Tweet
Georgia eligibility challenge returns!
'Judge Malihi's ruling is ... contrary to the ruling of U.S. Supreme Court'
WND
Bob Unruh
2/7/2012
Excerpt:
"An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t 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.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp today adopted without elaboration the recommendation from Judge Michael Malihi, who concluded without evidence from Obama that he was born in Hawaii, which makes him native born, which is the same as the “natural born” required by the Constitution of presidents.
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, the attorneys say. One, J. Mark Hatfield, representing,
Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote.
He did. His determination today, without mentioning any of the controversy or questions that remain, said he “formally adopts the initial decision of the ALJ.”
Hatfield said the good thing about the decision is that it came quickly, and the attorneys can escalate the arguments to the appellate level now well in advance of the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries, in which Georgia takes part.
He said he wrote to Kemp as the process was developing, outlining several failings on the part of the ALJ, and he confirmed some of those issues now are being prepared for presentation to the appellate level.
“I will be filing that on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell just as soon as I can get it drafted,” he told WND.
Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Hatfield’s letter raised a series of issues with Malihi’s ruling. He noted that the cases brought by different plaintiffs had been ordered separated by Malihi, yet he issued only one decision for all of them.
“The adverse impact … is immediately apparent when one reviews certain alleged ‘facts’… Malihi found as ‘fact’: 1) that defendant Obama was born in the United States; and 2) that defendant Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of defendant’s birth.”
“A review of the record in my clients’ above-captioned cases reveals no evidence of defendant’s place of birth and no evidence of defendant’s mothers’ citizenship at the time of defendant’s birth,” he wrote. “My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of defendant Obama’s purported birth certificate in these case.”
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 child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”
He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified.
Hatfield also noted that Malihi simply ignored the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling of contempt against Obama for refusing to participate in the court proceedings.
While Georgia procedures allow for a response to such “contemptuous” behavior, “Malihi did not even acknowledge the existence of the plaintiffs’ citation for contempt.”
Malihi said Obama could be on the state’s ballot because he was born in Hawaii, is “native born” and thus also is “natural born” as required by the Constitution."
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/georgia-e...lenge-returns/
'Judge Malihi's ruling is ... contrary to the ruling of U.S. Supreme Court'
WND
Bob Unruh
2/7/2012
Excerpt:
"An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t 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.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp today adopted without elaboration the recommendation from Judge Michael Malihi, who concluded without evidence from Obama that he was born in Hawaii, which makes him native born, which is the same as the “natural born” required by the Constitution of presidents.
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, the attorneys say. One, J. Mark Hatfield, representing,
Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote.
He did. His determination today, without mentioning any of the controversy or questions that remain, said he “formally adopts the initial decision of the ALJ.”
Hatfield said the good thing about the decision is that it came quickly, and the attorneys can escalate the arguments to the appellate level now well in advance of the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries, in which Georgia takes part.
He said he wrote to Kemp as the process was developing, outlining several failings on the part of the ALJ, and he confirmed some of those issues now are being prepared for presentation to the appellate level.
“I will be filing that on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell just as soon as I can get it drafted,” he told WND.
Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Hatfield’s letter raised a series of issues with Malihi’s ruling. He noted that the cases brought by different plaintiffs had been ordered separated by Malihi, yet he issued only one decision for all of them.
“The adverse impact … is immediately apparent when one reviews certain alleged ‘facts’… Malihi found as ‘fact’: 1) that defendant Obama was born in the United States; and 2) that defendant Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of defendant’s birth.”
“A review of the record in my clients’ above-captioned cases reveals no evidence of defendant’s place of birth and no evidence of defendant’s mothers’ citizenship at the time of defendant’s birth,” he wrote. “My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of defendant Obama’s purported birth certificate in these case.”
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 child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”
He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified.
Hatfield also noted that Malihi simply ignored the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling of contempt against Obama for refusing to participate in the court proceedings.
While Georgia procedures allow for a response to such “contemptuous” behavior, “Malihi did not even acknowledge the existence of the plaintiffs’ citation for contempt.”
Malihi said Obama could be on the state’s ballot because he was born in Hawaii, is “native born” and thus also is “natural born” as required by the Constitution."
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/georgia-e...lenge-returns/