Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Georgia concludes Obama eligible for ballot; ...as natural born citizen
Topic Started: Feb 9 2012, 04:48 PM (282 Views)
kbp

Some of what Orly Taitz notes about the procedures before I hit what the Judge presiding over the administrative court ruled ...and the Sec. of State for Georgia went along with:


...Your Honor responded by advising Obama, that if he does not appear and does not respond properly, he does so at his own peril.

Obama did not show up at the proceedings, his attorney did not show up.

Georgia statutes and precedents clearly state, THAT IT IS ENTIRELY UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY TO THE POSITION SOUGHT. The case of Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility.

This holding relied upon O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008) "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office" id. Not only Obama did not show up at the proceedings and did not provide any certified copies of his vital records, also, Director of Health of the state of Hawaii, Loretta Fuddy did not show up at the proceedings and did not provide any records...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Georgia concludes Obama eligible for ballot as natural born citizen

According to Malihi, children born to illegal aliens, tourists and/or terrorists are natural born citizens and eligible to become President

ATLANTA – On Tuesday morning, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (r) issued a final decision, adopting Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi’s initial decision contending President Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements to appear on Presidential Preference Primary ballot.

On Friday, Feb. 3, Malihi issued his decision in three challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility.

During the Jan. 26 hearing Malihi noted neither Obama nor his Attorney Michael Jablonski appeared or answered and said ordinarily the court would enter a default judgment against a party that fails to participate in any stage of the proceeding.

“Nonetheless, despite defendant’s failure to appear, plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence,” wrote Malihi, adding, “The court granted plaintiffs’ request.”

Malihi (l) also said, “By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” and stated his decision was based entirely on the law as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented.

His order was in two parts.

The first part addressed plaintiffs David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Attorney Orly Taitz.

The second part addressed all the plaintiffs, including those represented by Taitz as well as plaintiff David Welden, represented by Attorney Van Irion, and plaintiffs Carl Swensen and Kevin Powell, represented by Attorney Mark Hatfield.

In Part I, Malihi basically discredited the eight witnesses and said he found their testimony, as well as the exhibits tendered, “to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”

He stated, “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony,” and said none of the written submissions had any probative value.

In conclusion, Malihi stated, “Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”

In Part II, Malihi addressed the claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to run in Georgia’s presidential primary election.

Malihi said he considered, for the purpose of analysis, the following facts: 1) Obama was born in the United States; 2) Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of birth; and 3) Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

It was the plaintiff’s contention, because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President of the United States.

Malihi said, “The court does not agree.”

Citing a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny] v. Governor of Indiana, in which plaintiffs argued “there’s a very clear distinction between ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural born citizen’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

Pointing out the Indiana court rejected the argument that Obama was ineligible, Malihi stated, “[c]hildren born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents,” and said, “This court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny] persuasive.”

While plaintiffs argued the term natural born citizen was defined in 1875 in Minor v. Happersett, Malihi said the Indiana court explained that Minor did not define natural born citizen.

He went on to say, “In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this court agrees. The Minor court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”

Citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with which the Indiana court agreed, Malihi said the court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

Malihi stated, “The 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.”

He wrote, “For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen,” and concluded, “President Barack Obama is eligible for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

Using Malihi’s analysis, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

In other words, according to Malihi, children born within the United States to illegal aliens, tourists and/or terrorists are natural born citizens and are, therefore, eligible to become President of the United States.

Malihi’s conclusion is more analogous to saying: All dogs are mammals and all cats are mammals and therefore, all cats are dogs.

Over the weekend, Taitz filed a petition with Kemp to set aside the recommendation issued by Malihi and find Obama ineligible to appear as a candidate for President of the United States on the Georgia ballot.

Taitz cited a 2000 Georgia case, Haynes v. Wells, which she said establishes the precedent “that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility.”

Taitz said a 2008 Malihi decision in O’Brien V. Gross, from which she quoted, “The burden of proof is entirely upon respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office,” relied on Haynes.

Since neither Obama nor Jablonski appeared, Taitz asked, “On what basis did Judge Malihi consider Obama to be born in this country? Did he consider him born in this country based on his wild imagination? The only thing Obama provided was an empty chair. Did the empty chair testify under penalty of perjury in front of Judge Malihi … that Obama was born in this country? Did the empty chair provide Malihi with any evidence, with the original birth certificate or a certified copy?”

Taitz went on to state Malihi's reliance on Ankeny “is a travesty of justice and an embarrassment to the state of Georgia.”

Taitz stated Malihi was required to base his decision on what was in the record and his introduction of an obscure Indiana case was used to advocate for Obama rather than judge the case on the record at hand.

Hatfield sent a letter to Kemp via e-mail prior to Kemp issuing his final decision to point out “several significant flaws in Judge Malihi’s findings and conclusions.”

On behalf of his clients, Hatfield requested that Kemp render a decision that treats Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot that fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and disregards the authority of our judiciary.

Now that Kemp has issued a final decision in the matter, Hatfield stated, “[W]e are going full bore and taking it up on appeal.”

Irion has also indicated his client will be filing an appeal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

No matter what the facts are, or the law while we're at it, I never expected Barry to be booted from office. It sure would have made for some good headlines if at least one state would disqualify him from the ballot.

The reasoning presented for the ruling sure leaves one scratching their heads. The judge ruled that since the plaitiffs presented a case, the Barry did not have to meet the barrier established requiring him to prove he is eligable!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

From Wiki...

Who is the Sonoran News, the source of that article? Certainly not an participant in the MSM!!!

Sonoran News is a free weekly newspaper in Cave Creek, Arizona, USA. With a circulation of over 37,000, it is the most widely read weekly in Maricopa County. It is sold in Cave Creek, Carefree, Scottsdale, and Phoenix. It is considered a right-wing newspaper.
Edited by kbp, Feb 9 2012, 04:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

...In Part I, Malihi basically discredited the eight witnesses and said he found their testimony, as well as the exhibits tendered, “to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”


I think the judge ruled nobody who would challenge the POTUS could be worthy of providing an opinion his court would consider, so that meant anything they presented should be ignored also!

ADD: Some of the evidence and expert opinion questioned whether there was even any proof Obama was born in the USA. What has been provided does not meet the burden of proof required in a court, and all the Obama legal team gave the judge was a letter with a link to the web page of the image holding that birth certificate the experts testified was fabricated.
Edited by kbp, Feb 9 2012, 05:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

I am sure Obama and his czars would love to have a court determine him not eligible to be on that states ballot. He could appeal that decision and it would be in the courts for the next 4 to 8 years. And of course we would have no elections (or budgets) during that period.

Lol... Sorry about that spelling. I guess I have joanitis....dang iPad
Edited by chatham, Feb 9 2012, 05:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

May be OT...

I saw a comment about it being quite convenient that just after the SOS ruled Barry was on the ballot, a couple licensing applications were approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...first ones approved in THIRTY YEARS.



http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/09/4251556/southern-company-subsidiary-receives.html

....The approval of the Vogtle [Combined Construction and Operating License] was a joint effort with NuStart Energy Development, a partnership of 10 power companies created in 2004 to obtain a COL using the new streamlined licensing process and complete the design engineering for the selected reactor technologies. In 2009, NuStart named Vogtle the reference plant for the Westinghouse AP1000® technology.



Timing worked out well, with the applications having started before 2004. Maybe just luck ...by chance it happened that way. I sincerely do not know what to make of it, seems like too big of a conspiracy theory for me.
Edited by kbp, Feb 9 2012, 05:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

I should have put the RULING up, it has been out for about a week. I think I had posted in the President thread when it came out, maybe! Anyway, here it is if any care to read it.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Is Barry's attorney on the SOS's election council:

Quote:
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2843761/posts

Seems Barry’s “no-show” attorney may be a presidential elector in Georgia-—convenient, huh?

from a post on
http://intangiblesoul.wordpress.com/

“BUT THE REAL, AND SHOCKING, STORY IS: Michael Jablonski, General Counsel, Democratic Party of Georgia, who represented Obama in the Georgia ballot challenge and who defiantly refused to attend the hearing with Judge Malihi, is on the GA Secretary of State Elections Advisory Council. http://www.sos.ga.gov/GAEAC/ ";


2 posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:23:58 PM by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)


Yes he is! Another mystery!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

From ruling...

For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States;


Not sure where that FACT came from, nor are others.


All That Is Wrong....
....But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue.


and


A rat called tandem...
...Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.

But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President.




Meanwhile, this guy found out he could find out less about the judge than he can about Obama! This Barry's life is building up to one he!!uva blockbuster book & movie in the future ...if the secrets ever come out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Sheriff Joe Arpaio will release the report his investgation on whether Obama is eligible for the office of POTUS on Thursday, March 1 at 3 PM EST. This can be seen live at www.wnd.com.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/what-does-law-say-about-obamas-eligibility/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

retiredLEO
Feb 28 2012, 11:47 AM
Sheriff Joe Arpaio will release the report his investgation on whether Obama is eligible for the office of POTUS on Thursday, March 1 at 3 PM EST. This can be seen live at www.wnd.com.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/what-does-law-say-about-obamas-eligibility/
At the very minimum, it's good for more headlines.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar


WND EXCLUSIVE

Say it ain't so, Joe: President Boehner?

Sheriff Arpaio's investigation opens can of worms in order of succession
Published: 19 hours ago
by Drew ZahnEmail | Archive




What would happen if an investigation into Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president launched by “America’s toughest sheriff” – Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County – actually led to Obama being ousted from office?

If the election ballots carrying Obama’s name were ruled null and void because of Obama’s ineligibility to be on them, some have speculated, Vice President Joe Biden wouldn’t be duly elected either, meaning the Constitution’s order of succession would make Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, president until the next election.


But that’s an awfully big “if.”

As WND reported, an investigative “Cold Case Posse” launched six months ago by Arpaio concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as Obama’s birth certificate and alleged proof of eligibility is a computer-generated forgery.

And even though the posse – which comprised former law-enforcement officers and lawyers with law-enforcement experience who interviewed dozens of witnesses and examined hundreds of documents – released its findings at a public news conference, Arpaio claims the press on hand were deaf to the evidence in a biased attempt to dismiss the posse’s conclusions.
snip

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/say-it-aint-so-joe-boehner-as-president/?cat_orig=us
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply