by Doug Book, staff writer
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…precedent and rules of construction, it runs contrary to Supreme Court precedent.” (1)
Specifically, Liberty Legal argues that the decision of the court:
- 1. Violated rules of Constitutional construction
- 2. Misapplied Minor v Happersett (1875 Supreme Court case)
- 3. Ignored the clear definition and precedential status of Natural Born Citizen in Minor
- 4. Ignored the Minor Court’s discussion of other categories of citizens
- 5. Ignored a Minor Court holding concerning the 14th Amendment
- 6. Relied upon the severely flawed Indiana State Court ruling, Ankeny v Governor (2)
Along with the appeal, Liberty filed a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Secretary of State from including Obama on the Democrat primary ballot in March. (3)
Also of importance, although Judge Malihi received a “Motion for Contempt” from Liberty Legal attorney Irion concerning Obama’s willfully ignoring a subpoena and failure to appear at the January 26th Court hearing, Judge Malihi refused to certify the facts of the motion to the Superior Court. In short, he just SAT on it and did nothing, contrary to the CLEAR demands of Georgia law! And NOW the Court claims it no longer has jurisdiction over the motion because the case has moved on from the court! (4)
What will the ruling be on the Petition for Appeal? Given the obvious and overwhelming judicial misfeasance—possibly malfeasance—on the part of Administrative Court Judge Malihi we can rest assured that failure on the part of the Superior Court to overturn will be a clear indication of either bias or cowardice.
And such an unwillingness on the part of the American judiciary to honorably perform its moral and Constitutional duties for either reason would spell disaster for the legal system. For it would afford ample reason that the American public might ignore the very legitimacy of the law itself.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
To read more use these links: 1.) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Georgia-Petition-for-Appeal-and-Review-of-Final-Decision.pdf
2.) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1777/appeal-of-georgia-eligibility-ruling/
4.) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1774/1774/
Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?
In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. What have you done today to deserve to live in America?
Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.
Related posts:
- The Georgia, Obama eligibility decision: legally incorrect and ethically indefensible
- Georgia eligibility decision based on legal blunders
- Georgia case could determine whether Obama’s name may be placed on 2012 state ballot…ANY 2012 state ballot!
- Judge rules Obama must PROVE presidential eligibility in Georgia courtroom on Thursday
- Obama attorney knows eligibility hearing was disaster for the president
Obama was ordered to appear and failed to show up. He should have lost the case right there. It appears the judge caved into some kind of pressure to come to the conclusion he came to. If this is not overturned by the higher court our only alternative to combat this close your eyes and pretend he is eligible game is to politically destroy the socialist democrats in November and boot the lapdog democratic drones supporting him out on their idealogical rear ends.
Plaintiffs were given the option of being awarded a default judgement — and they refused. They (Ms. Taitz) wanted the case(s) decided on the merits. It (they) was (were), and she lost AGAIN.
Now it has been appealed to the same court that has thrown out an earlier case. I know how y'all love this stuff, but mark my words: The result will not be a result you will love. This birther business has become, after going on for more than three years now, worse than a bad joke. It has become pathetic.
Only Obama supporters who think more of the One than of the law and Constitution are pathetic.
The judge ruling him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because he says he wasborn in Hawaii was a bogus decision and should be easily overturned.
Except that the Plantiffs stipulated to that and to the entry of the Hawaii Birth Certificate which was then allowed uncontested. What Ms. Taitz is trying to get is a new and legally — "legally" being the key word — unrecognized definition of NBC embraced by the courts, e.g. that both parents must be U.S. Citizens when a child is born even if that child is born on American soil for that child to be an NBC. Not going to happen Fuggedadboudit.
The Supreme Court has already addressed the NATURAL BORN CITIZENissue. There determination was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is a personborn in the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. CITIZENS.You can keep living in your fantasy world if you choose not torecognize this decision, but it is a fact you can look up. Obama'sfather was not a U.S. citizen even if obama was born in Hawaii..Therefore, he should have never qualifed to be on the ballot in thefirst place.
Not so. ONE of the plaintiffs might have stipulated to Obama's birth in Hawaii. The others did NOT. Remember, there were three separate lawsuits heard by Malihi that day. What one plaintiff stipulates to is irrelevant for the others.
And "unrecognized definition of NBC??" It was stated and defined by the Supreme Court. If it is not recognized by courts today as the clear precedent it is, it is because of bias on the part of the courts, not because it is not clear or does not exist.
It's interesting–and more than a little scary–that the only way the leftist agenda can continue is by means of illegitimate, illegal activity.
Wait and see. I will be proved correct. Again. I do not expect you to give up your position on the issue(s) here. I am simply saying your position will not prevail because the facts are it has, to date, not prevailed in any forum and there is nothing to suggest that situation will change. It was, once, both interesting and a possibility. It is neither now. It is over.
On the contrary, should the Superior Court fail to overturn the Malihi decision, you will certainly NOT be proved correct. It will simply be further proof that the courts which have heard this case are deliberately and knowing ignoring the law. WHY? Bribery, fear, liberalism…these represent the best possibilities. But it means the rule of law in the US no longer has credibility or authority. Naturally, that is the goal of the left. But it must eventually lead to a shooting war and that will not be fun for anyone.
There is obstruction at every level when it involves the Usurper-in-Chief Obama. I understand the Court Clerk in Hawaii had a recurring habit of losing legal documents sent to the court to be filed, to prevent the case from moving forward in a judicious manner. And now this Court Clerk in Georgia attempts to sabotage the filing process for the appeal of Malihi's legal fiction. Never in the history of our great nation has there been such a concentrated effort to prevent an examination of the records, and attempts made at every step to avoid addressing a constitutional issue by the courts.
Currently, we seem to have a President that deems himself to be of a higher authority than the law of the land this nation was founded upon, and will go to great and costly lengths, hiring some of the most expensive attorneys in the country, to prevent any records of his claimed life history from seeing the light of day.
It is far more likely that OBama is an illegal alien than a "natural born citizen." In point of fact OBama is not a natural born citizen according to the definition adopted from Vattel's "Law of Nations" Sec 10 Pragraph 212
Unfortunately, this is probably all a SHAM. Orly Taitz had WON her case in Georgia due to Obama not showing up but she CONTINUED, wanting some sort of ruling, and then LOST.,
I don't trust her any more. I think she (like so many others) has been bought off or threatened with her life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw
The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by
WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah,
Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical
local government in August 1946.
Words mean something. This was especially true to the Founders who did not willy-nilly place superfluous words into our founding document over which they carefully deliberated for many months. If our Constitution states that our President must be a "natural born Citizen," it is clear that the Founders meant the requirement to be more restrictive than just simply being born a citizen. Obviously the qualifier "natural" adds a further important something or the Founders would have simply written "born Citizen."
If you cross a donkey with a horse, a jackass results. The result is neither a natural born donkey nor a natural born horse. What ensues is an unnatural hybrid, a half-breed mix that is neither truly donkey nor horse and is, in fact, sterile and unable to reproduce its own kind (let alone a donkey or a horse). I submit to the reader that, politically, our Founders would have considered Obama to be just such a jackass (not a natural born Citizen of any country).
By examining the writings of the Founders, one can clearly see that the intent of the natural born Citizen requirement was to ensure that our Commander-in-Chief be born with sole, exclusive allegiance to the country that was to entrust him with its command. Obama, by his own admission, was born equally a citizen of Great Britain as recognized by US treaty and law. It is insanity to suggest that the Founders would have ever intended that such a person, born with equal allegiance to their former bloody enemy, be given command of their own military forces.
When two horses mate it takes no law to ensure that they do not produce a dog or a donkey. It is by nature that only a horse ensues. That is the clear and obvious meaning of the constitutional phrase "natural born." To produce a Citizen by nature and nature alone (no law required) requires two parents who themselves are resident Citizens. This was the Founders' understanding in their use and inclusion of the phrase, natural born Citizen.
Yes, words truly do mean something.
thinkwell,
You are right on the money. No one could have said it better.
[...] Related posts:Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday [...]