? Will he ever be gone? Is he another dick-tater like Castro and Chavez or is he a place holder for a _____________?
“When in the course of human events.........”
“The shock value of being removed from even one ballot with a summary judgment would have been of great service.”
You do realize that the fix was in don’t you? If the judge had issued a default judgement the SOS would have overturned him.
“you say tomato, I say tomahto”
It was always going to be a tag-team effort. No way they will let the Boy King down.
Does anyone really believe for a second that SoS Kemp would've kept the President of the United States off the Georgia ballot?
The judge didn't do that. He made his decision on information not in the record. Where did the information come from if it didn't come from the hearing?
It's not the judges place to act as an attorney for the defense which is what he has done, or he had a hearing with the defense of the record.
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.