The Court Challenges
February 4, 2012 8:41 AM
I have to agree with you Mario. Judge Malihi clearly IGNORED Irion’s arguments. Irion’s presented different and unique arguments that were never addressed in the Ankeny court. Instead of addressing such arguments and either rejecting them or affirming them, Judge Malihi simply ignored them. I suspect Judge Malihi knew he couldn’t counter Irion’s arguments and sought an escape route. Judge Malihi was able to find one by simply deferring the whole case to the Ankeny decision, a decision that is clearly not binding. Judge Malihi was then able to IGNORE Irion’s arguments by simply stating that he found the Ankeny case persusive and deferred his legal conclusions to that court. Judge Malihi never addressed the merits of the arguments that was in the record in front of him.
I suspect that Irion knew about the Ankeny decision. But since Obama didn’t show up to make judicial notice of it or enter it into the record, Irion believed that he could make an argument on the record that says Obama wasn’t an NBC. Unfortunately, Judge Malihi IGNORED the record and reached for another court to find a resolution. It was highly unusual for him to do this since the Ankeny case was state court decision and was never reviewed by SCOTUS.
February 4, 2012 8:49 AM
Reality Check said…
Here are the three recent decisions:
In Georgia ALJ Mahili on February 3rd rejected plaintiffs claims and said President Obama is a natural born citizen since he was born in Hawaii.
On January 20th in the Eastern District of Virginia Judge Gabney ruled in Tisdale v Obama that “It is well settled case law that those born in the Untied States are natural born citizens”. He then cites Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v Elg, and Hollander v McCain.
In Illinois the State Board of Elections overruled a challenge against President Obama’s place on the primary ballot filed by a Michael Jackson. Jackson argued that Minor v Happersett defined “natural born citizen”. He had also included a copy of Leo Donofrio’s 200+ page amicus brief that Leo had sent to Judge Malihi. The hearing examiner said of Jackson’s case: “Said pleading is illogical, nonsensical, and not worthy of consideration.” (The examiner’s findings were upheld by the board this past week.)
February 4, 2012 9:47 AM
I of II
You are relying on a “stipulation” by some attorneys as evidence in the court record of Obama’s place of birth. You do not cite to any other evidence in the record. So then, other than your “stipulation” theory, you agree with me that there is no factual foundation for Judge Malihi’s “consideration” that Obama was born in the United States.
Judge Malihi decided the case both on place of birth and citizen parents. He concluded, based on Ankeny alone, that citizen parents is not relevant to deciding whether one who is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He in effect ruled that with a U.S. birth case, place of birth and “jurisdiction” are the only controlling issues. The way Wong Kim Ark interpreted the “jurisdiction” requirement, it only becomes an issue if parents are diplomats, military invaders, or lacking the status of being domiciled in the United States. Our current courts have not even wanted to touch the “domicile” requirement of Wong Kim Ark. Obama’s alleged parents were not diplomats or military invaders. So there is no “jurisdiction” issue if Obama was born in the United States. Hence, under Judge Malihi’s view of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, which I have shown in my article is a mistaken view, for Judge Malihi to rule that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” he only had to find that Obama was born in the United States. But Judge Malihi did not make any findings of fact. Just to “consider” something is not a decision either way. So we do not know how he “considered” Obama to be born in the United States, which as I have stated in my article is not legally equivalent to a factual finding.
I do not know the full extent of this alleged “stipulation.” For what purpose was the stipulation made? Was it made for the purpose of just getting to the issue of the citizen parents requirement rather than actually conceding to the place of birth issue? I doubt very much that any attorney would have made such a stipulation to actual concede that Obama was born in the United States. Rather, the stipulation would have been made only to get beyond the place of birth issue which was factually in dispute and get to the citizenship of the parents issue which was not factually in dispute. In any event, Judge Malihi does not mention any attorney stipulation in his opinion which supports my position that he did not view any such stipulation as evidence of record of Obama’s place of birth.
Continued . . .
February 4, 2012 10:03 AM
II of II
Even if there should be some binding stipulation of record as you suggest, your stipulation theory still does not preclude my argument that the court did not have sufficient evidence before it that Obama was born in the United States. Judge Malihi had three separate cases before him which each case presenting different party plaintiffs. Each party has his or her own due process rights to present his or her case as seen fit under all applicable laws. Hence, each case stands or falls on its own. Judge Malihi had also granted case severance. A stipulation is binding upon the party or attorney who makes it and has all the legal consequences that attach to it as provided by applicable law or court order. A stipulation by an attorney or party only resolves a certain factual issue for sake of legal argument in the case in which it is made and not in any other case. A stipulation does not actually prove anything in the real sense. It only allows a case to move forward in a legal environment without the court itself having to resolve any given factual dispute before it can resolve the underlying legal issues. Courts are allowed to take judicial notice of not only laws and other generally accepted facts, but also of any facts established of “record” in its own court or that of any other court. Hence, real evidence in a court record (e.g. testimonial, documentary, or physical) can be used for any purpose that the rules of evidence allow which includes not only prejudicing or supporting the case in which the evidence is introduced but also other cases. But what one party and attorney stipulates to in one case cannot be used against some party and attorney in a different case. In other words, except to the extent that there exists already judicially established facts and binding law, each case sinks or swims on its own. Orly Taitz did not stipulate to anything. She argued both place of birth and citizen parents. It is quite evident given her presentation of evidence that she strenuously contested the place of birth issue. Judge Malihi did not give Taitz any opportunity to be heard on whether he should use against her the stipulations of the other attorneys. Hence, your “stipulation” argument, even if it had any merit, does not work as to her.
February 4, 2012 10:04 AM
Harry II said…
Kudos, Mario. If only truth and justice could prevail. . . which I doubt in this former republic, where the rule of law no longer seems to matter to those in power.
February 4, 2012 10:10 AM
It looks like you are either an innocent newbie to the Obama eligibility issue or a Super Obot misinformation operative. Regardless of who you really are, a little education will help all of us. Our first presidents were English “natural born subjects” who naturalized by condition, the Declaration of Independece and by adhering to the American Revolution, to be “Citizens of the United States.” They were not nor could they be American “natural born Citizens.” The grandfather clause of Article II allowed “Citizens of the United States” in being at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President. Hence, our early presidents became eligible to be President as “Citizens of the United States” under the grandfather clause.
Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, after the adoption of the Constitution, only “natural born Citizens” are eligible to be President. This means that today only a child born in the country to citizen parents is eligible to be President. The parents of the child do not need to be born in the United States. They only have to be U.S. citizens by any lawful means available, e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty. Also, before 1922, an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a U.S. citizen herself. So in your examples, all those presidents were either grandfathered to be eligible or were born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.
The only exception to all our Presidents being constitutionally eligible for the office they held is Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, both children of a British “natural born subject/citizen” father and both not Article II “natural born Citizens.” Arthur got away with it through the public not knowing of the full circumstances of his birth. Obama got away with it so far by the establishment covering for him.
February 4, 2012 10:41 AM
Hattfield and Irion need to follow suit and urge SOS Kemp to set aside Judge Malihi’s decision.
February 4, 2012 10:44 AM
As it appears that qualification is an “all or none’ proposition, what difference is it that Obama was or was not born in Hawaii, since his father was not a US citizen?
Also, does Mz Taitz’ contention that the birth certificate is a forgery cast doubt on the validity of both Obama’s birth place AND his father’s alien status, which we of the laity have been using as ‘proof’ of his ineligibility?
My profound thanks and appreciation for you and other members of the legal profession who have devoted so much time and effort in a valiant attempt to shine the light of reason and understanding into the dark recesses of many minds, with varying success.
It just proves that those who refuse to look will never see.
February 4, 2012 11:35 AM
Kim Papit said…
Mr. Apuzzo – In relation to the judge “considering” that Obama was born in the US, isn’t that because the plaintiff’s lawyers stipulated to such in their statement of facts? In other words, because the plaintiffs “considered” Obama to be born in the US, wasn’t that enough for Malihi to “consider” that to be the case? Those were the facts stipulated to by Van Irion and Hatfield.
Note – I’m not saying he WAS born in the US, I don’t have any way of verifying that. However, the facts of the cases, to me, seem to provide the judge cover to make that “consideration”…do they not?
February 4, 2012 1:10 PM
Of those three cases that you have provided, did any one of them actually do anything on its own when it comes to analyzing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” or did they just cite a verse and line out of Wong Kim Ark and say that Wong is dispositive?
If it is the latter, how much value can any such “decision” have, given that Wong Kim Ark, when referring to a “natural born Citizen,” cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett and its definition of the clause and then concerning the issue that was before the Court as to whether Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” construed the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause and held that he was a “citizen of the United States” under that Amendment? Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed the underlying meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I say “underlying” because the amendment did increase the class of people who can be parents of “natural born Citizens.” These cases are simply wrong in relying on Wong Kim Ark to establish the standard of what a “natural born Citizen” is. The standard is found in Minor v. Happersett which was confirmed by Wong Kim Ark, not changed by Wong Kim Ark.
February 4, 2012 3:47 PM
Notwithstanding the ruling of the Georgia court, the historical record, Congressional Acts, and U.S. Supreme Court cases show that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett (1875). Hence, to be a “natural born Citizen,” one needs both birth in the country and birth to citizen parents.
As to birth in the country, Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent. His computerized long-from birth certificate has been discredited as a forgery. Obama was given in Georgia the opportunity to meet his burden of proof regarding where he was born. He failed to appear and to present any evidence on the issue. While the Georgia court ruled otherwise, as I have explained in my article, I disagree with the court. Rather, the court had no competent evidence to establish where he was born. Obama therefore failed to carry his burden.
As to citizen parents, the Georgia court has ruled that it is irrelevant. As I explained in my article, I disagree with the court. On the contrary, Obama has conceded that his father was Obama Sr. There is evidence of Obama Sr. being his father in the INS file, Dreams from My Father, the Obama-Dunham divorce file, and many other sources in the public domain. Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. The INS file proves this. Obama himself has conceded this point.
As we have seen, to be a “natural born Citizen,” one must be born in the country and born to citizen parents. Obama fails both the place of birth and citizen parents test. This means that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he still in not a “natural born Citizen” because he fails the citizen parents test. So, place of birth and citizen parents are both necessary but neither alone is sufficient. Regardless of which factor we focus on, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.”
February 4, 2012 5:52 PM
Surely, hopefully there is at least one court or Attorney General or Sec. of State among the 50 states who will decide the issue on the facts, but they can’t if their lives are being threatened, not by the White House but by unseen and unknown characters. Remember, the RFK murder is still a mystery, -with too many bullet holes in the walls and a trigger man that was acting like a zombie. Just sayin…
Anyway, if ever a court requires the presentment of an original Hawaiian certified Birth Certificate Truecopy, then Obama can’t produce one because none exists. If he presents a print-out of the forgery, and it contains all the elements of certification, then a true forgery will have been presented and cannot be authenticated because it will be nothing more than an ABSTRACT and not a TRUECOPY because Hawaii no longer creates TRUECOPYs since going digital. There is no such thing as a certifiable ABSTRACT because certification is the attestation that the copy is a true representation of the original. But an abstract is a concoction that is not a true representation of an actual document by is merely an abstract computer-generated version and can easily be altered and faked. Read my essay on the subject at obama–nation.com: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/bastardization-of-certification/ ARNash
comments to Leo
“Mario Apuzzo…a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.”
Please, that was no more a legal opinion than a fart out of the judge’s rear-end could be considered a sage utterance.
Justice Gray’s decision is truly irrelevant to presidential qualification. It only relates to the citizenship of children born to immigrants, not to whether or not they are natural born. Any attempt to insert natural born into the the 14thAmendment ruling is a nefarious deceitful travesty against the Constitution in more than one way. But Gray’s ruling is illegitimate in only one way from your perspective and that of the Attorney General that prosecuted the case. It isn’t the demon in the room because there’s no *legitimate* connection between that ruling and presidential eligibility.
But we aren’t seeing the puppet-master behind the judge that is pulling the strings and making the threats against his life and those of his loved ones which convinced him to throw the ruling in favor of the defendant, -just like a bribed or extorted referee would throw his call in a World Championship match.
““For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that…”
What BS! Analysis?? First you have to have some actual facts to analyze. Then you “consider” what conclusions those fact lead to, -whether this or that, but instead the judge *decided* Obama was born in the U.S. based on NOTHING!
Your criticism of the Ankeny ruling missed what I assume was the most important point in that regard. Being as it was an irrelevant ruling of a court in a different state, the ruling had no bearing in Georgia and the issue had to be decided anew from the beginning, which the Judge avoided doing.
Apuzzo: “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…” People need to stop calling a print-out of a purely digital file “a scan”. You cannot scan a document that does not exist. But you can print a copy of a fake digital one.
“the Georgia court ruled otherwise, as I have explained in my article, I disagree with the court.” What? What kind of weak-kneed wishy-washy statement is that? “I disagree”? Call a spade a spade or go home. The court’s ruling was a flat out bastardization of the principles of jurisprudence. Some one “got to” the judge and as a result he was forced to produce such a steaming pile of stinking non-logical, foundationless tripe. The kind of people unafraid to intimidate a judge are also unafraid to intimidate the Attorney General. They know where he lives. They know his children and where they go to school. They know their schedules. Fear is an easy response to illicit. The only one who might be immune is a Jerry Brown, no wife, no children. But he’s a Democrat.
Allow me to make a prediction. If natural citizenship is not argued from the perspective of natural principle, but is promoted instead based solely on a misinterpretation of a description of domestically born natural citizens that is found only in the Minor ruling, then there’s little hope of succeeding in presenting an air-tight argument for a basis underlying natural citizenship. Legal explanations don’t cut it because they are not based on the logic of natural law but on the opinions of others.
Legal opinions were not on the minds of the founding fathers when setting the presidential eligibility requirements. 35 years residence…no origin in law; 14 years residence…no original in law; natural citizenship…no origin in law. Lose the legal arguments and adopt the natural law arguments. They are irrefutable, incontestable, crystal clear and easily understandable. That is how to win the argument about what a natural citizen is.
But apparently those mentally suffused with law are incapable of thinking outside of that limiting box. Are you forever going to be one of them? Are you incapable of adopting a different way of thinking? I sure hope not. Otherwise it’s hopeless. It’s time for you to go deeper than you’ve gone. You are still in the shallows of legal opinion and have not entered the open waters of natural law, and natural principle, and natural rights. In those waters human opinions are irrelevant and non-existent.
“We Hold These Truths to be legal opinions of legal minds… I don’t think so. SELF-EVIDENT!
in the quest for the triumph of truth, AR Nash
Subject: disturbing total abdication of responsibility by federal appeals court 9th Circuit Refuses to Prohibit DNC from Sending Fraudulent Notices Donald, Tonight Obama will be accepting the Democratic Party's nomination. Tonight or tomorrow the DNC will be sending notifications that they certify Obama as their candidate to the Secretaries of State for all 50 states. These notifications will either explicitly state that Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president, or they will imply it. Either way, the certifications will be fraudulent. Earlier this week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Liberty Legal Foundation's emergency motion to prohibit the DNC from sending those fraudulent notifications. The 9th Circuit's order denying our motion was one sentence. It essentially said, we're denying your motion because we can. You can see the order on our website. The 9th Circuit's one-sentence denial of our motion is, in my mind, the definitive proof that America's judicial system has completely failed. For a year Liberty Legal Foundation has been presenting courts with an opportunity to explain why Supreme Court precedent should be ignored. Rather than answer that question, the courts have avoided the question. The 9th Circuit's denial cites a single case. That case stands for the principle that the 9th Circuit doesn't have to grant our motion unless it wants to do so. Oh, it has the authority, but it isn't required to grant our motion. Understand what I just said. The 9th Circuit didn't explain WHY it chose to deny our motion. It didn't even offer an excuse. The Court didn't say that the DNC's notifications wouldn't be fraudulent. It simply said, we don't have to grant your motion, because we don't have to. That puts things into perspective doesn't it? We're asking high ranking government officials within the federal government's judicial branch to answer a basic question about the Constitution. That question is simple, but is also a critically important Constitutional question. The answer would have determined whether Obama is eligible to serve another term as President. But the 9th Circuit determined that this question isn't important enough for it to consider. It isn't required to answer this question right now, so it will simply look the other way and act as if the issue doesn't exist. By the time it is required to answer the question, the issue will be moot because the election will be over. Our federal courts are now publicly stating that they have no desire to enforce the Constitution. They delay, they make excuses, and then when enough time has passed they simply say we don't have to answer you right now, come back after it no longer matters. Then we will have another excuse: the issue will be moot. LLF will not let this issue simply fade away. We are considering filing new lawsuits after the DNC sends its fraudulent notifications. After the notifications are sent the legal issues will be even simpler than they have been up to this point. We will either find a judge that is willing to follow the law, or we will further demonstrate the corruption of our judicial branch. Van Irion Esq.