Van Irion seeks 10th Criminal Court Judge position

Van Irion seeks 10th Criminal Court Judge position

Van Irion has announced his intent to run for the 10th Criminal Court Judge position.

This is most welcome news to the many hopeful in the area that have waited for this announcement with much anticipation and have a great fondness for Van Irion, pronounced “ear ee on.”

I am most pleased to announce that Van Irion is running for Criminal Court Judge in the 10th which spans four counties, Bradley, Polk, McMinn and Monroe.

I have spent many hours with Van and his family and can safely say he is the real deal.

I have seen him in lows as well as highs and he has always remained focused, diligent and head strong to complete the task at hand. 

I have shared the National stage with him marching from DC, to Atlanta and to Lubbock Texas as a Lead Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit aimed to stop the dreaded rollout of nationalized healthcare. 

We have shed tears of joy and and have also traveled the eastern US hemisphere, much of the 10th District and the 3rd Congressional District in pursuit of our goals. Gone door to door with him to countless homes spreading the message. I call Van Irion a close friend and can tell you there are few finer than him.

I have vetted him and he is a man of great integrity, honor and trustworthiness. He will make a fine Judge representing the 10th Criminal Court Judge division, he will do so impartially and with integrity.

Tell your friends, light up the social airways with this news, VAN IRION for 10th Criminal Court Judge.

Share and then share some more and on election day, get out and pull the lever for Van Irion.

A word from Van Irion:

Do not be unjust in judging — show neither partiality to the poor nor deference to the mighty, but with justice judge your neighbor.
Leviticus 19:15

Thank you for taking the time to consider my candidacy for the position of Criminal Court Judge for Tennessee’s 10th District.
I am deeply committed to the rule of law. As an experienced attorney I have always maintained a commitment to fairness for all participants. As Criminal Court Judge I will uphold the Tennessee and United States Constitutions fairly and impartially, treating all participants in the court process with dignity and respect.
With your support, I hope to serve all of you as Criminal Court Judge for the Tenth Judicial District of Tennessee.

I respectfully ask for your support and for your vote. In the meantime, if you have any questions or want to get more involved please contact me.

Sincerely,

Van Irion

Van Irions experience:

Van Irion is an experienced attorney, admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and all State Courts in Tennessee. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law, Transactions Attorney for the University of Tennessee Research Foundation, and Lead Counsel and Founder of Liberty Legal Foundation.

Prior to becoming an attorney Mr. Irion was a Medical Researcher at the University of California School of Medicine and then founded a biotech company.

Mr. Irion served in the US Air Force as an Air Traffic Controller at USAF Little Rock Air Force Base then continued to serve his community as a volunteer Firefighter and Emergency Medical Technician.

EXPERIENCE
• Federal and State Courts
As lead attorney Van has litigated jury trials and bench trials in both state and federal courts. Mr. Irion has litigated several cases to the United States Supreme Court. He has handled criminal and civil cases in Tennessee’s Family courts, Juvenile courts, Sessions courts, Circuit courts, Chancery courts, Criminal Court of Appeals and Civil Court of Appeals. He has also practiced before the Tennessee and Georgia State Supreme Courts, the 6th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and U.S. District Courts in Tennessee, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, and California. He has also handled arbitrations, mediations, bankruptcy challenges, and administrative court matters.
• Attorney for UT
For several years Van served as a transactions attorney for the University of Tennessee Research Foundation where he managed the University’s patent portfolio. Van drafted and executed intellectual property licensing agreements and negotiated multi-million dollar contracts for the University.
• Law Professor
Van taught the next generation of lawyers while serving as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law.
• Former Medical Researcher
Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Irion worked in the genetics and medical research fields both in the public and private sectors, including the University of California School of Medicine and University of Tennessee Research Foundation. He has co-authored several peer reviewed scientific research articles. (listed below).
• U.S. Military Veteran
Mr. Irion is proud to have served in the US Air Force as an Air Traffic Controller at the USAF, Little Rock Air Force Base.
• Volunteer Firefighter and EMT
For several years Mr. Irion served as a volunteer Firefighter and licensed Emergency Medical Technician (EMT).
• Former Congressional Candidate
In 2010 Van ran for Congress in the Republican primary for Tennessee’s 3rd Congressional District. During his campaign, Van was endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul. He was also endorsed by speech writers and other staff of the Reagan White House.
• Lead Counsel and Founder
For three years Van served as the Lead Counsel and Founder of Liberty Legal Foundation. The mission of Liberty Legal Foundation was to strengthen Constitutional protections against governmental abuses by challenging federal court precedents that had diminished the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

Education

University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, CA
Juris Doctor, With Distinction, May 2005
Law Journal: The Transnational Lawyer
Dean’s Scholarship Recipient, 2002-2005
Dean’s Honor Roll, 2003, 2004 & 2005
Academic Achievement Award, 2004
Witkin Award – Top Class Ranking, Contracts, 2003
Witkin Award – Top Class Ranking, Biology, Law & Human Behavior, 2005
Witkin Award – Top Class Ranking, Community Property, 2005
Mock Trial Competition Finalist, 2003
 University of California, Davis, California
Bachelor of Science, Biochemistry, 1995
Bar Admissions

State Bar of Tennessee
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
Professional Associations
State Bar of Tennessee
Knoxville Bar Association
Selected Scientific Research Publications Authored or Co-

Authored by Mr. Irion
• Non-viral gene delivery to the ventricles in rat brain: Initial evidence for distribution and expression in the CNS; Hecker JG, Hall LL, Irion VR.; Mol Ther. 2001 Mar;3(3):375-84.
• Advances in self-limited gene expression of protective intracellular proteins in-vivo in rat brain; Irion VR, Hecker JG; Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1998:86.
• Self-limited gene expression in vitro in neuronal cell cultures and in vivo in rat brain using mRNA/cationic lipid complexes; Irion VR, Hecker JG; Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1997:84.
• The fidelity of human telomerase; Kreiter M, Irion V, Ward J, Morin G.; Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 1995;(33):137-9.
• The effect of carrier RNA on transfection efficiency; Third Annual Artificial Self-Assembling Systems For Gene Delivery Conference, November 1996.
• œHsp70 and Reporter Enzyme Expression in Rat Brain after Non-viral Delivery of mRNA and DNA to Lateral Ventricles; Hecker JG, Hall LL, Irion VR.; Society for Neuroscience Meeting, New Orleans, November, 2000.
• mRNA cationic lipid transfected expression of firefly luciferase in mammalian cells is enhanced by addition of tRNA; Giles J, Irion VR, Hecker JG; Western Anesthesia Residents Conference, Seattle, WA, April 17, 1999.
• œEffect of cationic lipid ratio and carrier RNA on transfection efficiency; 3rd Annual Artificial Self-Assembling Systems for Gene Delivery Conference; Irion VR, Hecker JG; Cambridge Healthtech Institute, Newton Upper Falls, MA. November 17-18, 1996.
• Effects of electromagnetic fields on gene expression; Irion VR, Irion DN; Golden State Venture Capital Conference & Entrepreneur Expo, San Rafael, April 23-24, 2001.

 Get out the vote! 

Vote for Van Irion!!!

Tennessee: AG says Grand Jury Foremen are not jurors, state law suggests otherwise

Tennessee: AG says Grand Jury Foremen are not jurors, state law suggests otherwise

12/2/13

by Sharon Rondeau

The office of the Tennessee Attorney General claims that the grand jury foreman is a state employee, not a juror empaneled by state statutes

(Nov. 25, 2013) — The Post & Email can exclusively report that the Tennessee state attorney general’s office has stated on the record that the “foreperson” of all grand juries in Tennessee is IS NOT A JUROR as Tennessee state statutes require.

In December of last year, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III was convicted in the Monroe County, TN Criminal Court of “tampering with government records,” with Judge Walter C. Kurtz presiding.

Defense Attorney Van Irion submitted an appeal in the case of State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III protesting CDR Fitzpatrick’s innocence. One of Irion’s points was that the grand jury foreman had over-served her legal term of one year.  Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) states that following their service on any jury in the state, jurors cannot be resummoned for a minimum of 24 months.

This past September, in his official capacity as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Justice Division, Kyle Hixson responded to the Fitzpatrick appeal, writing a brief on the state’s behalf of which The Post & Email first came into possession last Thursday afternoon.

At the bottom of page 13 of his brief, Assistant Attorney General Hixson wrote:

“…the foreman of the grand jury is not ‘impaneled’ from the ‘summoned’ members of the ‘jury pool.’ See Tenn Code Ann. §§ 22-2-306, -307, and -310. The foreperson is ‘appoint[ed]’ by the trial court. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 6(g)(1). As such, section 314, by its terms, does not apply to the appointment process of the grand jury foreperson.”

The state’s entire argument can be read here: HIXSON BRIEF

Section 314 reads as follows:

“22-2-314.  Limitation on jury service.

“A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service term in any court of this state for a period of twenty-four (24) months following the last day of such service; however, the county legislative body of any county, may, by majority vote, extend the twenty-four-month period.”

Hixson clearly reports that grand jury forepersons do not come from the “jury pool,” are never “summoned” to jury duty, are never “impaneled” as a jurors, and never subject to state laws which deal with jurors and jury duty.  Simply stated, Hixson affirms on behalf of the State of Tennessee that grand jury forepersons are never jurors.

However, Tennessee state law commands exactly the opposite: Tennessee statutes say that grand jury forepersons must always be jurors.

Tennessee state law, as tailored and refined by the Rules for Criminal Procedure, require that thirteen (13) jurors (or members) populate all state grand juries.

Hixson has now said, in clear terms in a statement against the state’s self-interest, that criminal court judges add a non-juror to the grand jury by their selection of the foreman. The 12 jurors plus one non-juror combination consequently leaves Tennessee grand juries one short of the lawfully-mandated requirement of thirteen (13) jurors. This has been and remains the case for decades.

Tennessee state law requires that all state residents, in the process of becoming jurors, must initially be randomly selected into the jury pool. From that pool, a smaller number of individuals are randomly selected to be issued summonses to report to the courtroom on a particular day, at which time jurors for the grand jury and trial juries are selected in but a third process of random selection.

In each of these three random selection rounds, the process used must be one that does not allow for the possibility of “human intervention.”

The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference describes the grand jury as:

…a group of thirteen citizens chosen from the jury panel. One of these thirteen is the fore person and will preside over the grand jury.

Assistant Attorney General Hixson now reports that criminal court judges have always been permitted to install a handpicked non-juror foreman, that is, to “appoint” the foreman from, as Monroe County Court Clerk Martha M. “Marty” Cook has said, “from wherever they choose because the state laws that apply to jurors do not apply to non-jurors.

As readers of The Post & Email are already aware, Fitzpatrick’s challenges to the scope and operation of Tennessee grand juries arose upon his discovery in 2010 that the Monroe County Tennessee de facto grand jury foreman, Gary Pettway, had held that position since 1982, a period of twenty-eight (28) consecutive years.  Moreover, there was no appointing order or evidence that Pettway had ever been duly sworn in.

Fitzpatrick placed Pettway under citizen’s arrest in April 2010. State law enforcement officials ignored Fitzpatrick’s complaint and arrested Fitzpatrick instead. The Monroe County grand jury then indicted Fitzpatrick for attempting to intimidate a juror, Gary Pettway.

Indictment against Fitzpatrick for the alleged felony of intimidating a “juror,” Gary Pettway, who the State Attorney General’s office says is not a juror

Fitzpatrick has demonstrated that the grand juries and trial juries in Tennessee are unduly influenced by prosecutors, grand jury foremen, and court personnel and contaminated by jurors serving consecutive terms in violation of state law (TCA 22-2-314).  In one case in Davidson County, a grand jury foreman chosen by a judge was discovered to be a convicted felon, which violates Tennessee statute and required the review of approximately 800 cases over which the illegally-serving foreman had presided.

Grand jury foremen in Monroe County are reportedly “picked from wherever” the judge “chooses” by means of an unknown vetting process.  Throughout Tennessee, grand jury foremen have served for decades or multiple times with occasional breaks in service.

Tennessee Code Annotated provides no special selection process for the grand jury foreman.

Grand jury tampering and judicial misconduct have been reported to The Post & Email in Campbell County, Roane County, Sevier County, and Madison County.  Crimes against Tenth Judicial District Attorney General R. Steven Bebb have been alleged but dismissed by Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper, Jr., although members of the Tennessee General Assembly are working to remove Bebb from his post.

Now, for the first time ever, Kyle Hixson explains that (1) Gary Pettway was never a juror, resulting in (2) the law limiting jury service does not apply to grand jury forepersons such as Pettway, and (3) judicially “appointed” Tennessee residents are allowed to serve in a career position as a county employee called the  “grand jury foreman.”

Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) 40-12-206 is the only state statute which details the composition of every Tennessee state grand jury. The law commands that all grand juries be populated with thirteen (13) jurors (members) and up to five (5) alternates. The law does not provide for the judicial appointment of a “foreman” into a Tennessee grand jury.

The same law makes no distinction among the jurors (members). There is no distinction or separate-identity, non-juror “foreman.”

The process by which all jurors are to be selected is described as (1) Randomly populate the “jury pool,” (2) Randomly select potential jurors from the “jury pool” potential, (3) “Summon” the potential jurors to court for random selection into the grand and trial (petit) jurors for identified term dates, and (4) “Impanel” the grand juries and trial jurors.

Hixson, representing the state of Tennessee, publicly declared in his September 2013 appeals brief that, in Tennessee, grand jury foremen are not jurors.

Restating the state’s now first-time ever publicly pronounced policy position more clearly: The grand jury foreman is not a juror.

A criminal court trial judge individually and personally selects, then specifically delegates (appoints, employs) grand jury foremen in Tennessee state.
The grand jury foreman does not come from a randomly-selected jury pool.

The grand jury foreman is not summoned to a courtroom to participate in the process of jury impaneling.

Tennessee state statutes that apply to jurors and jury duty do not apply to the grand jury foreman who is, rather, a paid Tennessee state employee.

Judicial appointment of a grand jury foreman who is a “non-juror, as Hixson described the office and process, is illegal under the Tennessee statutes.

The Post & Email asks if the State of Tennessee is committing the same crime as that which the U.S. Navy continues to perpetrate after more than 23 years in which an honest person is sacrificed and condemned for the sake of preserving a criminal enterprise in which a judge’s personal appointee masquerades as a member of the grand jury, unduly influencing that body and often casting the decisive vote to indict.

© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Part 1:

Part 2:

DNC will certify Obama/Sotero because 9th circuit Judges remain steadfast in sending out notices, ignoring Constitution

9th Circuit Refuses to Prohibit DNC from Sending Fraudulent Notices

The DNC will more than likely send out a fraudulent notice tomorrow that they accept Barrack Hussein Barry Soetero Obamas nomination as the next President of the United States. Trouble is they don’t have a way or have they been able to constitutionally certify this fake president. He was not born to American parents, he does not have a legitimate birth certificate or social security number nor can we look at his college records because they cover up all he is trying to say is true. This president being certified by the DNC is a total fabrication and should never be done! He is constitutionally not our president nor will he ever be. He is a fraud, a fake and Van Irion explains why!

Tonight Obama will be accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination. Tonight or tomorrow the DNC will be sending notifications that they certify Obama as their candidate to the Secretaries of State for all 50 states. These notifications will either explicitly state that Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president, or they will imply it. Either way, the certifications will be fraudulent.

Earlier this week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Liberty Legal Foundation’s emergency motion to prohibit the DNC from sending those fraudulent notifications. The 9th Circuit’s order denying our motion was one sentence. It essentially said, we’re denying your motion because we can. You can see the order on our website.

The 9th Circuit’s one-sentence denial of our motion is, in my mind, the definitive proof that America’s judicial system has completely failed. For a year Liberty Legal Foundation has been presenting courts with an opportunity to explain why Supreme Court precedent should be ignored. Rather than answer that question, the courts have avoided the question. The 9th Circuit’s denial cites a single case. That case stands for the principle that the 9th Circuit doesn’t have to grant our motion unless it wants to do so. Oh, it has the authority, but it isn’t required to grant our motion.

Understand what I just said. The 9th Circuit didn’t explain WHY it chose to deny our motion. It didn’t even offer an excuse. The Court didn’t say that the DNC’s notifications wouldn’t be fraudulent. It simply said, we don’t have to grant your motion, because we don’t have to.

That puts things into perspective doesn’t it? We’re asking high ranking government officials within the federal government’s judicial branch to answer a basic question about the Constitution. That question is simple, but is also a critically important Constitutional question. The answer would have determined whether Obama is eligible to serve another term as President. But the 9th Circuit determined that this question isn’t important enough for it to consider. It isn’t required to answer this question right now, so it will simply look the other way and act as if the issue doesn’t exist. By the time it is required to answer the question, the issue will be moot because the election will be over.

Our federal courts are now publicly stating that they have no desire to enforce the Constitution. They delay, they make excuses, and then when enough time has passed they simply say we don’t have to answer you right now, come back after it no longer matters. Then we will have another excuse: the issue will be moot.

LLF will not let this issue simply fade away. We are considering filing new lawsuits after the DNC sends its fraudulent notifications. After the notifications are sent the legal issues will be even simpler than they have been up to this point. We will either find a judge that is willing to follow the law, or we will further demonstrate the corruption of our judicial branch.

We need your help to continue this fight. If you believe in what we are attempting to do, please help. If you agree that the judicial branch has a duty to enforce the Constitution, please donate today.

For Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder
Liberty Legal Foundation
 

FIrst RINO Hunt in TN is a successful one for Tea Party

On a very warm evening in January 2012, after a full day of fighting Obamacare in Atlanta, sitting in a quiet Irish pub eating fish and chips with Van Irion and fellow TPBC steering committee member Will Sturtevant has a thought.

How can we be more effective? How can we send a resounding message to all levels of elected officials? How can we target those that are giving away our country? Socialist dressed as Republicans or even Democrats!

He looked across the table at Van and myself and said what about having a RINO Hunt, being a RINO Hunter? The statement grew a chuckle at first, complete with a patriot standing with a T on his shirt, with a figurative bow and arrow targeted toward ballot box levers with RINO names on them, symbolically removing them from office with a strong block of votes. The effect that could have on the state and the country appeared to be the answer to getting our country restored to a republic. What a concept!

Target every RINO or DINO with a specific plan, put a concentrated effort together in that district or race and you have made and created the much needed change that has eluded us for years.

As with the Maggart race we can see the power of the RINO hunt.

Van eludes to this technique in the article below and we are thankful to have Will on our team.

Let’s use Wills RINO hunting techniques and I suggest let’s go DINOsaur hunting too! A few old fossils need to be extinct, with a well though out plan to get people to the ballot box!

Perhaps Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander need to be the new species hunted this November at the ballot box? Hmmmm? Again my opinion and we all know what opinions are like? Right?

Tennessee RINO Hunt

Last week’sTennessee elections brought about a minor miracle. As usual the main-stream media’s reaction is to willfully ignore or actively cover up the story. You need to know about this minor miracle because it is something that can be repeated nationwide. Also, it’s great to hear good news once in a while.

Like Tea Party groups in many states the Tennessee Tea Parties have focused most of their energy on state and local elections. Two years ago Tennessee Tea Parties helped the Republican Party take back control of both houses of the Tennessee Legislature, and the Governor’s Office, for the first time in over 150 years. After the election there was much hand-clapping, back-slapping, and hope for the future. Unfortunately the Republicans who were put into office refused to acknowledge the Tea Party as the reason for their unprecedented victory. Over the past two years the Tennessee Tea Parties presented their top ten priorities to the Republicans they put into power. All of these priorities focused on re-asserting state sovereignty over unconstitutional Federal abuses. Tea Party activists drafted legislation to implement these priorities and lobbied tirelessly to get these priorities acted upon. After two years not one single substantive bill supported by the Tea Party was passed. Rather than help the Tea Party, the Tennessee Republican Party treated the Tea Party with contempt.

After the 2012 legislative session closed the Tennessee Tea Party held its quarterly leadership conference. At that meeting the Tea Party leaders decided that the Republican leadership needed to be taught a lesson. If the Tea Party was ever going to get any respect from the Republican leadership, the Tea Party would have to PROVE to the Republicans that the Tea Party had power at the ballot box. So, they decided to go on a RINO Hunt. The Tea Party was going to prove its ability to eliminate a Republican-In-Name-Only. The higher up in Republican leadership, the better. So, they targeted the Republican Caucus Chairwoman, Representative Debbie Maggart, a four-time incumbent. She was number four in the Tennessee Republican leadership. She actively fought against Tennessee Tea Party legislation. Now she is no longer a member of the Tennessee legislature.  

Representative Maggart lost the Republican primary to a Tea Party backed challenger, despite Maggart’s huge war-chest and active support from the Republican leadership. In fact, the election wasn’t even close. Maggart lost by more than 12% of the vote. Tea Party activists drove in from all over the state to knock on doors, hand out fliers, and hold signs for Maggart’s challenger. Tea Party members from all over the state donated campaign contributions to Maggart’s challenger, even though they didn’t live in Maggart’s district. Tea Party leaders used their connections to get national Political Action Committees to donate to Maggart’s challenger.

But none of this would have been possible without a conscious decision by the Tennessee Tea Party leadership to focus their frustration on ONE Republican leader. Believe me, many many Republicans had justifiably earned the wrath of the Tennessee Tea Party. But before any names were discussed, the Tea Party leadership recognized that a focused effort was an absolute requirement. In order to ensure victory over at least one highly-placed Republican, efforts must be focused. Only after this strategy had been agreed upon were names discussed. Maggart had been one of the worst offenders within the Republican leadership, so she was chosen.

I don’t want to give the wrong impression, however. Tea Party activists still worked for other incumbent-challenging candidates. They still donated and volunteered in other districts. But state-wide efforts were focused on Maggart’s primary.

And the news is even better. Four other Republican incumbents in Tennessee were also defeated by Tea Party-backed challengers. All four had thwarted Tea Party priorities and failed to assert state sovereignty over Federal abuses.

Also, two other RINOs beat their Tea Party-backed challengers by less than a dozen votes. Recounts will be held. But even if these two RINOs keep their offices, they were definitely made aware of the power of the Tea Party.

Which leads to the most important point: Every Republican in the Tennessee Legislature knows what just happened. They were aware that the Tea Party had targeted Maggart. They were aware that the other RINOs were being targeted. Now they’ve seen the result. So, next year when the Tea Party drafts a bill and tells Republicans it is a top priority, they will pay attention. Or they will be the target of the next RINO Hunt.

It’s bad enough when Socialists run for office as socialists. It’s much worse when they tell you they’re constitutionalists, but then they thwart every attempt to re-assert constitutional government. Every state should be having RINO Hunts, until all anti-constitutionalists are purged from the Republican Party.

For Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder
 

P.S. We are proud to be able to say that the idea for a RINO hunt came from a Liberty Legal Foundation member. Thank you to Will, here in the state of Tennessee.

The United States Will Have to Change Its Name

The United States Will Have to Change Its Name

The main-stream-media reported yesterday’s U.S. v. Arizona Supreme Court ruling as a partial victory for Arizona. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Court’s ruling destroyed the United States. This is not hyperbole. The United States quite literally no longer exists.

The name, “United States” describes a nation that consisted of several sovereign States, combined by a Constitution which granted limited powers to a central government. That nation no longer exists because the former States are sovereign no longer.

This is not just my assessment of the current situation, this is the assessment of Justices Thomas and Scalia. Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion reads like a new call to revolution. It begins by pointing out that States are sovereign States only when the States have certain abilities. One of those required abilities is to be able to determine who will be allowed within its territory, and who will not. Throughout history it has been agreed that any state lacking the right to exclude certain categories of people is not truly sovereign. Such governments are, themselves, simply subjects of some other sovereign government. The entities formerly known as “States” in North America are now simply subjects of the Federal government.

No precedent supports yesterday’s ruling from the Court. The court’s main opinion tries to make its ruling seem like normal application of preemption precedent. But the truth is that the Court has never applied its preemption precedent in any way remotely resembling U.S. v. Arizona. Keep in mind that Arizona simply wanted to enforce existing Federal law. Never before has the Court said that states can’t enforce Federal law, unless Congress explicitly prohibited State enforcement. The Court has occasionally prevented states from adding to or taking away from Federal law, but it has NEVER said that states cannot enforce Federal law when Congress doesn’t explicitly prohibit enforcement by the states. Imagine the Federal government telling states that they can’t arrest and prosecute bank robbers or drug dealers. Yesterday’s ruling is even more absurd because Federal immigration law actually encourages state enforcement. This ruling is a new high water mark in the ever-growing Federal takeover of state sovereignty.

What we really have here is a President that disagrees with laws passed by Congress, so he actively refuses to enforce those laws. After this week’s ruling we also have a judicial branch that has joined the President by denying “states” the right to do what the President refuses to do. So, we have a Federal government eliminating the remnants of state sovereignty while separation of powers within the Federal government is also ignored. What role does Congress have if the Executive can actively refuse to enforce Federal law? The answer is none. In the past our brilliant system of government would have protected the citizens from such a breakdown within the Federal system by allowing State governments to pick up the slack, like Arizona tried to do. Now the Supreme Court has removed that check and balance.

We can no longer call our nation the United States of America because “States” no longer exist. Instead we now have 50 administrative departments of the Federal government. After yesterday’s ruling “State” borders are no more than boundaries marking the geographical extent of administrative departments. We are now the North American Federal Empire. Our Federal masters will probably have to raise taxes to fund changing the name of our nation on all the stationary.

Despite this unfortunate turn of events, there is still hope. Liberty Legal Foundation has made a difference. The amicus brief LLF filed with the Supreme Court in the U.S. v. Arizona case focused on one issue. That was the one issue that Arizona won.

The one part of the Arizona law that was upheld was the “States’” right to require all local law enforcement to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. LLF’s amicus brief pointed out to the Court that existing Federal law forbids the Federal government from telling any state or local agency that they can’t ask for immigration information on any individual. This point had not been clearly made by any party or other amicus prior to our brief. Our brief did not discuss the other issues raised by this case because the “State” of Arizona argued those other issues very well. We focused only on a point that had not been made by anyone else, a point that is very important to proper separation of powers.

The Supreme Court’s main opinion acknowledges the point we made in our amicus brief. Even better, Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion repeats our point, almost verbatim, on page one and two of his opinion. It seems clear that we got the attention of the Court and influenced its ruling. This is great news.

It is unfortunate that overall the Court took a huge step in the wrong direction. However, three justices dissented vigorously, and Arizona won the one issue argued by LLF. We must keep fighting. As bad as this ruling is for our nation, it is still possible to reverse this course by changing one mind on the Court. Our efforts are being noticed within the Court. We can restore our Constitutional Republic if we continue to contend for these Founding Principles with our fellow citizens and with the Courts. To that end, please share this message with your friends, family and social networks.

For Liberty,

 
Van Irion, Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

Van Irion: Judge wants definition of “Natural born citizen”

Van continues his fight! Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is also a fraud and is a “fake president” with no constitutional right to be in the office today! Continue to pray for my dear friend as he continues this most influential battle! I believe our future and our freedom depends upon it!

WND EXCLUSIVE
JUDGE WANTS DEFINITION OF ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’

‘Resolution of this federal issue will resolve the case’

by BOB UNRUHE

A federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.”

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Irion told supporters, “While it is certainly dangerous to read too much into such an opinion, the statements from this federal court are encouraging. The court appears to understand the most critical issues presented by our complaint.”

He told WND that the issue identified by Anderson is what virtually all of the dozens of cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been seeking: a ruling on accusations that Obama is unqualified.

Previously, cases have been dismissed based on standing or other technicalities, not on the merits.

The decision from Anderson came in a case brought by Irion on behalf of voters and political candidates in Tennessee. The plaintiffs argue Obama’s name cannot be submitted because he is ineligible.

The defendants had moved the case from state court, where Irion wanted to argue the state issues, to federal court, where Obama virtually has batted a thousand in preventing cases from reaching the point at which the merits are assessed.

Irion had submitted a motion to have the case returned to the state courts, a request Anderson denied.

But Irion was heartened by the comments from the judge, who said that without a determination on the questions facing the court, there easily could be differing results in court jurisdictions around the nation.

“There is a risk of inconsistent adjudications on the federal issue presented,” the judge said.

Irion also had raised questions about “Obama’s dual citizenship” and allegations that his Social Security number is fraudulent.

“The court construes these allegations about President Obama … as corroboration of plaintiffs’ main allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen or otherwise qualified to be president,” the judge wrote.

Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

“It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.

The case is developing just as a new petition urges members of Congress to take the issue seriously by investigating it. The number of names on the document has surged past 40,000 and soon will be approaching 50,000.

WND reported just a day ago that members of Congress, regarding Obama’s eligibility, still are relying on statements from Hawaii officials, “vetting” by voters and his own word.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., for example has said. “I will continue to take the president at his word that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”

Obama released an image of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, after years of stating that the document was not available. But at that time, the Hawaii Department of Health and governor’s office refused to confirm for WND that the image released was an accurate representation of the state’s records.

However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigators have found probable cause that the document is a forgery. Others, meanwhile, argue that the document affirms Obama is not eligible, because it lists his father as a foreigner. The Founders, they argue, understood “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two American citizens.

Emergency Injunction Filed with Georgia Supreme Court over Obamas eligibility

Emergency Injunction Filed with Georgia Supreme Court over Obamas eligibility

Georgia held its Presidential Primary election Tuesday. Obama’s name was on the ballot. But they haven’t won this battle yet. Today Liberty Legal Foundation filed an appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court challenging the absurd ruling that dismissed our case from the Georgia Superior Court. (In Georgia the Superior Court is a mid-level court. The Supreme Court is the highest Court in Georgia.)

We also filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction with the Georgia Supreme Court. Since it’s too late to have Obama’s name removed from the primary ballots, we’re asking the Supreme Court to prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the Democratic Presidential Primary election. Typically it takes about a week for the Secretary of State to certify an election. The results of an election are not official until he certifies. So, if the Supreme Court grants our motion the results of Obama’s Georgia primary election will be on hold pending the outcome of our lawsuit.

This may be our final test for an uncorrupted portion of the justice system in Georgia. As you can see by reading our filings on our website, the Georgia Supreme Court has no excuse for denying our motion. We are not asking for anything that would harm Obama in the short term in any way. We’re not asking for anything that would cost the Georgia taxpayers a dime. All we’re asking for is to have the Secretary of State wait to certify the Democratic Primary election until the Georgia Supreme Court can hear our case. If we lose our case, Obama will still get the Georgia delegates at the Democratic National Convention. But we will have been successful in getting the Court to hear the substance of our case. If we win, we will have upheld Georgia state law and the U.S. Constitution.

My point is this: because the relief we’re asking for in our motion will hurt no one, there is no reason for the Georgia Supreme Court to deny it. It SHOULD be a “no brainer.” It hurts no one to grant our motion and it hurts everyone to deny it. So, now we wait to see if the Georgia judicial corruption goes all the way to the top. Please pray with me that instead we will find an honorable Judge that will follow the law.

Van Irion

Corrupt Judicial Branch harasses Van Irion, founding fathers warned of this day

I became nauseous while reading this letter from Van Irion regarding the events of that disappointing day in Georgia regarding Obamas eligibility.

Our country is in a heap of trouble! Our founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect us from such tyrannical and maniacal attitudes toward citizen who attempt to apply the law in order to be represented and have a voice! We no longer have the power of the people. We can no longer assume that because we are American we will get a fair hearing in a high court in this country!

Our goose is cooked, stick a fork in it, we are done, fineesh!

Our dishonorable judges have lost their moral compass and have quickly become a cancer that is spreading to shield our tyrannical Kings and Queens from being accountable to the people within the confines of the Constitution!

The once sacred document, behind thick glass in a museum has been shredded and desecrated! The document exists only as a piece of tattered paper with a passing historical side bar as it’s memory!

We must stand strong with Van to continue this fight! It’s not cheap or inexpensive! He, as a representative of your conservative psyche is counter punching and is leaning back on his heels getting punch drunk from the constant barrage of blows! He is facing the battle essentially alone and is hunkering down for the assault! He is standing in the gap and giving it all he can! But to be honest with you it’s not cheap!

I dont usually do this bit I am asking you to please visit Liberty Legal Foundation website and donate any amount of money to give him and LLF the fuel to continue the fight! Only if it is 5.00 or 5, 000 dollars any amount will make a difference! He is giving his time to the fight of his life, the least we can do is send him a few dollars! Please pass this around to all your friends! Van didn’t ask me to do this but I know how important it is to have a war chest to fight this horrible corrupt regime! Thank you and as he faces these giants he will know he has our support! Please give now and freely if you are able and send around to your friends list and ask them to do the same! Our freedom is dependent on it, our Republic is worth every dime of it!

Read below and see if you will feel exactly as I do! Read this blatant disregard for our laws of this land! Contempt is not good enough. Please read and tell me how you feel in the comments section of this blog. We need to sound off on this epic failure of our government! Get busy patriots!

So much has happened recently demonstrating the lack of honor in our judicial system that I’m now forced to review these incidents in bullet point format:

The President’s attorney dishonors the Georgia Administrative Court by sending a letter directly to the Secretary of State requesting the executive branch of Georgia to take a lawsuit away from the judicial branch.
The President and his attorney dishonor the Georgia Administrative court again by violating that court’s order to appear.
The Georgia Administrative Court refuses to forward Liberty Legal Foundation’s motion for contempt to the Georgia Supreme Court, despite Georgia law leaving the Administrative court no discretion on this matter.
The Georgia Administrative court refuses to even respond to correspondence regarding our motion for contempt.
The Georgia Superior Court fails to comment on the motion for contempt or require the Administrative court to forward records, as required by law.
The Georgia Superior Court Clerk initially refuses to file LLF’s appeal document, then backs down after being instructed on the law.
The Georgia Superior Court Clerk refuses to file LLF’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction because $1 was not included with our filing. Then, when LLF hand delivers $1 to the clerk, the clerk sits on the motion for 10 days and mails it back to LLF claiming that the correct staffer didn’t get the $1. Our plaintiff gave the case number, name of the motion, and name of the staffer, who was literally pointed at in the room. Yet the clerk’s office still claims that that staffer didn’t get the $1. The motion had to be completely re-filed and was then delayed another two days before finally being filed.
The Chief Judge of the Superior Court was made aware of all of the incidents occurring in her Clerk’s office, yet she did nothing to correct the situation.
The President’s motion to dismiss was filed on his first attempt. After three days the Court notified LLF that the Court had shortened the time to file an opposition to that motion, giving us less than a day to file.
Late that same day the Chief Judge signs an order denying LLF’s motion to have Van Irion admitted as a visiting attorney in this case, preventing LLF from filing the opposition that the Court had ordered us to file 6 hours earlier. (Note that I’ve been admitted as a visiting attorney in 5 states and at every level of court, both state and federal. I’ve never been denied admission before. Further, my local attorney sponsor was a sitting member of the state’s legislature, making this denial even more shocking.) Even more outrageous is the timing of the denial, made just hours before a Court-set deadline, after the Court sat on our motion for more than two weeks.
The Georgia Secretary of State has, to date, refused to forward the record of the case to the Superior Court, despite Georgia law absolutely requiring this action and requiring that it be done as soon as possible.
The Superior Court does nothing to require the Secretary of State to forward the record of the case.
Only 90 minutes after our plaintiff files an opposition himself (because LLF was denied the ability to file it for him), the Chief Judge issues a three-page opinion granting Obama’s motion to dismiss our appeal. It seems obvious that the Court’s opinion was written before they asked us to file an opposition. Also, the dismissal was granted while the Court had not even received the record of the hearing held by the lower court. In other words, it ruled without even reviewing the record or reading our plaintiff’s opposition.
Our system of government is based upon an assumption that the people placed in high office are honorable. This is an absolute requirement for the survival of our nation. The Founding Fathers understood that when dishonorable people begin to take high office, the system of government they set into motion would begin to fail. Unfortunately America’s judicial system is proving this principle.

These are just the incidents associated with our Georgia case and we are not discussing the substance of the breathtakingly absurd rulings from any of these courts. Without needing to discuss judicial rulings, the incidents cited here demonstrate the harassment, bias, and lack of honor in the administrative operation of our courts. This bias effectively prevents those on one side of an issue to have basic access to the courts.In other words, the courts are now barring specific viewpoints from entering the front doors of the court. When we do get through we are harassed by means of the timing of orders and one-sided enforcement of procedural requirements.

Georgia is an example of what is happening across our country. Laws are being blatantly ignored by those in high office, while other laws are being used to punish their political opponents. This type of corruption reflects the practices historically found in third world nations, dictatorships, and communist tyrannies. Freedom cannot survive where such practices go unpunished.

Yet it is practically impossible to punish individuals holding high office. This is why such individuals must have honor, allowing them to resist their own selfish temptations. Unfortunately America’s high offices are now populated by corrupt people with no moral compass. Our leaders have no honor. Our Founding Fathers are being proven correct, once again.   

Our opponents are trying to frustrate and exhaust us to the point that we will give up. They don’t want their bias and dishonor to be seen in the light of day.  The corrupt individuals in high office are harassing us for our efforts. This tells us that we are having an effect. Even when we don’t win a legal battle, our efforts shine the light of truth on their corruption. That corruption is responding by lashing out at us.

We will be appealing the Georgia Superior Court’s ruling. But we need your help. We need your help to keep the spotlight on the dishonorable actions of those in high office. Please do what you can to support Liberty Legal Foundation.

In Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

HB 2610- Bill to limit Federal raids in TN, State Rep Watson waffles on support of bill empowering Sherriffs

Why in the world would a State Representative by the name of Eric Watson be against limiting federal agents from raiding sovereign citizens inside the state of Tennessee that he is sworn to protect? Why would he propose and state his objection to the bill as “corrupt cops could tip off the target of federal agents!” Ok, let’s revert back a bit to the wild wild west!. In a rogue, cowboyish way, lets put aside the comment of “corrupt cops” tipping off a target comment for just a minute! For one, corrupt anything should not be receiving a paycheck! Lets just assume like back in the day when a sherriff was a sherriff! He made all the calls, and called all the shots! When the Feds rode into town, first stop was the Sherriffs office! Nothing went down in his town without him giving the nod! Now back to the corrupt cops! Isn’t that what they are supposed to do? Protect the citizen from the Feds? Constitutionally? Right? So the comment of a corrupt cop intervening, isnt that constitutional Eric? Yeah, in today’s terms maybe he is not towing the line and following protocol, but isn’t that bad cop just doing what he is supposed to do, serving and protecting?

This bill, HB 2619, which State Representative Eric Watson is opposing could limit and possibly halt the Federal Government from blazing into your company or private home like they did at the Gibson Guitar plant in Nashville and ultimately closing it’s production down and possibly resulting in another Gibson Guitar from being made! All over a piece of wood the Feds thought was used illegally!

Why would State Representative Eric Watson be against such raids and not feel overwhelmed to protect the citizens of Tennessee with undying fervor! Where is his allegiance? Where does he stand? I don’t have the answer! Call him and ask him! That’s the best way to get an answer! You can do that! This is your constitutional, inalienable, God given right to question your elected officials and representatives of government! They don’t like it, but for the moment we still have a viable constitution and your rights are still intact! Call him and ask him why he has chosen not to protect the citizens of the state of Tennessee in this case! That’s the easy way!

KNOXVILLE LAWMAKER’S BILL SEEN AS MEANS TO NULLIFY BAD FEDERAL LAWS

By Tom Humphrey
Published Tuesday, February 14, 2012
NASHVILLE — State Rep. Bill Dunn says his bill requiring federal agencies to notify local law enforcement officers before making arrests in Tennessee is a means of “standing up for the people” against an overreaching federal government.

“There comes a point where we’ve got to put a little bit of pressure on the feds and stand up for our citizens,” the Knoxville Republican told members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee last week.

But Dunn’s HB2610 faced almost an hour of critical questioning from members of the panel who wondered if it amounted to unnecessary overreaching by the Legislature as a “nullification” effort that could jeopardize investigations into local corruption and lead to deputy sheriffs arresting federal agents.

Van Irion, an attorney for the Liberty Legal Foundation who finished third in the 10-candidate Republican primary for the 3rd Congressional District nomination in 2010, fielded most of the questions on the legislation that he helped draft. It is a revised version of a bill that was introduced last year which failed to pass.

Irion said that in “90 percent” of cases involving federal agents acting in Tennessee, the officers already check in advance with city police chiefs or county sheriffs before executing warrants.

But he said there are occasional situations where local officers are not notified and should be informed.

Both Irion and Dunn cited as an example the raid last August by the U.S. Department of Justice on Gibson Guitar Corp. operations in Nashville, where the officers said ebony wood illegally imported from India was being used in guitar making.

After being notified of a planned federal raid, the local law enforcement officer could check with the state attorney general to determine whether the federal action violates state law, the bill says.

The state Legislature, meanwhile, could declare some federal laws to be unconstitutional and unenforceable within the state, Irion noted

When Rep. Barrett Rich, R-Somerville, said there is no mechanism for the Legislature to decide on the constitutionality of a federal law, Irion said Tennessee’s Legislature has already done so with two laws enacted in the last legislative session.

One was the Health Care Freedom Act, which declares Tennesseans can ignore the federal health care law. The other is the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, which says federal gun laws cannot be enforced if the weapon in question was made within Tennessee and never taken outside the state.

If the agents violated the proposed state law, they could be prosecuted for committing a Class E felony, punishable by one to six years in prison. If someone was illegally arrested, the agents could be prosecuted for more serious crimes, including kidnapping, under the bill.

Irion said he envisions agents rarely, if ever, being prosecuted. The penalty provision is necessary, however, to assure that the state has legal standing to mount a court challenge to inappropriate federal laws.

“Would this be considered nullification?” asked Rep. Jim Coley, R-Bartlett.

“Not necessarily,” replied Irion

“Not necessarily, but possibly,” said Coley, who went on to say the bill would “create an enormous bureaucracy” for federal agents to deal with in carrying out their duties. It also raises “serious constitutional issues,” he said.

Nullification has been a major issue in American history, dating to Andrew Jackson’s presidency when some states sought to nullify federal tariffs. Southern states also asserted the right to nullify federal laws in seceding from the Union prior to the Civil War.

Judiciary Chairman Eric Watson, R-Cleveland, raised the issue of corrupt local law enforcement officers tipping off the target of a federal raid if notified in advance. Irion said there would be an exception to notification in such cases. Watson questioned whether that was practical as an attempt at “nullification” of federal authority,

“This gives grounds to litigate,” said Irion. “This state has the absolute authority to determine what is constitutional and what is not Whether we’re right or not is up to the Supreme Court.”

As they critiqued the bill, some legislators also expressed sympathy with the goal of asserting state rights. That prompted Dunn to postpone further consideration of the measure until Wednesday, when he said some changes may be drafted to ease concerns.

“What I’m hearing you say is you’re really for the philosophy of standing up for the people of the state,” Dunn said. “I think everybody’s heart’s in the right place. We’ve got to get the legalese in the right place.”

The Senate companion bill, sponsored by Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, has not yet been scheduled for Senate committee action.

Malihi, Kemp issue final decision on Obama eligibility case, to appeal

ATLANTA – On Tuesday morning, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (r) issued a final decision, adopting Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi’s initial decision contending President Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements to appear on Presidential Preference Primary ballot.

On Friday, Feb. 3, Malihi issued his decision in three challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility.

During the Jan. 26 hearing Malihi noted neither Obama nor his Attorney Michael Jablonski appeared or answered and said ordinarily the court would enter a default judgment against a party that fails to participate in any stage of the proceeding.

“Nonetheless, despite defendant’s failure to appear, plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence,” wrote Malihi, adding, “The court granted plaintiffs’ request.”

Malihi (l) also said, “By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” and stated his decision was based entirely on the law as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented.

His order was in two parts.

The first part addressed plaintiffs David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Attorney Orly Taitz.

The second part addressed all the plaintiffs, including those represented by Taitz as well as plaintiff David Welden, represented by Attorney Van Irion, and plaintiffs Carl Swensen and Kevin Powell, represented by Attorney Mark Hatfield.

In Part I, Malihi basically discredited the eight witnesses and said he found their testimony, as well as the exhibits tendered, “to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”

He stated, “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony,” and said none of the written submissions had any probative value.

In conclusion, Malihi stated, “Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”

In Part II, Malihi addressed the claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to run in Georgia’s presidential primary election.

Malihi said he considered, for the purpose of analysis, the following facts: 1) Obama was born in the United States; 2) Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of birth; and 3) Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

It was the plaintiff’s contention, because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President of the United States.
Malihi said, “The court does not agree.”

Citing a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny] v. Governor of Indiana, in which plaintiffs argued “there’s a very clear distinction between ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural born citizen’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

Pointing out the Indiana court rejected the argument that Obama was ineligible, Malihi stated, “[C]hildren born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents,” and said, “This court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny] persuasive.”

While plaintiffs argued the term natural born citizen was defined in 1875 in Minor v. Happersett, Malihi said the Indiana court explained that Minor did not define natural born citizen.

He went on to say, “In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this court agrees. The Minor court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”

Citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with which the Indiana court agreed, Malihi said the court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

Malihi stated, “The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth.”

He wrote, “For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen,” and concluded, “President Barack Obama is eligible for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

Using Malihi’s analysis, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

In other words, according to Malihi, children born within the United States to illegal aliens, tourists and/or terrorists are natural born citizens and are, therefore, eligible to become President of the United States.

Malihi’s conclusion is more analogous to saying: All dogs are mammals and all cats are mammals and therefore, all cats are dogs.

Over the weekend, Taitz filed a petition with Kemp to set aside the recommendation issued by Malihi and find Obama ineligible to appear as a candidate for President of the United States on the Georgia ballot.

Taitz cited a 2000 Georgia case, Haynes v. Wells, which she said establishes the precedent “that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility.”

Taitz said a 2008 Malihi decision in O’Brien V. Gross, from which she quoted, “The burden of proof is entirely upon respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office,” relied on Haynes.

Since neither Obama nor Jablonski appeared, Taitz asked, “On what basis did Judge Malihi consider Obama to be born in this country? Did he consider him born in this country based on his wild imagination? The only thing Obama provided was an empty chair. Did the empty chair testify under penalty of perjury in front of Judge Malihi … that Obama was born in this country? Did the empty chair provide Malihi with any evidence, with the original birth certificate or a certified copy?”

Taitz went on to state Malihi’s reliance on Ankeny “is a  travesty of justice and an embarrassment to the state of Georgia.”

Taitz stated Malihi was required to base his decision on what was in the record and his introduction of an obscure Indiana case was used to advocate for Obama rather than judge the case on the record at hand.

Hatfield sent a letter to Kemp via e-mail prior to Kemp issuing his final decision to point out “several significant flaws in Judge Malihi’s findings and conclusions.”

On behalf of his clients, Hatfield requested that Kemp render a decision that treats Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot that fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and disregards the authority of our judiciary.

Now that Kemp has issued a final decision in the matter, Hatfield stated, “[W]e are going full bore and taking it up on appeal.”

Irion has also indicated his client will be filing an appeal.