Main Menu

Malihi: Obama eligible

In an anxiously awaited decision, Georgia administrative law judge Michael Malihi handed down a 10-page decision ruling Barack Obama eligible to be on the Georgia Democratic Primary Ballot.

Regarding the witnesses presented by Orly Taitz, Judge Malihi found a definite lack of substance, writing:

The Court finds testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.

The judge criticized Orly Taitz for failing to establish that her witnesses were indeed qualified to give expert testimony. In Georgia, Malihi wrote, “the unqualified testimony of the witness [is] not competent evidence.” He said: “neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation.”

Judge Malihi then went on to address the claims of plaintiffs Swensson and Powell that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a US Citizen.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.

Bless his heart.

More information at the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Read the decision:

, , ,

47 Responses to Malihi: Obama eligible

  1. avatar
    El Diablo Negro February 3, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    I read the transcript, didn’t raise an eyebrow. I must admit I did crack a smile. To make this weekend complete, I just need the Giants to win on Sunday.

  2. avatar
    richCares February 3, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    another Biferstan OMG moment goes down in flmes, they will forget about this one and find anothr OMG moment. It’s like they have Alzheimers!

  3. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Weren’t a few birthers supposed to come back here and admit they were wrong?

  4. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Weren’t a few birthers supposed to come back here and admit they were wrong?

    I know that I’m looking forward to hearing from Geir Smith and Lord Basil. And poor John, of course.

  5. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    LMAO! Yeah… definitely waiting to see if that happens… πŸ˜‰

    If they do show up, they deserve the “*duh* told ya so” smack down coming to them…

    Majority Will: Weren’t a few birthers supposed to come back here and admit they were wrong?

    Rickey: I know that I’m looking forward to hearing from Geir Smith and Lord Basil. And poor John, of course.

  6. avatar
    ASK Esq February 3, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    I couldn’t be more shocked at this. Next thing you know, some judge will declare water to be wet or fire to be hot.

  7. avatar
    Daniel February 3, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    And which was the birther that challenged me directly to come back and admit when I was wrong?

  8. avatar
    Daniel February 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Well you have to admit the judge, unlike birthers, has a firm grasp of the perfectly obvious.

  9. avatar
    Daniel February 3, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    I wonder if he’s started getting his hate mail yet?

  10. avatar
    Daniel February 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    “Even though Malihi ruled in Obama’s favor, he expressed displeasure that the president’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta, refused to attend the recent hearing.

    “By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” Malihi wrote. “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.””

    So when the birthers finally get a judge to hear them “on the merits”… and even though they are completely unopposed by the defendant, they still lose.

    That has got to sting…..

  11. avatar
    jayHG February 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Oh Lord……I’m almost afraid to go over to free republic and see the head explosions. They have been dancing a jig for the last two weeks, so sure were they that President Obama was not long for THEIR White House.

    I’ll come back here later to report. For now, I’m going over and prepareing to duck as I walk into the door, what with all the flying objects directed towards the great state of Georgia that are going to be whizzing past my head.

  12. avatar
    jayHG February 3, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    Daniel: “Even though Malihi ruled in Obama’s favor, he expressed displeasure that the president’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski of Atlanta, refused to attend the recent hearing.“By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” Malihi wrote. “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.””So when the birthers finally get a judge to hear them “on the merits”… and even though they are completely unopposed by the defendant, they still lose.That has got to sting…..

    Damn……that stung me, so I can only imagine what butterdezillion or diagonese lamp are feeling…….NOT. They’re crazy people. Malihi was paid or he got a call or his children weer threatened…….or, oh whatever!!!

  13. avatar
    aarrgghh February 3, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    meme o’ the day.

  14. avatar
    CAJD February 3, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    Let’s see …

    The cost of having your attorney NOT appear, $0.
    The cost of having the opposing party enter all of your documents for you, $0.
    The cost of having the opposing party present testimony, $0.

    The cost of the look on their face’s when they realize they just shot themselves in their foot,
    PRICELESS!

  15. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    I won’t go to Orly site, but if anyone with a roubust firewall could share some of the juicer comments there, I’d be much obliged; Free Republic, too. Oh, this all so delicious!

  16. avatar
    Whatever4 February 3, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Doc: see the Fogbow thread about your site, some are having major issues. Ducktape understands what you need to do.

    It’s a happy night in Reality-ville. Birtherstan, not so much.

  17. avatar
    John February 3, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    The judge’s decision sounds contrived. In reading the decision, the judge didn’t actually rule on the merits of the NBC argument. Instead, the judge completely IGNORED (He did not even address or counter them; the judge essentially said that the NBC arguments didn’t even exist in the record.) all the legal arguments in the record and deferred to the state case of Ankeny Vs. Indiana. Clearly, the judge did not address the NBC argument.

  18. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    AGREED! πŸ™‚

    Daniel: So when the birthers finally get a judge to hear them “on the merits”… and even though they are completely unopposed by the defendant, they still lose.

    That has got to sting…..

  19. avatar
    Obsolete February 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    I think this also came down today in Virginia:
    Tisdale v Obama – Natural born means born on soil
    “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens”.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/va-tisdale-v-obama-natural-born-means-born-on-soil/

    It would appear that today is the birthers’ 9/11…

  20. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Please do! Many of us refuse to even go to that den of filth in the first place.

    So if you can be so bold and brave as to regale us with the best gems and examples of their reactions and head explosions…it would be much appreciated! πŸ™‚

    jayHG: I’ll come back here later to report

  21. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    LOL! πŸ™‚

    aarrgghh: meme o’ the day.

  22. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    FTW!!! +1000

    CAJD: Let’s see …

    The cost of having your attorney NOT appear, $0.
    The cost of having the opposing party enter all of your documents for you, $0.
    The cost of having the opposing party present testimony, $0.

    The cost of the look on their face’s when they realize they just shot themselves in their foot,

    PRICELESS!

  23. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    KABOOM!!! Another big win and clear judicial statement on NBC!

    As you mentioned, today has been a true nightmare for the Birthers! What a beautiful way to spoil their weekends… πŸ˜‰

    Obsolete: I think this also came down today in Virginia:Tisdale v Obama – Natural born means born on soil“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens”. http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/va-tisdale-v-obama-natural-born-means-born-on-soil/It would appear that today is the birthers’ 9/11…

  24. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    Carl Swensson January 17, 2012 at 10:47 pm #
    Have fun y’all, if crow needs to be eaten I will but I doubt anyone here will say the same.
    Till tomorrow.

    How does that crow taste, Confederate Carl? Does it taste like chicken?

    Carl Swensson January 17, 2012 at 11:38 pm #
    If Ankey V Governor in Indiana is the best you can come up with and Jablonski listens to you, I’ll be dancing in the street after the ruling which, btw, may not be issued on the 27th. As I understand the process, it will take a couple of days before it is posted. Man up OBOTS, your day of reckoning fast approaches. Drugs or no drugs it’s going to be a bad day for you.
    Been on the phone all night with allies in the fight and that’s the only reason I’ve graced this site with my presence. After 6 I normally walk away from this stuff but tonight was different.

    He graced this site with his presence? HA! No ego check needed there.

    Day of reckoning, indeed.

    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 2:28 am #
    I would not expect a decision until February.

    Nailed it!

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    I couldn’t find Ducktape’s comment in my hurry, but I tried the site on my wife’s computer and it was totally hosed. The problem was caused by tuning on cache compression this afternoon. If you get a cached page, it was hosed. People who comment and those who are logged in to the site (me) typically don’t get cached pages.

    The WP Super Cache plug in says that compression doesn’t work with some hosts, and I see that mine is one of them.

    Whatever4: Doc: see the Fogbow thread about your site, some are having major issues. Ducktape understands what you need to do.

  26. avatar
    Whatever4 February 3, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I couldn’t find Ducktape’s comment in my hurry, but I tried the site on my wife’s computer and it was totally hosed. The problem was caused by tuning on cache compression this afternoon. If you get a cached page, it was hosed. People who comment and those who are logged in to the site (me) typically don’t get cached pages.

    The WP Super Cache plug in says that compression doesn’t work with some hosts, and I see that mine is one of them.

    Good to see the Bat Signal worked!

    Offtopic –Please give my regards to your lovely wife. Mrs. C was one of the high points of the Atlanta trip. Also, every one of the Picasso to Warhol works of art were from the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. No wonder they looked familiar!

  27. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 3, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    John:
    The judge’s decision sounds contrived.In reading the decision, the judge didn’t actually rule on the merits of the NBC argument.Instead, the judge completely IGNORED (He did not even address or counter them; the judge essentially said that the NBC arguments didn’t even exist in the record.) all the legal arguments in the record and deferred to the state case of Ankeny Vs. Indiana. Clearly, the judge did not address the NBC argument.

    Oh, poor John. You could at least have read the whole decision, wherein Malihi lays out, in clear, succinct fashion, the legal consensus on the definition of NBC. He addresses Minor, WKA, and the relationship between Article 2 and the 14th Amendment.

    The Tisdale decision in VA says the same. When will you folks get that you may not LIKE that anyone born on US soil can grow up to run for President, but that’s the way it is?

  28. avatar
    jayhg February 3, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    John: The judge’s decision sounds contrived. In reading the decision, the judge didn’t actually rule on the merits of the NBC argument. Instead, the judge completely IGNORED (He did not even address or counter them; the judge essentially said that the NBC arguments didn’t even exist in the record.) all the legal arguments in the record and deferred to the state case of Ankeny Vs. Indiana. Clearly, the judge did not address the NBC argument.

    John, could you possibly move that goal post ANY farther!!??? Since when does a judge refute arguments. He either agrees with plaintiff/defendants arguments or disagrees and he will usually say why. You birthers are now asking the judge to refute your asinine theories???!!!

    Listen, idiot………..YOU LOST!! I’m sorry that you don’t like that people born in any one of the United States is a natural born citizen, but that’s the law of the land.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    jayhg: John, could you possibly move that goal post ANY farther!!???Since when does a judge refute arguments.He either agrees with plaintiff/defendants arguments or disagrees and he will usually say why.You birthers are now asking the judge to refute your asinine theories???!!!

    Listen, idiot………..YOU LOST!!I’m sorry that you don’t like that people born in any one of the United States is a natural born citizen, but that’s the law of the land.

    A proud bigot will never accept defeat. Or admit fault.

    Can you imagine Taitz or Apuzzo admitting they might be wrong? About anything?
    Ever?

  30. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    STOP THE PRESSES! I’ve just learned why Malihi was wrong, courtesy of Anonymous on ORYR:

    “Article I: Congress must be 7 or 9 years US Citizen.
    Article II: POTUS must be age 35, 14 years a resident and a Natural Born Citizen.

    “Do you see the difference? Article II says that every president must be 14 years a resident since while every natural born citizen is a US Citizen, not every US Citizen is a natural born citizen.

    “It says it clear as a bell, right there in the good ol US Constitution.

    “Malihi cannot be right because if a jus soli only is a NBC, and so is a US Citizen, then what is the difference?

    “PARENTAL CITIZENSHIP and it takes BOTH parents because as the statutes reflect, a child born of only 1 US Citizen parent on US soil is just a statutory US Citizen

    “Anyway, america is over, thanks a f*cking lot judge malicious.”

  31. avatar
    jayhg February 3, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    G: Please do! Many of us refuse to even go to that den of filth in the first place.So if you can be so bold and brave as to regale us with the best gems and examples of their reactions and head explosions…it would be much appreciated!

    Well I went over to free republic and while I’d love to post gems, sadly there aren’t any. All that’s there are the expected “he was gotten to” or “he was threatened” or “somebody called him” and on it goes……….I was too bored to go past the second page of posts.

    I’ll try again tomorrow. Maybe some new nutjobs will have signed up and post some original requirement for being a natural born citizen, like you have to have a brother and a sister born during the summer months or something…….dumb ass birthers.

  32. avatar
    jayhg February 3, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    test

  33. avatar
    jayhg February 3, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    I went over to free republic and sadly, there are no gems…….just the same old “he was gotten to, etc.” I’ll try again tomorrow.

  34. avatar
    bovril February 3, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    Oh noooo some of the Freeperville threads are in major meltdown, death threats abound, “Where’s my military coup” etc etc

    This thread is over 300 posts and mounting and getting real ugly.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2842152/posts

  35. avatar
    Terry K. February 3, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

    The comment thread on the WND article about the judge’s ruling is insane — 500+ comments so far. Lots of wailing and rending of garments. At least one death threat.

    The article itself is pretty shabby — it describes the Ankeny ruling as “little-known.” Well, yeah, if you ignore a court ruling because it destroys your entire birther narrative, then you will think it is “little known.”

  36. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    For a “little known” case, it sure is getting more and more reference and mileage, even from other states, as they are forced to rule on this claptrap too…

    So even if it was considered “little known”…thanks to the repeated quixotic fail quest of the Birthers, it no longer is. So, kudos to the Birthers for not only causing the Ankeny ruling, but also continuing to make it’s findings more and more established precedent way beyond its original state borders. πŸ˜‰

    Terry K.: The article itself is pretty shabby — it describes the Ankeny ruling as “little-known.” Well, yeah, if you ignore a court ruling because it destroys your entire birther narrative, then you will think it is “little known.”

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

    Looks like all of the birthers are looking for solace at WorldNetDaily. The site’s barely responding and already has had over 800 comments since their article went up a few hours ago.

  38. avatar
    J. Potter February 6, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Looks like all of the birthers are looking for solace at WorldNetDaily. The site’s barely responding and already has had over 800 comments since their article went up a few hours ago.

    And still going strong at a steady pace. 4200 now, after 2.5 days. Character unchanged.

  39. avatar
    J. Potter February 6, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    “Certifigate” isn’t a front page news item for WND, despite being their most trafficked/commented story? More activity in the birthersphere has seen since last May … are they having trouble spinning the latest developments? πŸ˜‰

  40. avatar
    hermitian February 6, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    Arthur

    STOP THE PRESSES! I’ve just learned why Malihi was wrong, courtesy of Anonymous on ORYR:

    “Article I: Congress must be 7 or 9 years US Citizen.
    Article II: POTUS must be age 35, 14 years a resident and a Natural Born Citizen.

    “Malihi cannot be right because if a jus soli only is a NBC, and so is a US Citizen, then what is the difference?

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Now Arthur there is a subtle point here that you are totally not getting. Because I already know that you “don’t do subtle” I’m posting this for the benefit of the readers who get “subtle”.

    A plain reading of the requirements for Congress and the President shows that a member of the House or Senate must be a U.S. citizen. Whereas the President must be a natural-born citizen.

    Thus a plain reading indicates that the requirements for these two offices are different. Now the Obots would lead us to believe that the difference is that naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President but naturalized citizens are eligible for the offices of Representative or Senator.

    However this interpretation is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and to presidential history.

    Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states:

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Thus “Citizen[s] {sic] of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” were persons who were eligible to be President. These founding fathers were not citizens by birth but rather were the first naturalized citizens. Thus the history of our nation includes elected Presidents who were not citizens by birth but were instead were naturalized citizens.

    Moreover, all of the Presidents who were born after the ratification of the Constitution were children of two citizen parents except for Arthur and Obama.

    Thus the history of the office of president supports the interpretation that a natural-born citizen is a child born within the territory of two citizen parents rather than the jus soli interpretation.

    Thus presidential history supports the jus sanguinis interpretation over the jus soli interpretation.

    Thus the drafters of the constitution were more concerned that the President be jus sanguinis that that the President not be a naturalized citizen.

    Consequently, the difference in the qualification between the offices of President and Congress is jus sanguinis birth as opposed to naturalized after birth.

    I know you totally will not get this subtle distinction Arthur so don’t bother to reply.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  41. avatar
    Scientist February 6, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    hermitian: Moreover, all of the Presidents who were born after the ratification of the Constitution were children of two citizen parents except for Arthur and Obama.

    All were males (with no exceptions) so therefore females can’t be President.
    All except Kennedy were Protestant, so Catholics can’t be President. And Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, etc? Fugeddabudit!
    All except Obama were whiite, so only whites can be President.
    No Presidents to date have come from Oregon, Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, or a wholle bunch of other states. None ever can,

    LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

  42. avatar
    Arthur February 6, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    You’re wrong.

    hermitian: I know you totally will not get this subtle distinction Arthur so don’t bother to reply.

  43. avatar
    y_p_w February 6, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    Subtle difference?

    They weren’t naturalized. Being naturalized requires a naturalization process. That’s a complete third category, which is a citizen at the time of ratification. I don’t even know if there was any process at the time for how to determine that other than one believe one to be a citizen at the time.

    They could have easily made it such that one had to be born in the former colonies under British rule, but they probably were thinking of a way to make Alexander Hamilton eligible. Hamilton was born in the Caribbean and didn’t even move to the Colonies until he was in his late teens.

  44. avatar
    hermitian February 6, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    y_p_w

    Subtle difference?

    They weren’t naturalized. Being naturalized requires a naturalization process. That’s a complete third category, which is a citizen at the time of ratification. I don’t even know if there was any process at the time for how to determine that other than one believe one to be a citizen at the time.

    They could have easily made it such that one had to be born in the former colonies under British rule, but they probably were thinking of a way to make Alexander Hamilton eligible. Hamilton was born in the Caribbean and didn’t even move to the Colonies until he was in his late teens.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Well they were like naturalized citizens. They were living in the colonies as citizens and instanly became U.S. citizens after the ratification. Moreover Corgress passed the first Natrualization Act in 1790, only two years after the ratification. Hince, only George Washington could not claim the naturalization label at the time of his innaugration. All the others could have obtained naturalized status after 1790.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  45. avatar
    y_p_w February 6, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    hermitian: Well they were like naturalized citizens. They were living in the colonies as citizens and instanly became U.S. citizens after the ratification. Moreover Corgress passed the first Natrualization Act in 1790, only two years after the ratification. Hince, only George Washington could not claim the naturalization label at the time of his innaugration. All the others could have obtained naturalized status after 1790.

    No – they weren’t **like** naturalized citizens. They were the product of a system where a nation is formed. They were citizens of the United States according to the rules of the individual states.

    It’s not any different than Indians became Indian citizens at the time of independence from the UK. Or when Kenya became independent. Such citizens aren’t naturalized by any standard.

  46. avatar
    GeorgiaKev February 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Who does Orly represent?

    Silly question…..HERSELF.

  47. avatar
    G February 6, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    Bingo!

    GeorgiaKev: Who does Orly represent?Silly question…..HERSELF.