Friday, February 3, 2012

MARIO APUZZO EVISCERATES MALIHI RULING...

Friday, February 3, 2012


All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen” 


                                                              By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                   February 3, 2012

Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here,

I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.
The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”


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...
The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.” ...
...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.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President...
 Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the decision itself should be rejected on its merits...


Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment "in tandem," suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former.
It also erred when it said that Minor "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen."
...Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875...
Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II "natural born Citizen," and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen," the Ankeny court equated the Wong "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen" and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a “natural born citizen” when it only declared him a “citizen” of the United States...
 Judge Malihi finds that Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” What he is saying is that by the mere fact that Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a “natural born Citizen.” But this is not the definition of a “natural born citizen.”  Judge Malihi's definition must fail just on a textual basis.  The clause is "natural born Citizen," not "born Citizen."  The "natural" must also be given meaning. And when we do give "natural" meaning, we see that it cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, "natural born Citizen" which means a child born in the country to citizen parents...
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 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.


Should the Georgia Secretary of State find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was born in the United States, then he can still find that Obama is still not a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes to the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He fails in not giving controlling effect to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a “natural born citizen.”
Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads 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.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 3, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

3 comments:

  1. IS ORLY TAITZ "CONTROLLED OPPOSITION"?

    Judge Malihi says:

    “The credibility of witnesses is within the sole discretion of the trier of fact. In non-jury cases, that discretion lies with the Judge.”

    Malihi said that Taitz didn’t properly qualify her witnesses as “experts”.

    He said that Taitz simply put on 8 witnesses who provided testimony that he couldn’t properly evaluate.

    He said “this court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications….for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications must first be proved”.

    ORLY SCREWS THE POOCH

    Interestingly, this gross “oversight” by Orly Taitz in not properly qualifying her witnesses as “experts” will probably render all of the evidence that they provided as moot upon appeal because appellate courts don’t generally find “fact” - they revue procedure.

    CONTROLLED OPPOSITION?

    Did Taitz intentionally do this?

    Here’s a little more about Taitz’s background:

    TAITZ IS A JEW

    TATIZ IS AN ISRAELI
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz

    Orly Taitz was born to a Jewish family in Chişinău, Moldavian SSR in the Soviet Union (present day Moldova). Both of her parents were science teachers. In 1981, Orly immigrated to Israel, where she obtained a dentistry degree at Hebrew University.

    TAITZ "DOWNPLAYED" ISRAELI ESPIONAGE AGAINST THE USA

    Before her national news exposure, Taitz was quoted in The Orange County Register in 2006 supporting Israeli military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah, and downplaying the impact of the espionage trial of two American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers. Taitz has also said that she lost relatives in the Holocaust and that her grandmother witnessed the Kishinev pogrom.

    ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOW "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS"

    As for the “natural born citizen” issue, Malihi says that “persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for ArticleII, Section 1 purposes, REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.

    According to Malihi an anchor baby born to two illegal wetbacks is “natural born” and is therefore eligible to be President of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keep trying Mario. But maybe you should consult a real attorney before you publish this hogwash.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You Birthers are a bunch of hopeless Goofballs, following Mama Goofball Orly Taitz.
    Obama's MOTHER was a "natural born Citizen"... thus, it Constitutionally follows that her son is a natural born Citizen. That's simply the Law of the Land.
    WHERE he was born has absolutely NOTHING to do with his Citizenship (if he was born on Mars, he'd still be a natural born Citizen of the US.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.