Was Judge Malihi bribed or threatened?-You Decide:
Posted on English Pravada-By Mark S. McGrew-On February 6, 2012:
“Friday, February 3, 2012, for some kind of a bribe or because he was threatened, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi sold out his country and defecated on the constitution of The United States of America.
As an Administrative law judge in the State of Georgia, a case was presented to him to have Barack Obama removed from the ballot to run for President in the State of Georgia.
His actions have set precedence in American law that if a person is charged with a crime, the best defense, is to not show up for court. Law schools may now offer a course in “The Obama Defense”.
Three separate legal teams presented evidence and witnesses to show that Obama is not eligible to run for President because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama produced no evidence, no witnesses and both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so.
Forget about what we think, whether he is, or is not a natural born citizen. Opinions don’t count. Only evidence and witnesses count. But we’re not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have.
Judge Michael Malihi violated a basic rule of legal interpretation in his ruling. He violated our earliest Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Constitution. He ignored evidence. He ignored witnesses. He ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the term “natural born citizen” means, one who is born in America to two American citizen parents.
The most telling sign that he was either bribed or threatened shows up in his own actions, of violating his own rulings, just four weeks apart, on the same case.
“His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held: “In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ “
In other words, he claimed one thing on January 3, 2012 and on February 3, 2012 he wrote the exact opposite. Why would any sane man do such a thing?
The question of Obama being eligible is a legal issue. It is also a political issue. Since America is not a “Nation of Laws” as the politicians hype. It is a Nation of Establishment. The Establishment, through their corrupted politicians make the rules and the rules change according to who they are for. And in politics, anywhere in the World, all through history, the three most effective tools are bribery, extortion and murder.
It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the constitution and legal precedent. He knows he’s a crook. He knows he’s a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.
He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.
IT IS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT A SPINELESS, COWARDLY, TRAITOROUS, SATANIC SNAKE IN THE GRASS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY TELLING US HOW TO LIVE!
The lawyers asking to keep Obama off the ballot presented evidence and witnesses. Obama showed nothing. Didn’t even come. Ignored a court order. And Judge Micahel Malihi ruled in the criminal’s favor.
Imagine a boy comes to his father and says his brother hit him. He has no bruises and no witnesses. The father confronts the brother, who proves that he was in school at the time. Friends and teachers vouch for his attendence and show the father a picture of him in class. The father punishes him anyway and takes the lying brother out for ice cream and toy shopping.
Judge Michael Malihi cited cases that have absolutley nothing to do with the subject matter and he totally disregarded any evidence or witnesses.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo thoroughly trashes this corrupt judge’s decision on his website: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
“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.
Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.”
Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could).
The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth.
Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.”
Mario Apuzzo continues with well documented legal facts: “Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already has told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court [Malihi] that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was born in the United States.
The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented to the court whether he was “born within the borders of the United States.” The court never even examined that issue.
Hence, its statement that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents” does not prove that Obama was, in fact, born within the borders of the United States” and that he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”
I would like to interrupt at this point, but Mr. Apuzzo is on a roll,
“Judge Malihi has not made any findings of fact concerning the question of where Obama was born.
Obama the candidate wants to be President again. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” As part of that burden, he has to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States.
Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing to present any evidence on the issue.
Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs’ documentary evidence to be insufficient for whatever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate, to be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi that Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States.
Judge Malihi said that he “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was born in the United States.
Clearly, “considered” does not mean “found”.
Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi’s decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi’s decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot.
Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads [the case of] Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to that incorrect reading.
The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents.
There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948.
All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot.”
Mr. Apuzzo’s brief biography: Listed in Who’s Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges, 1978-1979. Graduated from: Wilkes University, B.A.; Temple University, J.D. Named: Outstanding Senior Scholar Athlete, Wilkes College, 1978-1979; Businessman of the Year, Italian American Police Society of New Jersey, 1996; Outstanding American of Italian Descent, Meritorious Achievement, Italian Tribune News, 1996. Pro-Bono Counsel for: National Police Defense Foundation, New Jersey, 1996-; Order Sons of Italy in America-New Jersey, 1994-.
Now I can intrude again.
Judge Michael Malihi issued his decision late in the day on a Friday. By doing this, he effectively isolates himself from any criticism, until Monday morning. Come Monday, I am sure that he will be hiding behind the skirts of his office staff.
He is not ignorant of what he has done. He turned his back on all that we cherish for a few bucks or because he is scared to death of whoever made him “an offer he can’t refuse”.
This weasel of a man betrayed his country, reneged on his oath of office, insulted the dignity of his profession, corrupted the legal system and by his conscious act of disloyalty to his associates, he has subjected them all to scorn and ridicule. If any of his co-workers have a conscience, they would hang their heads in shame and be embarrassed to frequent any of the businesses where they eat and shop.
Merchants in Atlanta should refuse to serve them. Businesses should refuse to sell them food, gasoline, clothes and should especially not sell them any tools of their trade such as pens, paper, computers or printers.
In his well thought out plans, setting his signature to that decision is nothing less than admitted treason.
In the interest of public safety I would like to request of all who are aware of this stinking rotten judge’s actions, to please refrain from mugging the low down lying cockroach, throwing rocks at this dog’s house, slapping this treasonous corrupt scoundrel’s children, spitting on this disgusting animal’s wife, to just go directly to the whorse’s mouth. Give him a call or stop in to see him, for a polite civilized discussion, on why he chose to turn his back on the country that provided the means for him to be in the position he is in.
I am sure that he would want to hear from the people who pay his salary, who put food in his family’s stomachs and puts clothes on their backs. Naturally, he would want to thank you personally.
For conversing, socializing, bonding with his neighbors and undermining the American legal system, he lists his address as: 230 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 850, Atlanta, Georgia USA 30303 or feel free to call him. You pay for his office: 404-651-7595 or, people always love a good fax 404-818-3751
Why not? He faxed us good.”
Mark S. McGrew can be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com. More of his articles, published on over 900 websites, in 28 countries, in 8 languages, are on www.MarkSMcGrew.com . When reprinting this article, please include a link to the free press of www.english.pravda.ru And a special thanks to Pravda’s English editor, Dmitry Sudakov
Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:
I. Obama Wins Georgia Ballot Challenge!
Posted on American Thinker-By Cindy Simpson-On February 4, 2012:
“President Obama’s name should appear on Georgia’s 2012 presidential ballot, in the official opinion of Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH), issued on February 3. Judge Malihi’s decision is the result of hearings held January 26 on three separate actions brought by several Georgia residents. Under Georgia law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp had referred the challenges, filed last November, to the OSAH for a recommendation.
An earlier American Thinker article on the ballot challenges noted the absence of Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, from the hearings. Judge Malihi took note of the failure to participate in the opening page of his decision:
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against the party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding...Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request.
Based on the pre-hearing conference with the Judge, the plaintiffs expected an outcome of at least such a default judgment, and hoped that a ruling in their favor, based on the merits, was possible.
Two of the challenges, represented by attorney Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation and Georgia Rep. J. Mark Hatfield, did not focus on Obama’s place of birth or the infamous birth certificate. Rather, Irion and Hatfield contended that Obama, with his non-US citizen father, is not a “natural born” citizen according to the rule of statutory construction in the interpretation of the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent. (Further explanation of those assertions is contained in a comprehensive amicus brief submitted to the court, prepared by attorney Leo Donofrio.) The third challenge, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, also addressed the validity of Obama’s posted birth certificate and social security number.
Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, in his motion to dismiss the challenges, argued that the state had no authority to interfere in national elections. However, Judge Malihi, in his denial to Jablonski’s motion noted that Georgia law specifically requires that “[e]very candidate...shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought” and that “[b]oth the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.”
Judge Malihi’s denial to the motion to dismiss also emphasized the rule of statutory construction:
Statutory provisions must be read as they are written...When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, “the first step...is to examine the plain statutory language.”...”Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden.” ... [T]his Court is not “authorized either to read into or read out that which would add to or change its meaning.”
In his sweeping denial of the Plaintiff’s challenges, however, Judge Malihi did not mention the principle, and instead relied on the 2009 case of Ankeny v Governor, stating that “[t]he 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.”
Interestingly, Judge Malihi footnoted that particular statement with the assertion: “This Court recognizes that the Wong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court’s analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive.”
It must also be noted that the Indiana decision contains another similar and interesting footnote: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a ‘natural born Citizen’ using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial.”
In other words, Judge Malihi found more persuasive than the long-established principle of statutory construction, a State’s Court of Appeals opinion and its unsupported contention that the Constitution’s language “is immaterial.”
In the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court determined that Ark, born to non-citizen Chinese parents permanently and legally domiciled in the U.S., was a citizen (though it did not describe him as a “natural born” citizen). In its actual historical context, however, Ark’s situation was governed by a treaty in effect between the U.S. and China—a treaty that originally recognized the transfer of allegiance of Chinese making their permanent homes in America, but, as later amended, also prevented Ark’s parents from ever naturalizing as U.S. citizens. In fact, as Donofrio explains, unlike other native-born children of alien parents of other nationalities, Ark was not born with the dual allegiance (i.e. dual citizenship) that many experts contend the 14th amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” language was meant to prevent.
And according to the principle of statutory construction, the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would not be superfluous to the preceding phrase in the amendment’s citizenship clause: “born or naturalized in the United States.”
It was Obama’s dual citizenship, the result of his having a non-citizen father temporarily resident in the U.S., that the plaintiffs in the Georgia challenges asserted precluded his “natural born” eligibility. Obama may have been born in the country, but he was not born completely subject to its jurisdiction, or in the words of one of the framers of the 14th amendment, “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
As to the specific claims in Taitz’s challenge, the Judge found that “the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.”
Both Irion and Hatfield had also asked the court to recommend a finding of contempt for Obama’s failure to appear in the proceedings. Judge Malihi did not agree, and in his decision merely wrote: “By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski.”
Georgia represents 16 electoral votes, which Obama lost in 2008 with 47%, so an Obama win in the state was not expected, even though now he is assured of having his name included on the ballot. However, the eligibility issue is still a major concern to many citizens, and “is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois,” as reported by WND.
The rest of the mainstream media, though, seemed to have gone on total blackout the last couple of weeks, neglecting to report on either the quite extraordinary subject matter of the Georgia hearings or the failure of Obama and his defense team to respectfully respond and appear in court.
Whatever one’s opinions on the constitutional definition of “natural born citizen,” the arrogance exhibited by this president and his defense attorney to the judiciary of a state, and the abject lack of reporting by the major networks and mainstream media, should trouble every citizen in the nation.
More remarkably, such behavior, especially when viewed as part of a disturbing pattern throughout this administration, should be of grave concern to members of Congress.
And the fact that Judge Malihi took note of and relied upon on the established rule of statutory construction in his earlier order, but then made assertions contrary to that principle in his final decision, should not go unnoticed by those versed in constitutional law.
Opponents of the controversial birthright citizenship practice should also take note, since Judge Malihi’s opinion further entrenches the notion that every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of its parents (presumably even an “anchor baby” or “birth tourist” baby) is a “natural born” citizen. So would have been Anwar al-Awlaki.
I wonder if the founders of the Constitution, the framers of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark, ever imagined that such an idea would be considered the rule of law. The mainstream media calls those who dare to argue otherwise “crazy” and “racist” “birthers.”
Obama may have won the Georgia ballot challenge, but the rule of law and the Constitution suffered a crippling blow.”
II. A Rat Called Tandem!
Posted on Natural Born Citizen-By Leo Donofrio, Esq.-On February 4, 2012:
“What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.
Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.
I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report, The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
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. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal ‘must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.
Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:
“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.”
III. Were FBI Agents Carrying Out Orders When They Said That Enforcing the Constitution Regarding Obama Would Cause a Civil War?-Posted on Obama Ballot Challenge-By Pamela Barnett-On February 5, 2012:
IV. Georgia Court Ignored Basic Rules of Interpretation in Obama Ballot Challenge!-Posted on Obama Ballot Challenge-By Pamela Barnett-On February 5, 2012:
V. Thanks A Lot Georgia, For Shredding Our Constitution!-Posted on Western Journalism-By MIKI BOOTH-On February 4, 2012:
VI. BREAKING NEWS: SHERIFF JOE SETS D-DAY ON OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY: ‘Arpaio won’t release any of Cold-Case Posse’s conclusions in advance!’-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On February 6, 2012:
Question: Was retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely on target when he made the following eye-opening statement during an interview that aired on the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Show on June 13, 2011: “..the “Certificate of Live Birth” released, on or about April 27, 2011, by the White House as “proof positive” of President Obama’s Hawaiian birth was a forgery, but the FBI was covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a “black backlash” if the failings of the nation’s first black president are revealed.”
Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:
The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!
Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?
Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?
Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.
“Food For Thought”
God Bless the U.S.A.!