Presidential Eligibility Judge decides to become the Georgia Pit instead of a Peach in judicial activism legislating his "feelings" of the law from the bench.

  http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_wins_georgia_ballot_challenge.html

 The decision of Judge Michael Malihi was to validate Obama WITHOUT any facts of law or vetting of identification.  It was a decision that was obviously reached before the evidence wa ever entered, and based almost entirely on "feelings", and was so corrupt and incompetent a decision, that I predict Mr. Malihi has jeopardized not only his ability to be seated on the bench, but may face and get a disbarment from even practicing Law in the next year or so because of this specific decision.

Decision, February 3rd, 2012 Hearing Transcripts:

I. Farrar's Case II. Swensson's Case III. Welden's Case

The United States Constitution: U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. 

The United States Constitution: U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. 

The United States Supreme Court: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). 

The United States Supreme Court: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  

The Indiana Court of Appeals: Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).  

Georgia Code: O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.   

Order on Motion to Dismiss, Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60 (January 3, 2012).

 Order on Motion to Quash, Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60 (January 20, 2012).

 

Georgia Superior Court Judge Michael Malihi, ignored the rules of evidence and case law for a form of Judiciary Activism that was so grossly negligent, that not only will he be overturned upon appeal, but it will likely be given a severe rebuke by the Courts above, especially if it reaches the view of Justice Antonin Scalia at the US Supreme Court level..   

 Despite being informed that Obama is "Slam-dunk disqualified" to the US Presidency   http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/georgia-court-told-obama-slam-dunk-disqualified/  Judge Malihi was only found after the fact to be a corrupt Iranian Judge who is only in the guise of a US Citizen with an ulterior agenda that supersedes anything US Law might have to say , and who likely met with fellow Iranian and also Farsi speaking Valerie Jarrett on or about Monday, January 16, 2012, and assured that Obama would not be found at fault so strongly, that this was the reason (it seems) that Jablonski pulled out and by his actions indicated the "fix" was "so in the bag" that he didn't even need to show up in Court to defend Obama. 

 http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/17/jarretts-partisan-pulpit-speech-may-have-violated-irs-church-state-rules/      

 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-blasts-republicans-pulpit_616821.html

While reporters worried if Valerie Jarrett's speaking from the Pulpit on Sunday January 16, 2012 http://youtu.be/Pr4eNqUcOXw  violated IRS Regs on campaigning in the 95% pro-Obama Atlanta, Georgia, Ebenezer Baptist Church...it appears that this was a cover justification for her to meet with a fellow Iranian ethnic, Judge Michael Malihi, on the same day as the real reason why she visited Atlanta with the visit to Ebenezer Baptist Church being a loyalist cover story (but as yet, the meet between Jarrett and Malihi still remains unconfirmed). 

In January 2012, as a go between when Orly Taitz was looking for expert testimony, I wrote Leo Donofrio and appealed to him about filing an Amicus Curia brief because Orly Taitz wrote me she was going to use the posts he wrote on the 14th Amendment recently (posts I emailed her).  I was honored that Leo spent 40 hours of solid preparation and action to a kind request. 

  On that Amicus Curia brief by Leo alone,

 AMICUS BRIEF by Leo Donofrio in Georgia Presidential Eligibility Case

there was a sufficient argument as to why Obama is not a Natural born citizen.  What makes me a bit flustered is that if the lawyers in the Georgia Case had cited and continually emphasized Bute v. Illinois 333 US 640 @ 653 regularly, sagaciously demanding that the burden of documentary PROOF is upon Obama to prove as entered into evidence under penalty of perjury in a Court of Law, it would have left Obama and his Iranian ethnic judge Malihi no wiggle-room.

It is a quote you will see in my introduction and statement of Principle against Barack Obama posted  upon every page of my blog. 

"The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim."

Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948)  @653

That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), - -

Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62

 http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/

@ 54 : “The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.” 

So where was the proof in Courts evidence?  There was NO EVIDENCE to validate Barack Obama as Obama's lawyers refused to attend or participate in the Administrative Hearing.  Obama's Atlanta attorney, Mr. Jablonski, refused to attend and participate in defending his client, refusing to either introduce or challenge submissions of evidence.

No document was introduced into Court to prove Malihi's final decision assertion that Obama is in any way USA born, because he had every reason under the rules of evidence to hold any such consideration as tainted.

I hope that there will be an appeal on this decision with these two cases as main contentions that Malihi had no cause to claim that Obama was USA born was in any way a fact, let alone a fact of law as NO EVIDENCE was ever introduced into the Court record to suggest that there so exists, and Bute v. Illinois with Nguyen v. INS so requires such documents, as subpoenaed by Malihi himself and ignored by Obama.

Before I continue, I recommend a read of how Attorney Leo Donofrio

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/the-mr-binney-funeral-humiliates-the-reputation-of-the-united-states-supreme-court/

and Attorney Mario Apuzzo (who formerly sued Obama)

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

   commented on the Malihi decision.

 A Short Review on Significant Data that we all should be familiar with.

In 1787, the United States Constitution was formulated, and stated:

"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."
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 2, section 1, Clause 5

The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition :

“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? 

I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. 

Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”

 John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59

John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 states:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

It is clear that a “natural born citizen” in John Jay’s intent is someone WITHOUT dual or multiple nationalities, but has only one since birth: that of the US by both parents and geography, and NO OTHER.

“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html

In this Article 2.1.5 clause of the US Constitution, the person eligible to be President was to be either a US Citizen at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution or a natural born citizen -- one who was  reared from his US Birth within the United States into a US citizen by his US Citizen Father (and presumably US Citizen mother by virtue of marriage and union with the US Citizen Father) -- and his 14 year residency requirements in the clause was officially recognized as required to be that starting at the age of 21 years old. 

Since at the age of 35 he was required to dwell WITHIN the United States for 14 years since his 21st birthday, this a a Constitutional Obligatory presumption that has been extremely often entirely missed in discussing this clause, and deals with the concept of affirmation of sole legience to the United States alone.

While the prospective Presidential hopeful and actual office holder was given a mandatory residency requirement of living WITHIN the United States the entire 14 years he was alive IF he aspired to the Presidency at age 35, he only needed a combined total residency within the United States of 14 years if he was older.  For example, if he aspired to the Presidency at age 45, he could have wandered outside the nation another 10 years as a merchant, but was still needing a mandatory residency/dwelling WITHIN the United States...not just being based there, but actually dwelling within the US...for at least 14 years since his 21st birthday.   You will see this residency aspect return in the discussion of the parameters of the Constitution later on. So please keep it in mind.

15 years prior to 1787, the United States was at that time "British America".  It was composed of 13 colonies which were transmuted into the designation and nomenclature of "States" on July 4, 1776.  Therefore, if a person were a natural born citizen of one of the 13 Colonies that became a State of the United States, by accepting and declaring legience to State and Country after the War as a Citizen of the United States, the Natural Born Citizenship for only that time in our nation's history, was transmuted or carried over into the Confederacy and then the Republic of the United States of America.

Again, the TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was relegated to those who were born in any one of the 13 United American Colonies before July 4, 1776, as well as those born before the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789. It applies only to those in that period of history that were citizens by jus soli and jus sanguinis before the Revolution, who also made the transitional allegiance to the New Government that would be the United States AFTER the war was over.

The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen".  In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of  the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli  (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.  But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of "Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :
 "No one has the power / ability / authority
  to leave / reject / disown himself
  from the Father's Land."      [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]

From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old.  If he was not at least 21, technically (under Constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.  

As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote.  The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism.  For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue. 

To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born.  This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.

Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. 

The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.

That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth who had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.

In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
 This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".   He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".

In other words, the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be a foreign national, as Obama's father was.  Obama's father was an alien national Citizen of Kenya, under the Colonial Commonwealth Protectorate of Great Britain. He was NEVER a US Citizen, nor even had any expressed desire to be (not that such would have helped...it wouldn't have). 

 And never in the child's life was that child to be a de facto or de jure citizen of a foreign nation as Obama was in Indonesia so adopted and legally made a citizen minor under guardianship in that foreign society out of Jakarta, and attending Menteng 1.   

Just one year after the  above-cited Act of 1795,
 in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796)
we find how that we are supposed to read the US Constitution, in its literal context.
@240
"When we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is a literal interpretation, and indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we can scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention of the writer from thence. The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation is to follow that sense, in respect both of the words and the construction which is agreeable to common use."
@245
"…This principle is recognized by the Constitution...."

In Article 6 of the US Constitution, we are told that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof...shall be made the supreme Law of the Land...."

In Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) @ 179-180,

http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html

both elected officials and judges are to maintain and adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law that guides and governs their actions, and states:

"...it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?"

The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:

"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."

From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was. This was cleared up in the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604).     This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated:
        "All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

In other words:
1) Children born to a US Citizen father outside the US = US Citizen
2) Children born to a US Citizen Father inside the limits of the US = US Natural Born Citizen
3) The presumption of the US Citizen Father is that he is age 21 or older at the time of the child's birth, because the age of 21 was that outside that of being a minor and the expected age of maturity to fully attain voting rights and the full and unhindered privileges of his US Citizenship.

    In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless.   The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding.  With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years.  But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.

On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was  in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawl by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing. 

In other words, in the strict literal sense, the 14th Amendment disowns those who cease to be citizens of any jurisdiction of the United States.  The dis-ownership of the United States by its former citizens who choose to go overseas and not maintain a home state address and State Citizenship, but do not swear legience to another, thereby rendering them Stateless, is prevented in language elsewhere and outside the US Constitution in the codifications of the US Code.

But as it regards Natural Born Citizenship, and the requirements of that Status in order to legally and Constitutionally be a President or Vice-President of the United States, the academic argument over the intent of the 14th Amendment and the ability to rescind a citizenship of a non-resident citizen who chooses to neither live in the United States nor be subject to its laws, is a discussion for another day.

Prior to the 14th Amendment we know that  "Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law…” stated United States v. Rhodes (1866).

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”

 The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false

At birth, Barack Jr. through his British Citizen Father Barack Sr., owed allegiance to the United Kingdom and to Kenya, and obtained citizenship of the same as well.  Nullifying any chance to be called a United States defined "Natural Born Citizen" under United States Law.

The 14th amendment, section 1's "subject to the jurisdiction" meant singular citizenship and excludes multi-nationals at birth.

The Congressional Globe, 1st session,   May 30, 1866  

The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment 

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38

Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment.  Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.

 Part 4  (column 2), page 2890

 Mr. Howard:  The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."  

...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.  This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,   who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895  

Mr. Howard:  I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:

Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893

Mr. Trumbull:  The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens."  That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"...  What do we mean by  "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?  Not owing alliance to anybody else.  That is what it means.

...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."   

...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

Again, it is clear that the intent  of the 14th amendment, section 1's "subject to the jurisdiction" meant singular citizenship and excludes multi-nationals at birth.

In regard to Obama, born with a United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship at birth, regardless of where in the world he was born, it is obvious and mandatory that he does NOT qualify to having been subject completely and solely to the jurisdiction of the United States only at birth.  This is in matter of fact, de jure, stipulated to. 

 “…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was ...a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.” http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.htmlEx

 Upon any travels from the time of his birth to age 23, whether we are discussing  to Indonesia, England, Pakistan, India, Kenya, or anywhere else in the world outside of US Sovereignty, was Barack Hussein Obama II exclusively a United States Citizen subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States as its exclusive citizen if he got in trouble?  Absolutely NOT.

From birth to age 21,

1) Barack Obama II  had the option of seeking aid as a Citizen of Great Britain as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies 

2) Barack Obama II  had the option of seeking aid as a Citizen of Kenya

Further, from circa age 7 to circa age 35 (or 36 if he was born on January 04,  1961) when he took the oath of office as an Illinois State Senator on January 8, 1997, Obama as a naturalized citizen of Indonesia ca. August 1968, could have also sought refuge as a citizen of Indonesia.

The particulars of seeking refuge could also have applied at a British or Kenyan or Indonesian embassy on US Soil, such as in the Washington DC area, if he had so chosen, as he had in his possession at least a United Kingdom and Colonies passport and an Indonesian passport to at least the age of 23. 
  

And as Senator Trumbull of Illinois said, and Senator Howard concurred to:

What do we mean by  "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?  Not owing alliance to anybody else.  That is what it means.

And even after the 14th Amendment,
we read  in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102
where the Court said,

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was...to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside." 

What is the Criteria for the Presidential Office as it is now set in US Law with the passing of the 14th Amendment?

Answer:   With the 14th Amendment, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen:
1) Children must be born to a US Citizen Father
2) Be born in  the United States.
3) Reside perpetually in the United States to age 21.
4) Never at any time owe any allegiance to any alien power.

If one aspired to be President at age 35, the perpetual residency requirement is to age 35.  If they aspire to be President of the United States at age 45, they need a perpetual residency to age 21, a combined de facto and de jure dwelling within the United States for at least 14 years since the age of 21.  In effect, those who join the US Military and serve outside the United States under the age of 21 were not perceived in the intent of the 14th Amendment, but with the 1971 26th Amendment, the age requirement reduces to age 18 perpetual residency, and still a formula of perpetual residency to age 35 if they run at age 35, as the intent of the clause was a perpetual residency for 35 years in the United States if one were to run at age 35, even with a drop in the age of when a person becomes a voting citizen is Amended into the US Constitution without redressing Article 2.1.5.

Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:

"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance.  By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."

US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874  

And as it regards the Constitution and the obligatory intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause, there evolved one more requirement, that of a US Citizen Mother (as well as that of a US Citizen Father) at the time of birth.

With the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution on August 26, 1920, stating,
"the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."   increased the obligatory Constitutional Requirements on those aspiring to be President of the United States, as defined by the parameters set forth by the United States Constitution.

With the 1920 ratified 19th Amendment, in order to be qualify as a "natural born citizen" in order to be President, a person within the defining parameters of the US Constitution (Article 2.1.5, the 14th and 19th Amendments) needs to:


1) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Father
2) Be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Mother
3) Be born on United States soil within a US State
4) Maintain a permanent sole allegiance to the United States absent of any dual or multi-citizen nationalities and /or allegiances. 
5) Maintain a lifetime residency to a State or States within the United States to age 35;
 or to age 21 plus a minimum total of 14 additional years physical presence residency within the States if older than 35. 

Again, in 1971, with the 26th Amendment, the age of the citizen parent, in the Constitutional requirement, was dropped to 18.  Thus, a child born to a 17 year old on US soil to those who would otherwise be identified as US Citizen Minors, would not be eligible to one day run for President under the obligatory Constitutional Requirements found in the natural and literal sense of that document. 

In 1961:

1) Barack Hussein Obama II was born to an alien national father of foreign citizenship and himself  having foreign allegiances from birth to maturity AFTER age 21, to the age of 23!!!
 
2) He was born to a minor mother age 18, not yet legal under either codified lesser standards, nor the Constitutionally required age of voting (age 21).

3) There is no hospital or location birth record with witnesses to the birth for Barack (per 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 that he prove his alleged US birth with witnesses to the birth per 533 US 53 2001) @ 54,62)  to prove any US birth origin to even confirm a birth citizenship was acquired by him.  

4) Barack Hussein Obama II was adopted in Indonesia and maintained a Indonesian legience and residency  for at least 4 years.  His mother had multiple allegiances by marriages (Britain-Kenya, Indonesia), and her son did not retain a sole US legience with sole US residency.  The residency and allegiances or co-allegiances of the parents and step-father of Barack were in Indonesia and Kenya for most of his life as a minor, including when he turned 18.

Leaving aside the Paternal Power and Common Law argument over Natural Born Citizen under US Law, Obama does not even rise to the Wong Kim Ark level of US Citizenship:

Obama supporters dance between Obama being a Natural Born Citizen by the 14th Amendment and the application of British Common Law as if British Common Law were US Law.  The primary case they point to is the US v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

Specifics of Wong Kim Ark refute / disqualify Obama:

    @ 169 US 652, Wong Kim Ark (WKA) was born and reared in one permanent residence in California,  “and never lost nor changed  that residence."               

 

      @ 169 US 653 – 654   “neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him 

Page 169 U. S. 653  therefrom.”

      
       @ 169 US 654, we are told that he temporarily left the United States at age 17 to visit China, and returned in the same calendar year.  WKA was admitted in by Customs as a native-born citizen of the United States.

4   @ 169 US 654, although both parents were resident aliens in the United States, they kept and maintained a permanent residence and domicile for WKA to be born in and spend his first 21 years of life in, until he became of age at 21.

      @169 US 654, the resident alien parents were employed, “and there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China…”    

     @ 169 US 654, it was immediately recognized that WKA appeared to have immediately qualified as a US Citizen under the 14^th Amendment Section 1’s “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."     

     @ 169 US 705, the conclusion was: “ The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Conclusion drawn from WKA:   

The Court concluded by majority that WKA was a citizen of the United States under the criteria of the 14^th Amendment because –

     1)  Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.

     2)  Wong Kim Ark never renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him.  

     3)  Wong Kim Ark was maintained in a permanent US State domicile every year of his life as his primary residence from birth to age 21.

     4)  Neither of his parents were employed in either a diplomatic or in ANY OFFICIAL capacity at the time of WKA’s birth.  

      Wong Kim Ark was simply ruled as a Citizen of the United States under the criterion of the 14th Amendment in which he was able to show that for his entire life, he was born in the US and was subject to its jurisdiction by never losing or changing residence, and never renouncing allegiance from birth to age 21 (169 US 649 (1898) @ 652-654).

Barack fails the WKA test: 

By comparison, 

1)  Barack Obama has never proved he was USA born.  He refuses to submit a hard copy into Court record under penalty of perjury, etc.

By comparison, 

2) Barack Obama had his allegiance renounced by swearing fealty to the Indonesian flag daily in Menteng - 1 in Jakarta Indonesia, being an adopted Indonesian Citizen where the step-father took him to the renunciation of all other allegiances, including the United States, to the consent of the mother.

By comparison,

3)  Barack as Barry Soetoro (Soebarkah) -- his adopted and legal name in Indonesia -- had 4 years residence in Indonesia, and would visit Hawaii and stay temporarily for up to 3 weeks at a time, and attend Elementary School as a visitor pending his removal and return after his mother finished vacationing in Hawaii with her parents.   The primary residence of the mother was with her husband in Indonesia, an Army of Indonesia Government official who with his wife Ann (Barack's mother) did official business with US Companies such as Shell Oil in behalf of Indonesia.  Allegedly, from 1961 to 1971, the primary residence of the child was with his mother, the last 3 years as a naturalized Indonesian with an official denouncement on US State Department Records in Ann Dunham-Obama-Soetoro's Department of State file.    Hence, there was no permanence of a US Domicile at any time for Barry Soetoro / Barack Obama until he was about age 10 or 11 and moved in with his grandparents at that time.
 

While Obama declares he was born in Hawaii http://www.scribd.com/doc/56732637/Obama-Declares-He-Was-Born-in-Hawaii

neither Obama, nor his lawyers, nor the US Attorneys have ever produced one shred of solid identifying evidence of the man's identity into Court Evidence in a Court of Law. They refuse to enter his Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth, whether long or short, because both are forgeries. Even though under 333 US 640, Bute v. Illinois (1948) @ 653 and 533 US 53, Nguyen v. INS (2001) @ 54,62 they are so required to produce into Court's Evidence, submitting them as authentic under penalty of perjury to the Courts. IT NEVER HAPPENED because they are knowingly fraudulent documents.

  Again, 

“Fraud on the Court is conduct:

1) on the part of an officer of the Court;

2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself;

3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;

4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under duty to disclose;

5) that deceives the Court.”

Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Circuit 2001) @ 852

Barack Obama Sr. and the United Kingdom and Colonies (British) Citizenship of his son Barack II at birth

The Obama Sr. File was uploaded onto Scribd from www.heathersmathers.com and contains an original birthday of  June 15, 1934 for Obama Sr.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File

The Obama Long Form Birth Certificate Forgery released by the White House, mislabels Obama Sr. as being 25 years old  on August 4, 1961...or misdates  Obama Sr. as being born in 1936, rather than "1934", by Obama Sr.'s own hand in 1961.  The first official documentation in which Barack Obama Sr. used a 1936 birth date would not be for almost another year before he began altering his birth date to 1936.

For the June 18, 1934  birth date of Obama Sr., see pages 1,3, 9, 19, 32, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 49, 51, 52, 54 of the Scribd link

At least 14 times, Obama Sr. is documented as born June 18, 1934.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File

 Only in the post-1961 dated documents,apparently, is the June 18, 1936 birth date is found ...and these are on pages:

7 (dated 07/22/64),

14 dated (04/21/1964),

25 (dated 06/06/63),

31 (undated, but appears to be related to page 32 as what should have been a throwaway for a corrected 06/27/1962 form listing the June 18, 1934 birth date).

In other words, no completed official document before April 21, 1964 makes any claim to a 1936 mis-dated birthday for Obama Sr., and the very earliest on file corrected listing very likely does not precede June 27, 1962. 

The birth date of Obama Sr. was altered to June 18, 1936 some 4 times, and only on or after June 27, 1962.  If Obama Jr. was born on August 04, 1961, his alleged Birth Certificate or Long Form Birth Certification should most certainly NOT have this post-1961 discrepancy..  

On page 7 copy and on page 14 et al.,  we find that Obama Sr. arrived in the USA on August 9, 1959.  You will also note below that Obama Sr. is clearly BRITISH in July of 1964 (listed as page 10 to bottom right of photo,) even after Kenyan Independence was declared in December of 1963.   (See also page 49 for a 1959 document listing the same, Obama Sr. as a British subject,  available at the Scribd link above),

On page 39 in the "Memo to File", the bigamist marriage of Obama Sr. to Ann Dunham is mentioned as being on February 2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaii.
 

British East Africa, also officially called the East Africa Protectorate, was annexed by the United Kingdom / Great Britain in July 1920 and renamed after Mt. Kenya, assuming the name of the "Colony of Kenya".

In the British Case of Joyce v. D.P.P.

http://uniset.ca/other/cs3/joyce.html

@355
“Apart from the Naturalization Act, 1870, the general principle still holds good. Nemo potest exuere patriam. Nothing a man does can make him a British subject and nothing he can omit to do can prevent him from being a British subject if he was so born.”

According to British Statutes, and viewed collectively --

25  Edward III, Statute 2

7 Anne, Chapter 5, Section 3  (1708);

4 George II, Chapter 21, Section 1 (1731);

13 George III, Chapter 21         --   (British Nationality Act 1772)

a person whose father (even being inclusive of a paternal grandfather) whom was born within the British dominions as a British subject, that child of such a British subject is deemed a natural-born British subject, even though that child were born abroad outside British dominions.  

 

According to the UK Border Agency (Britain's version of our Immigration and Naturalization Service) 

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/

The rules about British subject status changed in 1949 and again in 1983, so those dates are important when deciding if someone is a British subject.

Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a British subject. And all citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983. Since that date, very few categories of people have qualified as British subjects.

However, the British subjects of the nation of Kenya was only separated from British Citizenship as of January 1, 1983 through the British Nationality Act of 1981 (if that is the case, assuming he was able to lose a Natural Born British Citizenship).  At birth Barack Hussein Obama II was a British Natural Born Citizen, regardless where in the world he was born, because of the British Commonwealth Citizenship held by his father. 

In most cases, you became a British citizen on 1 January 1983 if you were a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth, descent, legal adoption, naturalisation or registration in the United Kingdom, or if you lived in the United Kingdom, while a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, for at least five years at any time before 1 January 1983.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishoverseascitizenship/

 Notice the statement is an "or", not an "and"  lived in the United Kingdom, while a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, for at least five years at any time before 1 January 1983.  Therefore, under Treaty, Barack Hussein Obama II may have been a British Subject as a US illegal alien who took the oath of office of State Senator in Illinois, and was only separated in his British Nationality upon taking that oath on January 18, 1997 at the alleged age of 35 (allegedly born in August of 1961).

Under US Law,  Barack Obama had his allegiance renounced by swearing fealty to the Indonesian flag daily in Menteng - 1 in Jakarta Indonesia, being an adopted Indonesian Citizen where the step-father took him to the renunciation of all other allegiances, including the United States, to the consent of the mother.  However, she made this declaration of denouncing the Government of the United States rather than the British Consulate, as far as we know.  If the UK Border Agency was not informed, and we have no reason to believe it ever was, we have no reason to believe that Obama ever lost his Natural Born British Citizenship.  

Barack was recorded as Barry Soetoro (Soebarkah) -- his adopted and legal name in Indonesia -- had 4 years residence in Indonesia, and would visit Hawaii and stay temporarily for up to 3 weeks at a time, and attend Elementary School as a visitor pending his removal and return after his mother finished vacationing in Hawaii with her parents.   The primary residence of the mother was with her husband in Indonesia, and the primary residence of the child was with his mother.  Hence, there was no permanence of a US Domicile at any time for Barry Soetoro / Barack Obama until he was about age 10 or 11 and moved in with his grandparents at that time.

In Jakarta's Media story: Indonesians Pray for Obama to win US Presidency, Obama was listed as enrolling as a MUSLIM when spending time in the Catholic School (probably spent there primarily only for extra-curricular assistance in learning to speak the language of that nation).  

Antara News March 11, 2008   (from: Jakarta, Indonesia)

“…Obama, 46, was enrolled in two primary schools in Jakarta in the late 1960’s. 

      ‘We are very proud to have one of our students being a candidate in the United States presidential race’, Kuwadiyanto, headmaster of SDN (State Elementary School) Besuki, told Deutsche Presse-Agent ur dpa. 

…Teachers, schoolmates and friends in Indonesia remember the young Obama as a smart student. 

The SDN Besuki, now known as SDN Menteng 01, is located in the posh Menteng residential area, one of the most affluent parts of Jakarta.   Founded in 1934 by the Dutch colonial administration for the children of Dutch colonists and Indonesian nobility, the school has attracted mostly middle to upper class students, among them several children and grandchildren of the late dictator, Suharto.

…Before attending the SD Besuki school, Obama went to a Catholic school, Franciscus Assisi, where an old document showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather….

“He spent 3 years here in this school,” said Israela Darmawan, 64, Obama’s 1^st grade teacher in 1968. 

“We recognize him as Barry Soetoro because he was registered here as Barry Soetoro.” 

At the alleged age of  7, Obama was already a year behind in his grades.   To make matters worse, Obama's Mother formally reported on her son so as to declare Obama Jr. lost his US Citizenship as of August 13, 1968 and denounced him officially before a Department  of State Representative and signed such official documentation, intending that he had officially become a permanent Indonesian Citizen, absolved of any claim to a US nationality.

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10

The above passport file information on Barack Hussein Obama II's mother reveals that  

Barack Hussein Obama II 

has NO 14th Amendment US Citizenship,

and de facto, 

was sworn under signed oath by his Mom

to no longer be a Citizen of the United States

as of August 13, 1968!!!        (See page 3 of the above Scribd documents.  This file appears to have been updated, and the page numbers may eventually change...so save a download just in case). 

The immediate form following the opening letter has the mother sign under oath on the back page of  Form FS-299 of 7-64.

Following the instructions:

"I have not (and no other person included or to be included in the passport or documentation has), since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state, taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state, accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivisions thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign state or participated in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory, made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; ever sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force , the Government of the United States.

{If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, or to any other person included in the passport or documentation, the portion of which applies should be struck out , and a supplementary explanatory statement  under oath (or affirmation) by the person to whom the portion is applicable should be attached and made a part of this application.}

Ann Dunham wrote Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and struck his name out to indicate that he was legally to no longer be a United States Citizen, and the document stood to apply all relevant passages that could apply to a 7 year old who lost US Citizenship by naturalization to Indonesia with a renunciation of his allegiance and renunciation of his citizenship by both he and his mother and his step-father for him. 

Again, his own mother on August 13, 1968, before a Department of State consulate, denounced her son Barack Hussein Obama  as having foreign allegiances and foreign naturalization to Indonesia, and signed to this effect in form FS-277, writing and striking his name out.  

 Barack Obama has never proved he was USA born.  He refuses to submit a hard copy he claims to have to the Press and Public, so much so that he posts that alleged copy on the White House website;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

but that very same alleged document he REFUSES to submit into Court record under penalty of perjury, etc. 

The Office of the White House Press Secretary linked journalists and other interested parties to what they called an authentic Obama Short Form Certification of Live Birth, as vetted by Snopes.com. Unfortunately, the link went to Ron Polland’s made from Template Scratch openly attributed forgery, of which Polland said he was the creator. In other words, the White House sourced themselves in a genuine copy of a known public forgery which url even contained Dr. Polland’s previous internet pseudonym in the url / jpg address itself. http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

The Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard is the source of the Birther Movement, substantiated by other African Media and Kenya’s own Government Officials in Public Statement of fact in Transcript. Of primary concern is the Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard dated as Sunday, June 27, 2004. Its headline reads:

“Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”

The first line reads: “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”

De facto, the Nairobi Kenya Eastern Standard states clearly in the headline that Senator Barack Obama is Kenyan born...hence, born in Kenya. http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

There are no other living witnesses besides Barack's step-grandmother, who says she saw him birthed, and she says THAT was in Kenya! http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107524

 Ipso facto and de jure, Barack Obama II is most certainly NOT legally President of the United States in the eyes of the US Constitution because he was born a British Citizen,

and his entire occupancy in the White House is therefore legally voidable.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180

 http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html

states that  “a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and “in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land, the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution, have that rank.”

When the Minister of Lands of Kenya addressed Parliament, he in no uncertain terms speaking for the Government of Kenya, stated Barack Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. 

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

OFFICIAL REPORT

Thursday, 25th March, 2010

The House met at 2.30 p.m.

p. 31 ...2nd paragraph   (Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking):

"...how could a young man born here in Kenya,
who is not even a native American,
 become the President of America?
 It is because they did away with exclusion."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25

At the very least, there is more than sufficient cause to exclude Barack Hussein Obama II from appearing on the Georgia State Ballot.  The Burden of Proof is upon Obama to prove by proper documentation in a Court of Law. 

It is a legal fact that when given the subpoena and opportunity to do so, he was not only unwilling to provide even the most basic of documentation of identity, but in preponderance of the supposition of facts before us, he is also UNABLE to do so, because he illegally occupies the Presidency, and has obtained it by identity fraud.  Which is why he refuses to show even the most basic documentation, documents such as his alleged Hawaii long form birth certificate he alleges to have issued by Press release, into a court of law under penalty of perjury or penalty by entering irretrievable document Fraud upon the Court.  If he can issue that document to the Press and claim it as genuine, he has no legal excuse to withhold the same unless there is the presumption and or certain knowledge of fraud on his part. 

 Obama may have won this round by the use of Chicago politics with a Monday January 16, 2012 Valerie Jarrett and Judge Michael Malihi speaking Farsi to one another,  but 2012 and this Presidential Election Cycle is not over yet.  That's my input.