Judge rules Obama will stay on Georgia ballot

It's official.

Obama is a Natural Born Citizen !!!!


February 3, 2012 -- examiner.com

The expected decision by Federal Judge Malihi to determine whether or not President Obama would be eligible as a candidate on the Georgia ballot has been released to the public. Judge Malihi has ruled in favor of Obama and he will be on the Georgia ballot.

I'm A Citizen at LAST !!


UNLESS.....

The Chicago Boys Bought Off the Judge ??

related article:

Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot

WND.us

Rejects plaintiffs demand to strike name from 2012 election...

An administrative law judge in Georgia today ruled that Barack Obama’s name can be on the state’s 2012 presidential election ballot because he was born in Hawaii, is “native born” and thus also is “natural born” as required by the Constitution.

He cited a little-known determination by an Indiana judge.

“The 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,” wrote Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge in Atlanta.

“For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

yea last i heard about this was failure to appear , gonna go after you , file this file that..


but looks like someone pulled rank and put the judge in his place

dirty politics makes for great movies , but terrible for citizens to follow as role models.


Alright least the birther issues is put on the back burner for a bit .

this looks like the court papers:

The Papers !

dated Feb 03, 2012.

I don't agree with the ruling. Obama was in contempt. He showed no respect for the court and if I was the judge. I would of issued a bench warrant.

If you want me to rule in your favor then show some respect. Don't disrespect my courtroom.

Good, now birthers, please shave, go home, and STFU for once (or at least for a little while).

Good for the judge (just saw this on the local news as i came home from out of town).

From a local source: GA Judge Rejects Attempt to keep Obama off ballot

Malihi said in his decision that it has been determined that Obama was born in the U.S.

Similar complaints have been filed in other states with no success.

And from the OP's source:

For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.

Since it has already been decided elsewhere, it's good this judge has thrown out this mockery of the judicial system and the utter frivolousness of these people who are determined--regardless of fact and until their own skewed beliefs are affirmed--to say that Obama is ineligible. Pretty soon it'll because his grandparents weren't citizens of the US.

Yes, it's frivolous. These jerks don't like a ruling, they will take it to every jurisdiction they can, just because they can, and because are stubborn and determined and and have NOTHING to support their claims. "Maybe THIS guy will rule in our favor!" rabblerabble

Wasting my tax dollars on this BS.

Glad the judge has *some* sense.

Originally posted by Manhater
I don't agree with the ruling. Obama was in contempt. He showed no respect for the court and if I was the judge. I would of issued a bench warrant.

If you want me to rule in your favor then show some respect. Don't disrespect my courtroom.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

I have to disagree. You can't bring the president to court for unimportant things and I think birther conspiracies qualify as unimportant ever since obama proved that he was a natural born citizen. There's absolutely no reason to take him to court over this and I'm glad the judge made the right decision.

I did question whether he would meet the definition of "natural born" citizen, as I believed the counter argument had some merit, but this case has put the issue to bed for me.

Now that this has been ruled on, we can concentrate on making Obama a 1 term president by defeating him at the ballot box.

Everyone cried "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" when the TSA detained Rand Paul. But no one cries "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" when a state court tries to detain Obama for failure to appear.

Focus on the real crimes of the Obama administration like Fast & Furious and signing of the unconstitutional NDAA bill.

Where's the proof? The court case would of brought it out. But, it's not on record.

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Everyone cried "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" when the TSA detained Rand Paul. But no one cries "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" when a state court tries to detain Obama for failure to appear.

Focus on the real crimes of the Obama administration like Fast & Furious and signing of the unconstitutional NDAA bill.

edit on 2/3/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)

Here's a thought, to bring it into perspective:

What if a multitude of jurisdictions (or people) in every state decided to bring the same suit against Obama? Is the POTUS (or his attorney) required to attend ALL of these PETTY, BS hearings?

I think not.

It's silly.

ETA: Agreed to the last point.

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Everyone cried "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" when the TSA detained Rand Paul. But no one cries "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" when a state court tries to detain Obama for failure to appear.

Focus on the real crimes of the Obama administration like Fast & Furious and signing of the unconstitutional NDAA bill.

edit on 2/3/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)

Agreed. I think there's definitely some bias going on here. Personally I consider this to be in the same territory as rand paul getting detained by the TSA seeing as both of them are stupid and unconstitutional things done by the government. At least the federal government made the right decision this time.

Whoa... The OP link itself has a link to the actual decision paperwork. Page 7 and into page 8 for reasoning and logic are rather disturbing. I'm specifically looking at the case precedent cited by this Judge for the decision to include:

.......Fourteenth Amendment and Article II (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Id. at 685 (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 167); See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ."). In Minor, the Court observed that:

and...

Next, the Indiana Court looked to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment and "natural born citizen of the United States" in Article II to determine whether a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of the child's birth, were subjects of China "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . ." Id. at 686 (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653).

Sou rce

I'm with the OP in saying it sounds like this settles it on this issue...and I honestly haven't been able to find anything in writing to contradict this Judge's finding, despite having been a pretty skepical person on this issue until very recently. Lots of looking though...and nothing to apparently find but interpretation of something that was never clearly defined. Precedent wins, as it probably ought to in how our system works.

It sucks being wrong, but I apparently have been in thinking there was basis on the Father issue.

Having said that, this Judge sure went about reaching and justifying his finding in a wishy washy way that did more about hiding behind procedural issues and precedent from the Indiana court than declaring anything as settled by his OWN direct finding, He questioned the fact the witnesses weren't properly established as experts under procedure, but didn't declare a finding on the evidence actually presented.

I hope this DOES settle it, because I DO think he's probably made the right ruling. He just did a horrible job getting there.

From a legal point of view I find this interesting. According to what I have read, Plaintiff's were offered a Summary Judgment in chambers but insisted on a limited evidentary hearing. Understand, a Summary Judgment is a judgment based on the filed pleadings (papers) rather than a Default Judgment based upon an unresponsive Defendant. Based upon the opinion and ruling posted, the judge gave no credibility to the in-court evidence which was the same as the documentary evidence filed that he had (apparently) found sufficient to enter a Summary Judgment in Chambers. His reasoning is because the experts were not properly proffered as experts (a simple legal procedure.) Since this was to be a modified hearing of sorts, the experts were not properly proffered and I suspect this was not overlooked but merely considered an unnecessary formality by the Plaintiffs, based upon the in Chambers conversations. However, on the other hand, there seems to be no objection as to them being presented as experts so their opinion, without objection, should have been taken as expert testimony or at least undisputed evidence. (Of course I wasn't there.) Note-this was the same evidence considered in the motions that the judge considered in Chambers where he said her would grant a Summary Judgment rather than a Default Judgment. Since the judge had offered a Summary Judgment and the Defendant (Obama) put on no defense, this should have been a slam dunk. I suspect pressure on the Court from outside sources. To me the problem may be legally resolved but not morally resolved. Perhaps my grandchildren will be able to see the original Certificate of Live Birth in the Smithsonian and they will know the truth.

reply to post by Nite_wing

I suspect pressure on the Court from outside sources.

Outside sources like a payoff agent ?

I highly suspect the same.

It's like they did everything backwards.

Typical Chicago style bribery in play with the whole issue ..... including Hawaii IMO.

Chicago Bribery of Judges Article


Operation Greylord - Chicago

Oops! SEE BELOW

Originally posted by Manhater
I don't agree with the ruling. Obama was in contempt. He showed no respect for the court and if I was the judge. I would of issued a bench warrant.

If you want me to rule in your favor then show some respect. Don't disrespect my courtroom.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

Executive Privileged. No President is required to appear before any level of the Judiciary Branch.



Hopefully someone will charge Orly Taitz with filing frivolous lawsuits with malicious intent so she finally gets disbarred.

reply to post by SG-17


Don't care, it doesn't make you above the law. When a judge orders you to be in court, you better show up to court. There is no excuse. How do you expect me to take your side when you show utter disrespect for authority?

reply to post by Manhater


...I just explained it to you. Executive Privilege.

reply to post by xuenchen



No, I don't mean money across the table (or under it). I suspect there was influence of other nature (and this is merely my opinion because I have no proof) such has
1. A ruling against Obama could have serious ramifications and precedent in other states forcing him totally off the ballots in 23 other states.
2. the possiblity of physical injury to himself or his family. Judges are human and have the same fears as anyone else,
3. the promise of a future position in the Federal Judiciary,
4. fear of uprising within the population,
5 the total destruction of a Constitutional Republic.

I am more than merely familiar with Operation Greylord in Chicago. Instead of pressure coming down AGAINST the Judges in Greylord, I suspect pressure coming down ON this judge from sources we cannot even imagine.