Given how many times she's made those threats, you'd think the CA Bar would have done SOMETHING, but so far, nope

Rock City is in Chattanooga, TN. Right on the GA border, but I believe it's on the TN side. In a former life, I lived there and worked close enough to be able to go to the restaurant at Rock City for lunch.

I really hope Georgia allows her PHV just so she can get sanctioned and smacked down again.

Aren't Orly's threats of bringing "charges" against The President and Georgia Secretary of State about as vacuous as a crazy neighbor threatening to charge me with treason because he doesn’t like me? Does she honestly think she will be granted special powers to start prosecuting people!

Doubtful
February 8th, 2012 at 5:21 pm

David —

I’ve been thinking a little more about this. You say you don’t know where President Obama was born, and I have to admit, I don’t know either. I have no personal knowledge about the President’s birth or any other aspect of his personal life. I am in exactly the same position as you.

But his eligibility for the Presidency has nothing to do with anybody’s personal knowledge. It has to do with what is considered true under the law. There are certain basic principles that the law uses to determine what is legally considered to be true.

For example, there’s the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. What it says is that any fact that’s contained in the official records of a state is legally true.

I think the reason you are getting nowhere is that you keep making it a matter of whether you yourself are convinced — or whether the relevant evidence was introduced in a particular hearing.

But this is a question of legal truth, and perhaps you should instead be focusing on the widely held notion that, from a legal point of view, we in the United States consider Barack Obama to have been born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 simply for the reason that an official state record says so.

Forgive me, I kinda like this one:...

I REALLY like it.

WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”

I am finding that I am forced to agree with Judge Malihi on one point: that Minor v Happersett is not a controlling case with regard to defining Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is, however, very useful in determining what is defining. One could even say it is controlling, but not for the reasons stated by the plaintiffs.

The judge is quite correct in his reading of the Minor case that the justices in Minor simply applied a general rule to Mrs. Minor: that those born within the U.S. to citizen parents are themselves “natives” or “natural born citizens” with a lower case “c” which, according to the Minor v Happersett judges, are synonymous terms. Such offspring are therefore members of the general class of “citizens” of the U.S. However, this does not mean that Mrs. Minor had the recognized and protected natural political right to be President that is implied in Article II by the term ”natural born Citizen” with a capital “C”. The Minor case was not even about Mrs. Minor’s right to be President; thus for this reason and others, it is not a controlling case.

Does the Georgia rule also apply to administrative hearings?

If, as I think, you're referring to the detailed and fairly restrictive pro hac vice requirements summarized upthread by BB (Rule 4.4 of the Uniform Rules of the Superior Court, recently adopted by the Georgia Supreme Court), the answer appears to be clearly no.

Section 616-1-2-.34 (2) of the administrative procedure rules give administrative judges almost limitless discretion to grant applications to practice pro hac vice, and the requirements for such an application are minimal.

The notion sometimes expressed here that Judge Mailihi's grant of Taitz's unopposed application for admission pro hac vice was improper or signals anything concerning his views with respect to the proceeding or any other issue is, in my view, hooey unfounded.

Moreover if there are mistakes in the Hawaiian Health Department files, and we know there are, how do we know there aren’t more, and how do you know information pertinent his eligibility is true

Over at Squeeky Fromm's blog, David is fast descending into total epistemological scepticism:



Note first the goalposts have already shifted again: first it was "Where's the birth certificate?". Then, "We meant the long form." Followed by "We want the vault copy." Now, David is already prepared for the vault copy to confirm the LFBC: "We already know there are errors; how do we know there aren't more?"

In short: It doesn't matter what we know. We can never know if we really know it.

David needs to go brush up on his Bertrand Russell.

Note first the goalposts have already shifted again: first it was "Where's the birth certificate?". Then, "We meant the long form." Followed by "We want the vault copy." Now, David is already prepared for the vault copy to confirm the LFBC: "We already know there are errors; how do we know there aren't more?"

In short: It doesn't matter what we know. We can never know if we really know it.

David needs to go brush up on his Bertrand Russell.

Historians might have viewed the events of Thursday, January 26, 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia, as one of the singular events of American history, along with landmark events such as Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation; Lee’s surrender at Appomattox; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; and the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision.

On that day, a trial was held in an Atlanta courtroom that would have a longstanding impact on state-federal relations, reversing the long downward trend toward the accumulation of power at the federal level, at the expense of the states. It was a trial in which ordinary citizens once again defended the concept that, in the United States, it is the people who rule, not the political elites.

The Atlanta trial became an event of major national significanceon January 3, 2012, when The Hon. Michael M. Malihi, Deputy Chief Judge of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, issued a ruling denying Barack Obama’s motion to dismiss four cases alleging that he is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Since 2008, nearly 90 court cases have been filed, challenging Obama’s eligibility. All have fallen victim to either political correctness or political chicanery; none have been successful. However, at least one of the cases allowed to proceed in the Georgia court… David P. Welden v. Barack Obama… was different in that it was simple and straightforward. It challenged Obama at his weakest point, his inability to qualify as a “natural born Citizen.” Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “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.”

[more of his drivel at link]

Hollrah is a regular at P&E and Family Security Matters. Lincoln Heritage Institute looks like a blog masquerading as an academic institute but according to Manta it's a private PR company in MI.

ID Num: 739535


Assumed Names
Entity Name: LINCOLN HERITAGE INSTITUTE

Type of Entity: Domestic Nonprofit Corporation
Resident Agent: C. GRADY DRAGO

Registered Office Address: 620 HALL STREET EATON RAPIDS MI 48827
Mailing Address:
Formed Under Act Number(s): 162-1982
Incorporation/Qualification Date: 4-9-1992
Jurisdiction of Origin: MICHIGAN
Number of Shares: 0
Year of Most Recent Annual Report: 07
Year of Most Recent Annual Report With Officers & Directors: 04
Status:AUTOMATIC DISSOLUTION Date: 10-1-2010