Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies
“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
“Why did Indiana Appeals Court Judge Elaine B. Brown place the following in her ruling: “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.””...Citizen Wells
You gotta love Free Republic!
When I first discovered the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal ruling I smelled a rat. I am smelling a much larger rat now.
When I wrote the article yesterday on the GA Obama ballot challenge ruling by Judge Michael Malihi, I based my comments on the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal decision based purely on my reading and analyzing the Indiana “judge’s” ruling. In the article I wrote several times “Was this written by a judge?” There are obvious reasons for my doing so. In one instance, I call the author a liar.
I just came across a Free Republic article posted on January 10, 2012, several weeks before the Judge Michael Malihi ruling. As is often the case at Free Republic, it is interesting and insightful.
From Free Republic January 10, 2012.
“Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?”
“As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama’s eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn’t the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.”
Some very interesting comments:
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 14:43:14 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Mr. Lucky
To: Fantasywriter; LucyT; Elderberry; hoosiermama; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; …
This entire issue is like reading Dickens in the original newspaper serial format. It goes on forever. At least Dickens got a penny a word! All we get is a headache.
The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. But the fact that Team Obama does harp upon it, makes it worthy of some inquiry.
The lack of appeal is troubling. Could it have been a “set-up?”"
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 15:15:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Kenny Bunk ((So, you’re telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can’t figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
“Gold standard” is a misnomer for describing the case. There are a variety of problems with it that, when itemized, turns Obots into namecallers or makes them flee. The case was appealed to the state supreme court, but it’s not clear if new arguments were presented to the higher court. Not sure this would be eligible for SCOTUS appeal. And of course the decision to appeal is up to the plaintiff who filed the case, so it should be asked of him.
This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle … failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.
Again, there are several problems and outright contradictions in the section on NBC. I’ve illustrated those before, but can do so again if need be.”
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:15:45 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
The decision contradicts itself. First it claims guidance and then admits that the decision from which it divined that guidance doesn’t actually make the same conclusion:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language is immaterial.
The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn’t follow this so-called “guidance.” Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial. Why do they say this??
For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
They’re claiming this is irrelevant to everyone but the people who were elected president. This is sheer stupidity. The natural-born citizen requirement isn’t there for the benefit or the convenience of the electee. It’s there to ensure the best leadership for this government of the people. It’s not irrelevant to everyone else. We know this because of John Jay’s letter suggesting that it would help prevent foreign influence. The Ankeny decision does nothing to support this presumption.
The Ankeny decision cites this citation from Wong Kim Ark:
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.
This paragraph is talking about people born in the United States. It’s saying you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. This citation is describing a passage from Shanks v. Dupont which noted that the Treaty of 1783 said those who were natives or otherwise were either citizens OR British subjects depending on whether the parents adhered to the Crown or United States allegiance. You can’t be both. Under this citation, Obama is a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.
Ankeny makes this ridiculous claim about the Minor definition of NBC:
… the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
A) This isn’t true. Such persons were characterized as foreigners or aliens in the passage they quoted. B) Minor went on to discuss the naturalization act of 1790 which said that the children of aliens could become citizens AFTER their fathers naturalized. Further, Ankney contradicts themselves in their own footnote on this point:
Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Here it says the court contemplated situations where both parents are aliens. Note, there’s nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they “contemplate” something and leave a question open?? Contemplate means “to consider at length.” IOW, if they contemplated the scenario, then they addressed it, rather than left the question open.
Then Ankeny says this:
The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”
Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law. The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim. The Law of Nations was a principle and history which were famiilarly known to the framers.
Ankeny stabs itself in the foot here:
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. IOW, the 14th amendment doesn’t say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, the guidance that Ankeny claims is simply NOT there.
Here’s another error. They quote Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.
Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors? Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
That’s all well and good if we’re trying to determine who British subjects are. The person Story was talking about was born in the U.S. but he was considered to be a British subject (which would mean Obama is too, under this doctrine). This wasn’t about making someone a citizen by birth in the country.
It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.
Further, from the same decision, it is acknowledged in the opinion of the court, that citizenship descends from the father:
The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.
Finally, I just wanted to address a couple of the sloppy points in the Ankeny decision. They can’t seem to get the facts straight:
As to President Obama?s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States ….
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs? argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there?s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States? and a „natural born Citizen,? and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
Now, Ankeny says the plaintiffs aren’t arguing place of birth, but just a few pages earlier, the court said:
Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
Okay, so which is it?? The plaintiffs are or are NOT arguing where Obama was born??? And then stuff like this is just bizarre:
The bases of the Plaintiffs? arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11
11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.
Now, I just showed where a Supreme Court case that Ankeny cited, Inglis, quoted Vattel from The Law of Nations. They don’t seem to understand the Supreme Court has regularly used Vattel as a legal resource. Second, the “ninenteenth century congressional debate” citations were being used as the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does this court downplay original intent?? Then the Ankeny court quotes Wong Kim Ark citing things like Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” …. how is that okay, but not Vattel?? The Ankney court concludes with this doozy:
To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court?s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs? arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
A) Vattel does NOT conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of natural-born citizen. The ONE definition that Ankeny cited matches Law of Nations verbatim. B) This court basically just says it doesn’t have to accept the plaintiffs assertions as true, even though the Supreme Court regularly relies on such authorities as were used by the plaintiffs. This decision is simply an embarrassment to the legal profession.
27 posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:38:24 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
You’re welcome. Please feel free to PM me if you ever have any questions or other issues, and I will be happy to answer if I can.
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 18:43:01 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
Your link goes to the appellate review.
Not sure if you have been exposed to the term – dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:
“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2”
That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop – basically an politician or government official.
The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:
“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:
(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; “
See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:
So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.
….unless someone wrote it for him……”
Again, this was posted several weeks before the Judge Malihi ruling.
Also, the last sentence above:
“….unless someone wrote it for him……”
Law expert and attorney Mario Apuzzo has dissected the Indiana Appeal Court ruling and the improper references to English Common Law.
“Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.”
I urge you to read the entire article:
Orly Taitz has provided an update on her appeal to Judge Michael Malihi’s ruling as well as some interesting comments:
PETITION TO SET ASIDE RECOMMENDATION ISSUED BY JUDGE MALIHI IN FARRAR V OBAMA OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALHI, AS RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE IN ERROR, WITH GROSS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF ALL LAW, PRECEDENTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE; AND FIND CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA INELIGIBLE TO APPEAR ON THE STATE OF GA BALLOT AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES”
“This behavior of judge Malihi was so outrageous, that not only his advisory opinion needs to be set aside, as not grounded in any fact or law, but state and county grand juries and the Attorney General of Georgia need to launch a criminal investigation into actions of judge Malihi and possible direct or indirect undue influence by Obama. Decision by Malihi reads, as if it was entirely written by Obama’s personal attorneys Robert Bauer and Judith Corley of Perkins Coie and rubber stamped by Malihi. It is noteworthy, that both Robert Bauer and Judith Corley need to be criminally investigated as well, as both of them were complicit in aiding and abetting Obama in presenting to the public on April 27, 2011 a computer generated forgery and claiming it to be a true and correct copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Such assumption by Malihi, that Obama was born in the U.S., without any documentary evidence to that extent from Obama, goes beyond an abuse of judicial disretion, it represents judicial misconduct.”
We clearly have a flawed ruling in GA based on a flawed ruling in IN. It is not uncommon for lower court decisions to be reversed based on errors or misinterpretation of the law. However, the Indiana ruling was either written by a baised or incompetent judge.
Did Chief Judge Margret G. Robb read the ruling?
Judges Crone and May concurred with Judge Elaine B. Brown. Did they read it?
I will contact the Indiana Court of Appeals and find out.