Skip to comments.Georgia eligibility challenge returns!
Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by Pfesser
An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens complaints that Barack Obama isnt eligible to be president and so shouldnt be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints....
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, ... Hatfield ... told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote....
He noted since Obama and his lawyer failed to appear and failed to submit any evidence, the determination by Malihi in the cases brought by his clients appears to be unsubstantiated.
Hatfield also explained that Malihi failed to decide the burden of proof.
The defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional If the defendant did, as plaintiffs contend, bear the burden of proof in these cases, then defendant can in no way be said to have satisfied his burden, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.
He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.
While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that automatically conferred natural born citizenship on him, that is an incorrect statement of the applicable law, Hatfield said.
The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase natural born citizen refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the childs birth) themselves United States citizens.
He said since Obamas father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
it would be very important right now for you to tell us what act of congress made aliens citizens in wwll and what year.
that act applies to this next election....
It has been explained to you by several people - you just refuse to accept the answer. Read the judge’s statement for understanding this time.
You're getting unreliable information because you're depending on a fee-for-service website advertisement. It's in their best financial interest to make as many people as possible believe they're eligible for Italian citizenship so they can collect more in service and documentation fees.
Better to get your information from Italian Government websites, like the ones I posted.
The judge didn’t back up his beliefs. He denied that the plaintiffs evidence had any probative value. Obama submitted nothing. There’s no way to understand a judge who accepts nothing as proof of anything.
Minors can not make that decision. Especially at the age of 3! When the marriage occurred.
Simple passport records would clarify this. Too bad they were compromised in 2008.
In the meantime. We know the Obama came off SADs passport in 2008. Did he go onto to his own passport? Did he obtain an Indonesian passport?
He was in Hawaii in 1969 and returned in 1971 so he traveled after the removal from SADs passport. What nationality did he travel under?
If he was still considered a US citizen AND entered the US after 1968 he would have HAD to present a US passport.
And of course by birth to a British National Obama - to this day - can claim British Citizenship.
Unfortunately, Obama’s life is a case study of what a natural born Citizen is not. Down to being a British Subject at birth.
“Judge’s knowledge”. It’s a sharia thing. Never openly acknowleged; Malihi claims he based his decision totally on the law and what was presented at the hearing. There was nothing probative presented at the hearing.
Obama is dependent on a sharia ruling to be on the ballot in GA.
Either that, or Malihi has just set the precedent that a computer image can substitute for any paper vital record or documentation. In which case, the people of Georgia need to post images of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, etc birth certificates, driver’s licenses, medical licenses, etc online, start taking their laptops everywhere they go, and using those online images as their documentation whenever anybody asks for documentation - and then rely on the precedent that Malhi set by accepting as probative an online image. If any state entity won’t accept that as probative, the person needs to sue for Georgia’s violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, since Obama was allowed to use internet images as probative but Mickey Mouse isn’t allowed.
Hopefully all those cases would go to Judge Michael Malihi...
It’s allowed by sharia.
Lest anybody wonder what the fruits of “judge’s knowledge” are, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2844422/posts .
In Egypt, a Muslim accused a Christian of having a dirty pic of a Muslim woman on his cellphone. The Christian turned himself in to the cops for protection. The cops looked on the phone and there was nothing there. They questioned the woman who was supposedly photographed and she said it hadn’t happened. There was no evidence. The only way they would get any legal conviction would be by “judge’s knowledge”.
But the Muslim salafis, with the help of the authorities, used that already-proven-false accusation to basically seize the property of 8 Christian families, with threats of violence if they ddn’t get what they wanted.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the Holocaust and this is Krystalnacht all over again. Coming soon to a theater near you, if this whole sharia/no-evidence-necessary and local-government-cedes-to-the-Islamist-threats-of-violence garbage is allowed to fly here in America.
Of course, this Muslim violence is exactly the kind of thing that Obama’s cousin, Raila Odinga, relied on to get into power in Kenya also - an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) signed by both the Muslim leaders and Odinga saying that the Muslims would get Odinga into power if Odinga would agree to get sharia accepted in Kenya, reduce Kenya’s cooperation with anti-terrorism, etc. The Muslims lived up to their end of the bargain by violent rampages that swept Odinga into power brokered by the UN, and Odinga lived up to his end of the bargain by using US taxpayer money (happily donated by Obama on behalf of all us taxpayers) to establish sharia in the new Kenyan constitution.
Obama’s agenda is clear. The mandate that Catholics perform abortions, to undermine the freedom of religion and officially set religious policy in government that opposes Christianity. The requirement that everybody but Muslims, scientologists, and the Amish buy health insurance - which is basically a tax on dhimmis that Muslims don’t have to pay (which is a central part of sharia). The sharia ruling to allow Obama on the GA ballot. Those are recent manifestations of the Muslim agenda - an agenda Obama told the Egyptian ambassador in early 2010 that he supported.
He told the Egyptian ambassador in early 2010 that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda but that the Muslim world needed to be patient with him; he hadn’t delivered on any of the Muslim agenda YET because he first had to get Obamacare passed, and then he would focus on defeating Israel (which, together with defeating the US and instituting worldwide sharia, is the major agenda that all Muslims groups agree to).
Just as Obama made good on Odinga’s word to institute sharia in Kenya, he also made good on his word to the Egyptian ambassador and all the other Muslims (who have all along said that Obama is a Muslim) by supporting all the regime changes in the Middle East whereby Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda have replaced the secular governments that had been cooperating with US anti-terrorism measures. Those governments are now killing Christians at a ridiculous pace. He also left Iraq so that the extremists could also exterminate Christians there. The one regime change the Obama administration would NOT support was the one in Iran. But then, Iran is already under sharia so why would a guy who supports the MUSLIM agenda want anything to change in Iran?
Any one of these things by itself might raise an eyebrow. But taken together, the dots paint a very clear picture of where we’re headed. If America doesn’t wake up now and put this unconstitutional, lawless tyrant out of office, we will suffer the same fate as the Germans who willingly passed what they believed was just another political checkers move - the Enabling Act of 1933, which enabled Adolf Hitler to LEGALLY take over EVERYTHING, with all resistance both illegal and futile.
Hold off the inauguration ball planning. Two of my grandfather's brothers served--one getting killed in Normandy a week after D-Day, the other one serving in the Pacific where he was badly hurt during a Japanese air raid when someone jumped into the hole where he was taking shelter, landing on him boots-first and causing massive internal injuries. (And then the system lost track of him, reported him to the family as M.I.A, and only informed them that he was still alive when he turned up at a hospital in Oklahoma).
But when my grandfather reported for his physical, the draft board pulled out a letter from his employer saying he was engaged in necessary war work. That, combined with the two kids he already had, got him a draft classification of III-B ("Men with dependents, engaged in work essential to national defense")
Now I'm wondering if someone's going to say I'm not a citizen at all.
Okay, how about this? Italian Consulate of New York:
If you were born in the United States you may also be considered an Italian citizen if any one of the situations listed below pertains to you:The link that you posted earlier was a little unclear because of the indenting, which made those items look like subordinate conditions, but Here's a link to the Italian Embassy with the same information. The item about military service pertains to non-citizens wishing to become citizens. However, the statement above, "Italian citizenship is based on the principle of ius sanguinis (blood right) by which a child born of an Italian father or mother is Italian" supports all the argument that I'm already an Italian citizen under their law, and no such condition applies.
Category 5) your paternal or maternal grandparents were born in the United States from Italian parents and they never renounced their right to Italian citizenship. (Please note: the Italian mother can transfer her Italian citizenship only to children born after 01/01/1948).
If category 5 applies to you, the following documents are required:
- FORM 1
- YOUR PATERNAL OR MATERNAL GREAT GRANDPARENTS BIRTH CERTIFICATE (from Italy)
- YOUR PATERNAL OR MATERNAL GREAT GRANDPARENTS' MARRIAGE
- YOUR PATERNAL OR MATERNAL GREAT GRANDFATHERS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS' MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL PARENTS BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL PARENTS' MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
- YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- YOUR DECLARATION THAT YOU NEVER RENOUNCED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP BEFORE ANY ITALIAN AUTHORITY, listing all your places of residence and relative years. Your signature must be notarized. Copy of your passport and proof of residence (driver licence and utility bills ect.) are requested. Use FORM 2
- DECLARATION THAT YOUR PATERNAL/MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS NEVER RENOUNCED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP BEFORE ANY ITALIAN AUTHORITY, listing all places of residence and relative years. If living use FORM 3, if deceased use FORM 4
- DECLARATION THAT YOUR FATHER/MOTHER NEVER RENOUNCED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP BEFORE ANY ITALIAN AUTHORITY, listing all places of residence and relative years. If living use FORM 3, if deceased use FORM 4
- ANY PERTINENT DEATH CERTIFICATE/S RELATED TO THE ITALIAN ASCENDANTS. If your great grandfather became a naturalized U.S. citizen before your grandfather or grandmothers birth, you are not eligible for Italian citizenship.
For good measure, here's one man's account of the process. No military service mentioned. I can find plenty more examples of people telling exactly how they did it and what was required if you still refuse to believe.
So are you now saying that foreign law does matter in who the US considers to be or not to be a Natural Born Citizen? Because it was just a week or so ago that you said the opposite.
If I wanted to formulate an argument that was as discrediting to the “birther” movement as it was possible to be - arguing that only white people of Anglo-Saxon descent are natural born citizens would pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Notice how the usual suspects circle the wagons around him?
Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
HOW TO APPLY"Up to the 2nd degree" includes grandparents and parents. Any Italian descendant foreigners wishing to APPLY for Italian citizenship must meet those requirements.
1. Declaration of desire to become a citizen;
If the foreigner is of Italian descent (up to the 2nd degree) he/she can obtain citizenship in any of the following cases:
by serving in the Italian armed forces;
by becoming a subordinate employee of the Italian State, even abroad;
by residing legally in Italy for at least two years after reaching legal age.
MAY also be considered an Italian citizen...
The Italian Government makes it very clear that an eligible foreigner must APPLY for citizenship.
"If you were born in the United States you may also be considered an Italian citizen if any one of the situations listed below pertains to you.
Seriously, people do this all the time. Check out the forums on expatsinitaly.com
I know you want desperately to believe that, but again, the Italian Government makes it very clear that you (or anyone else who thinks they may be eligible by descent up to the 2nd degree) must APPLY for Italian citizenship. It says U.S. born descendants up to the 2nd degree MAY be considered an Italian citizen. You would have to APPLY in order to verify if Italy considers you to be such.
The Consulate's FAQ regarding citizenship: Citizenship FAQ
They process applications from Italian descendants located all over the world.
Shanks v. Dupont (1830): The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown.
The court acknowledged that citizenship naturally follows the condition of the father. The children of those fathers who adhered to the crown were considered Natural-born subjects. The children of those fathers who adhered to the new republic of the united States, were natural-born Citizens. The Constitution places treaties on equal footing with U.S. law and the Constitution itself.
The judge was prepared to give the plaintiffs everything they wanted - EVERYTHING. Explain that to me if you can. Did he use a Jedi mind trick to compel them to make the wrong choice?
They had victory in their hands and threw it away. You cannot blame the judge for that.