The Georgia, Obama eligibility decision: legally incorrect and ethically indefensible

by Doug Book,  staff writer

 On February 3rd a much anticipated decision was issued by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, recommending that Secretary of State Brian Kemp allow Barack Hussein Obama to appear on the state ballot as a candidate for President.

Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president. Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself.  

And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law.

Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:

1.)     “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (1) p3

In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision, as Barack Obama provided nothing, either in documentary or verbal form.  Yet Malihi states “the following FACTS are considered: 1.) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2.) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth…” (my caps) (1) p6

From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.

2.)     “The Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive.” (1) p7

Ankeny (misspelled throughout the decision by Malihi) was a 2009, Indiana case brought by two plaintiffs who claimed Obama was not qualified to be president on the same grounds as used by at least one plaintiff in the Georgia case—Obama was NOT a “natural born citizen” as required by Article ll, Section l of the US Constitution.  

In deciding the case against the plaintiff Ankeny, the Indiana State Court made glaring errors both in statutory construction and by completely misinterpreting Minor v. Happersett, the 1875 Supreme Court case which defined “natural born citizen.”  Yet in his own words, Judge Malihi finds the reasoning and decision of the Indiana state court “persuasive.”

3.)     “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], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” (1) p10

“This Court CONSIDERED?” When all is said and done, courts don’t “consider” rulings or decisions, they MAKE them! Why did Judge Malihi not state that he FOUND Obama to have been born in the United States? Why does he simply “consider” it? Was this his way of protecting or excusing himself for the complete lack of evidence upon which this “consideration” was based?

And why does Malihi find it necessary to wield the Ankeny case before him like a sword? Could it be that, as he possessed no evidence upon which a decision could honestly be made, he was in desperate need of some “legal” excuse—ANY legal excuse– to provide grounds for his “consideration?”

Had it been honestly delivered, Michael Malihi’s “decision” should have been phrased in the following manner:

This Court considers it OK that Barack Obama be included on the Georgia presidential primary ballot because I’ve heard that a judge in an Indiana state court thinks it’s alright.

Over the next days, “Coach is Right” will present specifics of Judge Malihi’s decision in order to determine its legal authority and susceptibility to successful appeal.  And Attorney Mark Hatfield has already declared his intention to appeal.

Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

To read more use these links:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-02-03-Decision-on-Georgia-Cases.pdf

Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?

 This day in history February 9th

1964: The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, to the chagrin of parents and the joy of advertisers.

Further reading:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/judge-michael-malihi-ruling-indiana-appeals-court-lies-us-constitution-vs-english-common-law-supreme-court-opinions-more-indiana-corruption/

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html

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.

 

Be Sociable, Share!

34 thoughts on “The Georgia, Obama eligibility decision: legally incorrect and ethically indefensible”

  1. Anyone with an ounce of grey matter knows that the judge's decision was based on fear and intimidation or graft. We can pick apart his written decision with a fine tooth comb, yet the fact will remain that our court system is no longer reliable. These are sad days in America.

    1. The Courts are not only unreliable but many (most?) are absolutely corrupted! The 9th Circuit Court is an abomination. Even the Supreme Court's Justice Ginsberg bad mouths the Constitution, to foreigners and uses international rulings to influence her judgements. She is supposed to be guided by the US Constitution and NOTHING else! These are indeed sad days for America brought on by the creeping cancer of Progressive Socialism which has taken over the Democratic Party and is far along the way to their goal of taking over America. Obama has been their accelerator and to give him four more years in office will be disastrous because it seems NO ONE will stand up and accuse him of his abuse of power and most importantly his abuse of the Constitution which he SWORE to uphold. What is it that makes him immune? What is it that makes congress impotent?

      1. Kid, You almost have it right. The only thing is that the Socialism is no longer 'creeping', it is now in a hard run. Nancy and Harry are pushing BTU (Barack The Usurper) to the finish line.

        We must stop Islam form taking over.

        Vote Republican or Tea Party. ABCD (Anything But Communist Democrats)

  2. We might as well be 'p*ssing in the wind'. Col. Larry Sellin, Ph.D. wrote the definitive commentary on this issue. Why do you think that BOTH this corrupt judge and SecState of GA so blithely ruled against the law, and used any and all sorts of lies to justify this evil to continue. Only one thing makes sense, i.e., that they were told, if you DO NOT rule this way, then your professional careers are FINISHED, you will have NO chance for re-election, we will blackball and ex communicate you. You will NEVER get another job. Now why would the Republicans do this. Read Larry Sellin's article and see how these is a common agenda of the oligarchy to protect their interests AT ALL COSTS…even at the cost of destroying the country. It may be that neither Romney nor Rubio are natural born citizens and they are protecting them. No matter what folks, Obama will now NEVER be vetted. The fix is in and America is now Chicago.

    1. Wouldn't the judge if he had ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs been able to get a job at any think tank like the Heritage Foundation or get a job in another conservative state for those who thought he stood up for what he thought was right? I don't think your scenario given how many people are out there that want to see president Obama fail would exactly play out if he ruled against the Defendants.

  3. Are American streets going to look like Egypt in the near future because we are tired of the attempt to take this country over by the Soro's of this world and his puppets? Is this what the American fighting forces have died for? A government made up of gutless individuals that are more interested in their own guarantee of power then the power of a nation against this type of tyranny? Are there no men left in the Government of the states and at the Federal level? This judge and his followers will be JUDGED when he goes before the only Judge over mankind and his followers will definitely follow in the judgement handed down to him by God

  4. Doug —

    1. The President's birth certificate was entered as evidence by one of the plaintiffs. It clearly says he was born in Hawaii.

    2. In no way does Minor vs. Happersett define "natural born citizen" as being born of two citizen parents.

    3. Judge Malihi made the correct decision.

    Gary

    1. Thank you, Gary, but you are wasting your breath. Mr. Book is unschooled in legal matters to the point he does not, apparently, even recognize the phrase, "the Court considered" which is stock legalese. This continuing snark hunt serves only to make conservatives look foolish; so much so that outside of a few blogs, or in the case of Georgia in the Atlanta paper as a minor local news item when it occurred, this "issue" is not even reported on any longer.

      It really is time to drop it. I wish Mr. Book.and others would spend as much of their time an effort on defeating Obama at the polls as they do on this foolishness.

      1. Fl Voter,

        Doing what we do on Coach is Right and countless other websites throughout the nation is indeed directed at "defeating Obama at the polls." Thanks for being part of the fight.

    2. Gary,

      A "picture" of the birth certificate was entered, not the original as is called for in the rules of evidence. The Judge had no legal authority to make any determination as to its validity. It was incumbent upon to to obtain an "original" of the certificate.

      Minor v Happersett most certainly DOES define "natural born citizen" as being born in the US of two citizen parents. Below is the language of the Minor decision. The link is included.

      At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/con

      Judge Malihi made the correct decision in the minds of those interested only in re-electing Barack Hussein Obama, not the correct decision based upon law or the Constitution. And in spite of the best efforts of the radical left, it is still those which determine how things work in the US.

      1. Go back to your Minor link and read the sentences that follow the one you extracted: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

        If you read that and conclude that Minor vs. Happersett defined natural-born citizen, you simply aren't being rational. I mean no offence.

        The plaintiff had no problem in presenting, and the Judge had no problem in accepting, a copy of the President's birth certificate, no matter what "rules of evidence" you are citing. The plaintiff in fact acknowledged that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

        "Judge Malihi made the correct decision in the minds of those interested only in re-electing Barack Hussein Obama, not the correct decision based upon law or the Constitution."

        Free Republic members who actually know the law, and there are several, have no desire to see Obama re-elected, yet they can realize that Judge Malihi made the correct decision.

        1. I did not included the sentences you refer to in the Mino decision as nowhere in them do they mention "natural born" citizens. They refer only to citizens. And Minor was right, as to "this class" there had indeed been doubts. "But never as to the first" (the natural born.)

          Even more important is the notion that Malihi might have made use of any birth certificates given him by the Plainiffs.

          Malihi himself states in the Decision: "The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses (there were ONLY plaintiff witnesses) as well as the exhibits tendered to be of little if any probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff's allegations." And Malihi goes on to wrap up his views: "None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence provided by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes the Plaintiff's claims are not persuasive." These are on pages 4&5 of the Decision. The link is provided above (westernjournalism…)

          Who would be willing to claim that Malihi used the completely unworthy witness testimony and documentation he refers to above as the basis of his Decision?

          That leaves Malihi with NO evidence provided by the Defense and non-persuasive, worthless evidence presented by Plaiintiffs. Puts us right back where we started doesn't it. And right back to the points I made in the piece: Upon what evidence did the Judge base his finding of FACT that Obama was born in Hawaii?

          1. Oldpuppymax —

            "Some authorites "go further"… This sentence clearly expounds on the previous one and addresses natural born citizenship.

            Judge Malihi didn't rule that the birth certificate was inadmissible or invalid. He ruled that it did not have probative value, which means it did not prove the plaintiff's argument that a natural born citizen is borne of two American citizens. But the Judge still had the birth certicate in evidence, which clearly states the President was born in Hawaii in August of 1961.

            Thank you for keeping the conversation civil.

          2. Gary,
            After the some authorities “go further” language by the Minor Court, there is no use of the “natural born” term. It simply says citizen. Minor was decided some 6 years after the 14th Amendment, yet the Court did not conflate Article ll and the 14th Amendment. It could have clearly stated that the 14th Amendment made everyone born in the US a natural born citizen, regardless of parentage, but it didn’t.

            I agree that it would appear that the sentence APPEARS to expound on the one preceding. But this is the Supreme Court. These people are careful with their language like few others. That’s the mistake the Ankeny Court made–deliberately, I believe–stating the Minor Court MEANT to say………and therefore it must be so. I believe the Ankeny Court had an agenda and Malihi fell right in line. WHY? You’d have to ask him.
            Anyhow, naturally I’m going to keep the conversation civil. Hell, I think this is interesting stuff, just as you do.

            Oldpuppymax

      2. Any reply there to Gary's additional analysis of Minor v. Happersett? His analysis is spot-on and it is suspect that you cherry picked the quote.

        Don't mistake pointing out bad legal arguments for allegiance to the President. I'm sure there are several reasons why people might not want to re elect President Obama, but following the road down this path is a loser argument that only makes you look like you don't understand 14th amendment law by conflating it with certain old old common law interpretations instead of more up to date statutory and case law based interpretations.

        1. Any reply? Yes there is, Braddock. See my response above. I did NOT cherry-pick the quote. I chose the quote in which the Minor case defines natural born citizen. Not sure how that can be called cherry picking.

          And 14th Amendment law you refer to has nothing to do with natural born citizens. The term natural born is never mentioned in the 14th Amendment. The Ankeny Court conflated the 14th Amendment with the Minor decision–and Article ll as well, suggesting the two were somehow the SAME.

          And what exactly are "more up to date statutory and case law based interpretations?" I guess you mean the Constitution is old, out of date and therefore not really all that important any more? That it needs "updated"? Put more in line with the times?

          Well there is a provision for that, called Amendment. But re-writing the Constitution because someone thinks it might be out of date here and there or because it gets in the way of one's agenda is the avenue taken by the far left and robed, wanna-be legislators.

          Thanks very much for reading and commenting on CiR.

          Doug

          1. Man, do you have a problem with America to disagree with the body of laws and precedents that we have established over hundreds of years? You state that the quote you cite from Minor supports the notion of natural born citizenship and isn't cherry picked, but your interpretation of the statement in Minor is inconsistent with the facts and the case in general. Yes, children of two American parents born in America is a natural born citizen, but so is someone of one American parents born in America. Yes there has been a dispute about it in the various legal canons and treatises, but in the U.S. it is also the case that a person born of one U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is considered a natural born citizen. Sorry, end of story. Jus soli is more important in the U.S. than jus sanguis.

            The 14th amendment has always determined citizenship of certain individuals since it passed. Although it isn't specific to the term natural born citizen, it does speak to those persons born in the U.S. who may not be of two American parents by broadening the scope of who can be included as a NBC. There is only the birthright citizen (14th amendment citizen) and the naturalized citizen (everyone else), there is no third category which you might like to pretend that there is. Prior to the 14th amendment, the constitution or other laws didn't spell out how citizenship was determined. Salmon P. Chase from 1862

            "… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic."

            I like your making a straw man by responding to my point that adherence to more recent statutory and case law means somehow that the constitution isn't important. I would say you might want to look at newer case law regarding what constitutes a natural born citizen or 14th amendment law. Several presidents were elected under similar circumstances (1 U.S. citizen parent) and it wasn't a problem, and you try to say that our forefathers were too stupid to figure that out nor "cared" if your interpretation was correct? How disrespectful!

            Also, wouldn't the personhood constitutional amendment, flag burning amendment, or anti-gay marriage amendment be examples of what you are saying is the avenue taken by the far left but from the far right? I think both sides propose amendments that fit their agenda, not recognizing that both do it is sticking your head in the sand.

          2. Braddock, I don't think anyone here has a problem with America….what we have a problem with are folks like you who persist in skewing, and otherwise ignoring, the Natural Born rule to suit your preferred agenda and candidate.

  5. "What is it that makes him immune?" "What is it that makes congress impotent?" The following comments are not based on any facts, other than what I've observed over the years on the internet, blogs, news reports, books, articles, etc.

    IMO, I believe the New Word Order, big govt elites apparently have tired of waiting for their panacea of a NWO. They've stepped it up and have planted BHO in office, knowing he would do their bidding. And bidding he does on a grand scale. Apparently, the first order of the day was to attack our economy. In actuality, what these elites have perpetrated is an entire world-wide economic crash as evidenced by what's happening to the economies of Europe (Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.). Now, what would make these elites feel they could do this and get away with it? Well, again they've been setting this up for years, waiting for the day to implement their grand scheme. In the meantime, they've been able over the last 100 years or so, to slowly infiltrate our political system with their 'people'. They have also infiltrated our educational system, our judicial (not just at the SCOTUS level, but in most lower courts throughout the land, with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as one of the worst). These socialists can be found running organizations such as ACORN (even though congress defunded them, they've taken on different names, but are in essence, the same organization doing the same illegal activities as before), they are found in Hollywood making movies to manipulate the thinking of the masses, they can be found in many of our tax-exempt institutions, and as well in the Main Stream Media (MSM)! This last one galls me the most. When I realized how skillful and manipulative they've become over the years, I came to the conclusion that something of this magnitude didn't just happen overnight. These elitist socialists have been at this for a long, long time and they have their people (owners, editors, executives, managers, etc.) carrying the Socialists water 24/7.

    The Democratic Party has been 99% co-opted by the Socialists, while some in the Republican Party known as the RINOs (Republican in name only) have been affected also. We, the American public had no clue and in the public's defense, I don't blame them. The reason is most people in our country never imagined that our own govt would be working overtime and behind the scenes to actually bring down America from the greatest nation in the world, with the best Constitution in the world, to a nation of 3rd world status (you know, to level the playing field for the elites). They are very close to achieving their goals. This is why the American people are so frustrated because the enemy is the govt and we'll get no justice from the criminals, so what's one to do? When one puts all of the elitists' evil schemes on the table, it becomes rather clear what's been going on over the years, and why what's happening now is the final nail in the coffin of America's Republic and Rule of Law.

    Witness the temperament of one Eric Holder, AG for the DOJ. He is arrogant, and behaves more like a hostile witness than he does an AG. Again, we can all see the obfuscation and him trying to wriggle his way out of the 'Fast & Furious' mess, but in actuality, from what I've witnessed so far, I don't think the hammer will in the end come down on his head. He'll somehow, someway be absolved of all accountability and there will most definitely be those on the lower rungs of the ladder that will be found guilty and possibly do some jail time. To witness the amount of cover and protection given the criminals in our govt, no one has to look any farther than BHO himself.

    The most egregious, in your face arrogance and abuse of power, was the Georgia ballot issue by Judge Malihi. BHO is served up a subpoena and basically not only gave the court his middle finger, but America as well, by not even showing up in court. Oh, no, he's much too busy doing the work of the American people to be bothered with having to actually show up in a court of law and produce his records. You see, with the elites having all their chess pieces properly in place, the whole scheme works like a well oiled machine. BHO knew nothing would come of the Georgia case. This is why we witness BHO's arrogance. He knows he's not going to be held accountable. It's as clear to me as is the nose on my face!

    In summary, we have a POTUS whose claim to the presidency is preceded by the fact he's a marvelous community organizer. Wow, what credentials, thank you MSM. Oh, and let see what else. Oh yes, he's so smart and savvy. Wow, the man can deliver to an audience (teleprompter in hand). He's broken I think every promise he made to the American people when he was still candidate Obama. Remember, if he's elected prez we'll witness the most transparent presidency ever! Apparently Pelosi and Reid didn't get the memo.

    God help us and keep the spotlight on Barry the Fraud!

  6. As regards your point number three Coach,
    The plaintiff's lawyer (Van Irion) gave away the baby with the bathwater in his "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss when he wrote the following to the Court:

    "The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen."
    This quote can be found in article at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/… (Posted Dec. 28, 2011)
    See: (Section E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented)

    I am not a Lawyer, but I believe when you "Stipulate" to facts, it means you "Concede them to be true" – That's where the Judge may have "found" the fact that Obama was born in the United States – The Plaintiff "Conceded" it. Why??
    If you find the answer to that question, I'd like to know what it is. I like your Blog and I visit it often. Keep up the good work.
    ELmo

    1. I'm beginning to get more than a little P.Oed at you,Gary Miller (above), and Braddock (also above)…..you all sound as if you may be shills for Orly Taitz trying to do damage control for her "rep"….as well as fact-finding for her….as well as dumping on any residual fall-out and lingering objections to and dissatisfaction with the Georgia "non-decision"
      The fact that you three pointed fingers at the actions and behavior of the other attorneys involved in the Georgia filings….without a single mention (or criticism), of Orly Taitz tells me that you three are all probably from Taitz's camp…..it is vintage Taitz….and Obama…..to point the finger of failure elsewhere…..it's never enough for them to accomplish their dirty deeds….they need someone else to take the fall.
      In my humble opinion, Taitz is a lousy lawyer who is intentionally "running interference" for Barak Obama, and who has assigned herself to nearly every Obama eligibility court challenge with the express purpose of losing such challenges…..as well as setting false legal precedents regarding Obama's actual eligibility and citizenship status.
      With no truly legal Obama defense documents tendered (which can be verified as accurate), as legal evidence; ( at least legal in the sense of the SAME legal evidence which any man or woman off the street would be compelled to produce; I believe that it is safe to assume that Team Taitz (herself ,and other Obama lawyers assigned to cover B.O's sorry ass) have successfully duped another judge.
      It wouldn't surprise me one day to learn that other attorneys challenging Obama's eligibility didn't want to work with her because they knew she would be the "kiss of death" to their cases against Obama.
      It may not be the ineptness, bias, or corruption of America's courts and judges alone being called into question here….it may well be a question of "Whose side is Orly Taitz really on?"
      I direct much of my anger toward Taitz because, in my opinion, I believe she also falsely, unjustly, and with possible malice…..insinuated herself into a quasi-leadership position within the TEA Party movement in an attempt to derail it. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it…
      I cannot claim any legal background whatsoever…I'm only an opinionated housewife…..but I can connect a few dots and I can, most assuredly detect the sme;; of "Eau de Rodent(s)" when the reek hits me.
      I rather suspect that you three going all "Judge Wapner or Judy" in this forum is a fair indication that I'm on to something here.

  7. Jablonski, Obama's lawyer, did send Obama's long-form birth certificate to both the judge and the secretary of state. Malihi likely used that as the "evidence considered," decided it was legitimate and so ruled. BUT, by so doing, Jablonski opened the door for Orly Taitz to petition the state court to give her letters rogatory and the right to get a subpoena to view the original birth certificate in Hawaii. That, too, will probably be denied because it could be considered moot buy the state court. The certificate provided is pretty thready evidence, but the judge accepted it, and that may constitute his parachute in this case.

    1. Jablonski did NOT enter Obama's computer generated BC into the record. Therefore Malihi could NOT use it as evidence as the defense would not have had it, been able to raise objections, etc. The story goes, Jablonski stuck the computer BC copy into an envelope in which he had placed a letter to the Judge and another to the Sec of State. These could NOT legally be used as evidence.

      1. Jablonski didn't have to enter anything into the record. Obama's Birth in Hawaii AND his Citizenship was CONCEDED by the Plaintiff's Lawyer Irion. Why you would concede such a pivotal point, I would like to know,
        but the facts are that Obama's Hawaiian birth was Conceded by the Plaintiff : Check for yourself – I provide the link below.

        The plaintiff's lawyer (Van Irion) gave away the baby with the bathwater in his "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss when he wrote the following to the Court:

        "The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen."
        This quote can be found in article at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/…. (Posted Dec. 28, 2011)
        See: (Section E. Contrary to the Defendant’s Assertion, No Court has Ruled on the Question Presented)
        ELmo

  8. Like I originally feared, this was just a set-up to get a court to declare obama eligible, it did not matter what went on in the courtroom. Now, they can claim the issue has been aired, and ignore all further inquiries by referring to this precedent. I had a feeling we were being played!
    Ron Reale
    realetybytes

  9. WHY WON'T THIS SITE ACCEPT MY E-MAIL ADDRESS WHILE OFFERING A COMMENT? I just tried to enter a rebuttal and was denied access…Has Patrick been playing around with the web-site again ?

  10. 3.) “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], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” (1) p10

    The problem with the entire decision can be found in this piece of the supporting text of the decision. "Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic], he became a citizen at birth and is a [citizen].” All he is granted with is citizenship, but that does not equate to natural born citizen. Many people become citizens of this country every year, but not one of them is a naturally born citizen. Children born of Mexican parents here legally or not are deemed to be citizens, though it is still arguable whether they are, but for now we will assume they are citizens. They are still not natural born citizens as to be a natural born citizen, one must be born to parents who are both citizens. So that same child being born to two Mexican immigrants who had both achieved citizenship would be deemed a natural born citizen, but if only one had attained citizenship, then the child would not be natural born, but simply a citizen, under the same auspices laid out above.

    1. The mistake was in Conceding Birth in the USA (or in conceding anything relevant to becoming NBC). Why was that done?? The Judge made the call that being born in the USA of a single parent was enough to make him an NBC. Obama was made to prove NOTHING!! WHY?? Why not make him PROVE where he was born (instead of conceding the point) I simply don't understand that strategy. I wish it could be explained to me by a Lawyer (Maybe Van Irion can explain why).
      ELmo

      1. Elmo,

        I think Irion was very proud of the fact his suit was based only on the natural born definition supplied in the Minor decision and its application to parentage. That meant the place of Obama’s birth was not relevant. (to Irion)

        BUT, there were 2 other suits. And neither Taitz NOR Hatfield stipulated to Obama being born in the US. If Irion stipulated to it for his client, that sure doesn’t mean he was permitted to stipulate for the other attorneys or their clients!!! Where did Malihi derive the “Obama was born in the US” claim for their suits???

Comments are closed.