Judge soundly rejects Ga. birther claims

Suranis
February 4th, 2012
1:49 am

Please check your source. I think you might be quoting from the Smith case. If this is the case, Madison was defending a client at the time. He wasn’t speaking for himself.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Well I see the birther discussion has gone on a good long time

David Farrar. You are arguing with the wrong people for multiple reasons. First, rational discussions don’t happen on this blog. Second, the courts are your ultimate arbiter, not this blog.

Now, to wade in and out of this debate quickly. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a valid US CITIZEN full stop. The courts have found no legal justification to doubt the validity of the birth certificate.

Move on and defeat the guy at the polling booth for Pete’s sake.

• Link
• Report this comment

Whatever4
February 4th, 2012
1:25 am

Spiro’s father was naturalized prior to September 12, 1918. World War I draft card registration dated September 12, 1918 support the fact. Spiro Agnew was born in November, so his father was a bonafide US citizen at the time of Spiro’s birth.

WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
Theodore Spiro Agnew
226 W. Madison St.
Baltimore City, Maryland
Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
Race White
NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
Occupation Restaurant
Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
Registrar’s report
Height medium
Hair black

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

The Cloud
February 4th, 2012
9:01 am

All things considered, I have enjoyed my discussions here, and found them to be generally supportive of the normal give and take necessary to inform the reader about an issue from different perspectives — something the participants might not always enjoy themselves.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Whatever4
February 4th, 2012
2:32 am

“Arthur’s status wasn’t a secret”…

I can find several places where Arthur lied about his father’s citizenship status. Can you cite any instances where Arthur, or anyone, told the truth about his father’s citizenship status — or stated the fact that he was born in Ireland and wasn’t a US citizen before Arthur was born?

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Recon 2533 1811
February 4th, 2012
8:56 am

To me, the issue of Pres. Obama’s citizenship status and nbC issue was never about politics. It was always about the Constitution.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Whatever4
February 4th, 2012
2:32 am

“…no one seems to have asked.”

I don’t think that is true. We are talking about the leading citizen of the country, and the First Lady. Inside of a week, usually, people find out about — certainly who their parents were and where they were born.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

David Farrar said: “To me, the issue of Pres. Obama’s citizenship status and nbC issue was never about politics. It was always about the Constitution.”

To be more precise, it was always about your flawed interpretation of the Constitution. Other than the handful of birthers out there, there is pretty good agreement in the legal community about what natural born citizen means and how that applies to the Constitution.

• Link
• Report this comment

She work hard for the money!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKQcWEXSKU&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

Very interesting column by Peggy Noonan from the WSJ regarding Bozo’s latest gaffe with the Catholic church. Seems he is intent on insisting that the Church purchase health insurance that would pay for abortions, birth control devices, and other services that are very contrary to their beliefs. Bozo does not seem to be backing down. Last Sunday, over 70% of Catholic bishops spoke out against this assault on their church. Catholics make up 27% of the electorate and are really heavy in the battleground states. Bozo took the Catholic vote by 54-45% last election. He won’t this time. Talk about step on your crank.

• Link
• Report this comment

paulo testing

• Link
• Report this comment

having difficulty with this webpage, trying to see what is happening. Apologies for the poor manners : )

• Link
• Report this comment

Morning Paulo

• Link
• Report this comment

Just a little cautionary reminder for BOTH sides: as Krugman reminds us yesterday, the latest new job numbers, welcome as they are, are only roughly equal to the AVERAGE new job rate during the Clinton years — all 8 of them!

As capitalism enters its latest phase of crisis and development, the recoveries become weaker and weaker, and that’s a trend that goes all the way back to the Keynesian boom years of the 1960s.

Though the numbers are still great, they’re not enough to counter the ravages of globalization, and now, automation, and we’re likely to continue to see a rise in social unrest.

Capitalism still faces perhaps its greatest crisis since the 1930s.

• Link
• Report this comment

AATTP member Brandon Messick, “According to an article by the AP, unemployment is the lowest it’s been in three years, and the Dow has closed at its highest since 2008.But would I be hasty in giving credit to Obama? I live in the state of John McCain, after all. Perhaps the real credit belongs to the commanders at Nato, Seal Team Six, Britain’s and France’s generals, our American troops (Way to earn your 48% of the US budget, guys), and so on.

But would you like to know who doesn’t deserve the credit? Conservative congressmen who have blocked and sabotaged Obama’s fiscal policies for the sake of diminishing their Democratic rivals. Credit isn’t deserved by the “Job Creators” who did a better job at creating a bigger bonus package for themselves.This is good news for America. It is, however, bad news for the Republican Party.” – F*ckin’ A. –mad

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOH6Cg3hdOYBY2lhvrZGlTPHNlfQ?docId=9514669c29e84e43886402fca360773b

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I see this palaver about who’s a natural born citizen is still going on. I think a natural born citizen is a person in the U.S. of A. that

1. has got white skin
2. has a name that’s pretty easy to pronounce and don’t end in o or ez or something like that
3. likes tobacco and beer, but not malt liquor and stuff like that
4. is a redneck or at least trained to think like one
5. naturally leans toward voting for people with a R after their name
6. don’t slobber or get Lust in His or Her Heart when meeting somebody of the same sex
7. drives a pickup or at least a big SUV

If you don’t find yourself listed here you can just leave the country right now. Don’t make us find a ambulance-chaser to get you out.

Otherwise, it’s Saturday and since I got a life, unlike some people on this blog, I’m going about my business as a Real Natural Born American. Have a good weekend everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dr. Blue
February 4th, 2012
9:43 am

To be more presice,

The Judge stated to the three attorneys, 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.

Read more: Click here.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Arthur B.
February 4th, 2012
11:06 am

I said: “All four do represent the two citizen parent rule, born within the jurisdiction.”

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

David Farrar said: “All four do represent the two citizen parent rule, born within the jurisdiction.”

Yes, all four also “represent” the must-be-a-white-male rule. Seriously dude, you know how to operate a computer and to type stuff up here – surely you must see the complete lack of logic behind what you’re saying.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dr. B, who said there weren’t any counter arguments? Remember, this was an administrative court – things didn’t have to be introduced on the witness stand for the Judge to be able to consider it.

The Judge was still accepting information up to the close of the business day, 2/1/2012. Which means that the Plaintiffs, in addition to the four years they’ve had to build their case that Obama isn’t a NBC, they also had all weekend to review the testimony and refine it – probably including establishing what made defense witnesses ‘experts’.

Think of it. Four years of constantly changing their tactic when their previous one was proved wrong. All the fake Kenyan birth certificates they fell for. The irrelevant papers that didn’t show jack regarding NBC status. The SSN issue that they got tugged around by the nose with…

• Link
• Report this comment

David, David, David… you’re being optimistic again. On what basis do you think SCOTUS will pick up THIS birther case when all others have been rejected?

• Link
• Report this comment

David said: “You are as welcome to your own opinion, as I am to mine. But I fail to see what the color of a person’s skin has to do with the two-citizen parent rule.”

How they are the same: Your “logic” works in both situations – apparently you see the absurdity of it when applied to race, but you don’t see the absurdity of it when applied to your “two-citizen parent rule.”

How they are different: The color of someone’s skin actually has a basis in reality. The “two-parent rule” is just a figment of your imagination.

• Link
• Report this comment

David said: “As has been expected, when Sec. Kemp keeps candidate Barack Obama on Georgia’s PPP ballot, he will be in court again on the nbC issue until it reaches the SCOTUS.”

Gosh, that doesn’t sound like a person who said he’d accept Judge Malihi’s decision.

My prediction: Kemp will affirm Malihi’s opinion and keep Obama on the ballot. Birthers will sue Kemp in Superior Court, and will be laughed out of court. Birthers, as the are wont to do, will appeal this all the way up to the Supreme Court, who will refuse to hear it because it is so ridiculous and devoid of legal or factual basis. Just like they have done with the other ridiculous cases that the birthers have appealed and appealed and appealed to the SCOTUS. It’s not any less ridiculous now, and it will be a repeat performance of the earlier failures (birther legal failures have reached 100 now! Congratulations, that’s quite a milestone!).

• Link
• Report this comment

I will be so glad to stand over the Birther’s tombstones knowing they failed at everything they attempted. ABJECT FAILURE should be inscribed there to denote not only their quest but their entire being. Don Quixote imbues more respect.

• Link
• Report this comment

David: And once again you repeat your completely illogical argument.

Why does it matter, even in the teensiest little way, whether previous Presidents had two citizen parents? They were also all male. They were also, prior to President Obama, all white. None of those (including your two citizen parent observation) have any relevance as to what the Constitutional requirements for the presidency are. And on the Constitutional challenge, you’ve lost. Repeatedly. The losses for that particular two-citizen-parent argument have been pretty clear now in at least four different state challenges: Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, and Virginia. And the wins for the two-citizen-parent theory have been in…. oh wait, there haven’t been any. Because it’s a silly notion with no basis in reality. Oh well, good luck with the whole tilting at windmills thing.

• Link
• Report this comment

According to the Birther Scorecard this is losses 96-99. However, there will inevitably be an appeal that will knock them back into the pending column. We’re still waiting for that final 100th birther loss in court.

The birthers are all over the ruling, Orly claiming that the judge is an Iranian and others saying that after the hearing, Obama thugs showed the judge pictures of his wife and children as intimidation. Birthers are willing to believe just about anything except that they are wrong.

• Link
• Report this comment

Romney’s father who was born in Mexico also ran for POTUS.

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar — “My statement simply suggest Judge Malihi’s nbC decision is not supported by the record.”
__

There’s no sense in that, David.

As Dr. Blue says, the previous presidents were all white males. Does that mean that there is a rule that all presidents must be white and male?

Would you consider a judge’s decision that a black female could be president also to be “not supported by the record”?

• Link
• Report this comment

@Kevin Davidson

February 4th, 2012
12:13 pm
According to the Birther Scorecard this is losses 96-99. However, there will inevitably be an appeal that will knock them back into the pending column. We’re still waiting for that final 100th birther loss in court.

The birthers are all over the ruling, Orly claiming that the judge is an Iranian and others saying that after the hearing, Obama thugs showed the judge pictures of his wife and children as intimidation. Birthers are willing to believe just about anything except that they are wrong.

**********************************************************************************

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar
February 4th, 2012
9:06 am
********************************************************************************

Why are you people trying to have a SANE and RATIONAL dialogue with David Farrar?

Can’t you all see that he has a serious mental illness (DELUSIONS OF GRANDUER).

• Link
• Report this comment

Kevin Davidson
February 4th, 2012
12:13 pm

I am a “Birther”, and I don’t believe any of that. I respect Judge Malihi’s decision. We, frankly, didn’t have enough probative evidence to block a sitting President from a re-election ballot, nor to support Sec. Kemp in his trial if he kept Pres. Obama off the Georgia ballot.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

But let me share a little of the take Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has on Judge Malihi’s ruling.

“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. 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.

For more: click here.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

David said: “We, frankly, didn’t have enough probative evidence to block a sitting President from a re-election ballot, nor to support Sec. Kemp in his trial if he kept Pres. Obama off the Georgia ballot.”

NO amount of “probative evidence” would block Obama from the ballot, because he is perfectly eligible for the ballot and for the office of President of the United States. When you start by trying to promote a bogus theory based on lies, no amount of evidence is going to help you.

Oh, it also helps to have a lawyer who is not a raving lunatic, but in this case no lawyer could have overcome the basic problem that you have no valid argument.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay
February 4th, 2012
12:39 pm

The record of “42 Presidents” and a Supreme Court decision says you are wrong. Unfortunately, Judge Malihi considered them are wrong as well.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Can’t help myelf – You need a real stooge in this fight. Do think for one minute the Clinton’s would’ve have let Obama pull this off?

• Link
• Report this comment

Arthur B.
February 4th, 2012
1:54 pm

And then there is always Leo Donofrio, Esq.

“A Rat Called Tandem”

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.’ ”</strong? (Emphasis added.)

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

David Farrar: William Arthur

I have seen contemporary newspapers questioning his Chester Arthur’s birthplace, and accounts from people who knew his father, but no widespread questioning of his parent’s citizenship.

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar — “And then there is always Leo Donofrio, Esq.”
__

Right, then there’s poker-player Leo!

You have recently been made painfully aware of the complete incompetence of Orly Taitz, and you’re getting some idea of how a footnote in history will forever link your name to hers.

Maybe you ought to look into Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio’s records of achievement before tripling down on the foolishness and associating yourself with them as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Whatever4
February 4th, 2012
2:22 pm

I don’t know for sure, but if Spiro Agnew’s father naturalization date didn’t check out, you would have heard about it then. We all would have.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar — “Because Pres. of Pres. Obama’s birth certificates were double sealed, wet & dry.”
__

And, once more, perhaps you’d like to enlighten us as to why that is probative on the question of President Obama’s eligibility?

Remember, once competent Hawaiian officials have attested to his date and place of birth, wet and dry seals are completely irrelevant. The birth data have been officially confirmed, and FF&C has got you where it hurts.

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar — “FF&C does not apply to defectively certified documents.”
__

At this point, there is no need even to refer to the documents, as I’ve told you many times. You have acknowledged yourself on several occasions that Hawaiian officials have attested that the facts displayed on the BC at whitehouse.gov match what’s in their official “vault copy” records. In other words, Hawaiian officials have attested to the fact that their records show that Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961.

Even if every one of the certified BCs is computer-generated (and you have yet to show the slightest competent evidence that a single one is), FF&C still applies because the facts have been attested to by competent state authorities.

• Link
• Report this comment

David said: “FF&C does not apply to defectively certified documents.”

Full faith and credit applies to “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state”. Official state records from Hawaii, as verified by Hawaii officials (repeatedly), say that Obama was born in Hawaii. It really doesn’t matter if you doubt the authenticity of the birth certificate (even though it’s particularly silly to doubt that). The records are not the piece of paper – and the records have been officially verified.

And once again you prove your lack of understanding of basic logic. Just because something says A or B does not mean you can’t have both A and B. If that were the case it would be written as “notary must have A or B, but not both” (of course, it would be silly for that to be the rule).

• Link
• Report this comment

Arthur B.
February 4th, 2012
2:57 pm

At what point? There is no “presumption” to an “un-certified” document. That’s not to say, it can’t be regained. But that would take evidence, not a presumption.

ex animo
davidfarrar

properly certified, the

Sure it is. That is one of the reason why a copy of that same document can’t be admitted into evidence — you may or may not see the seal, or in this case, the extra seal

• Link
• Report this comment

David, would you care to restructure that post? I can’t make any sense of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Arthur B.
February 4th, 2012
3:10 pm

I don’t blame you. Thanks you asking.

At what point? There is no “presumption” to an “un-certified” document. That’s not to say, it can’t be regained. But that would take evidence, not a presumption.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar — “There is no “presumption” to an “un-certified” document.”
__

I don’t know which document you’re referring to as uncertified; there are several around, COLBs and LFBCs.

But they all agree on the date and place of the President’s birth, and Hawaiian officials have attested to those facts. It doesn’t matter any more whether you can raise an objection to one or all of them — only the information matters, and that issue haslong been settled.

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar — “Both of Pres. Obama’s COLB and LFBC are doubled sealed and do not meet statute.”
__

Why are you ignoring my point? The data have been officially verified. At this point the documents don’t matter.

(And, by the way, it’s very odd that not a single Hawaiian official — or even a single birther, for that matter — seems to have any interest in your double-sealed claim.)

• Link
• Report this comment

Once again David, “A or B” does not mean it can’t have both, unless something explicitly SAYS that it can’t have both.

It’s a pretty irrelevant argument seeing how the birth certificate itself simply isn’t all that important.

Here’s a simple question: Do you have any doubts that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? Even after state officials have repeatedly said he was?

• Link
• Report this comment

@David Farrar — “The defendants weren’t there.”
__

Hawaiian officials have confirmed the information concerning the President’s birth. That is a true statement completely independent of who was present at the hearing.

• Link
• Report this comment

David: There is a whole mountain of items, from official birth certificates (both COLB and LFBC) to official birth indices to statements by state officials to unofficial birth announcements in papers and on and on. There is simply no rational doubt that he was born in Hawaii. None.

• Link
• Report this comment